Banning of Sugary Drinks

In their 2012 article, "The Toxic Truth about Sugar," Lustig et al argue that sugar, like alcohol, ought to be regulated by governments due to the harm it can cause to individuals' health and the public good. Their argument, at first glance, appears to be highly logical and virtually unassailable: alcohol is regulated because it is bad for health and causes other problems for society, and so sugar which is the cause of much greater and more pervasive health problems and is also detrimental to the social and cultural fabric of the peoples of the world in a variety of ways involving the agricultural industry and global development should also be carefully regulated and controlled. The researchers cite actions taken in other countries along the same lines as a further justification of their call for more control when it comes to sugar content and consumption, and clearly spell out some of the concrete harms that increased sugar consumption has had and will have on the world's population, not just in developed/industrialized countries but in all countries adopting similar diets. This adds up to a very compelling picture of the threat that sugar specifically and "junk food" (calorie-dense and nutritionally-lacking consumables) generally constitutes to the world population.

Another reason is that the regulation can raise health awareness in the article “sugary drinks over 16 ounce banned in new york city, Board of health votes

Sugar is everywhere in our lives. When you eat, sugar is in the food such as hamburger, sandwiches, pizza, bread, etc. When you drink, sugar is in the beverage like soda, juice, coffee and even milk. Furthermore, sugar exists in snacks such as cookies, cupcakes, biscuits and so on. I cannot list everything with sugar here. Actually, when we eat, we eat sugar. Unfortunately, sugar is now considering a toxic to our bodies. It causes diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart attack and cancer, etc. As sugar threatens the public health, government is considering curb sugar consumption by taxes on sugar; restrictions placed on food production and even age requirements on purchasing sugary foods. For this research project, I decided to pursue the question, Should sugar be regulated? This question deserves to be examined because we need to make some change for life to reduce sugar intake but at the same time it’s controversial that whether the government should intervene and regulate sugar. I wonder how the government will take appropriate measures to regulate sugar as well as improve public health.

To begin with, these sugar regulations would need to set a limited on the amount of sugar allowed in these products. Otherwise, people will continue to consume more and more sugar. Right now, it is a fact that “Each 12-ounce serving of soda a person consumes each day raised type 2 diabetes risk by 10 to 15 percent, and many Americans are consuming

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

Their advertisement proclaimed that all they wanted to do was “protect their Freedom of Choice.” “This is New York City; no one tells us what neighborhood to live in or what team to root for,” says the narrator, as Yankees and Mets fans shout in the background. (Grynbaum, 2012). Since May 30 when Bloomberg wanted to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16 ounces in regulated food establishments such as movie theaters and sport arenas. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, recommended there be a federal study linking together sugary beverages and obesity. “The talking points are ‘Nanny State,’ that it won’t work, because people will just buy as much as they ever would, and that this disproportionately hurts the poor,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. (Grynbaum, 2012). People that are not middle or low class would buy as much soda as they wanted and the rest of the people would be stuck with whatever drink is leftover. The lower class minority groups seem to always get the shorter end of the stick and in most cases unless a big group of them get together their voices will not be heard. The mayor or the city council should not have the right to tell you what size soda to drink or what kind of soda to drink; We live in The United States of America and there is no law that says anything about a specific size or flavor of soda so until that day comes nobody should

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

The two articles “Ban energy drinks so we can raise energetic kids” and “it’s about your freedoms and responsibility to make your own choices, stupid” are two very different articles. Although they both discuss the issues with “energy drinks” their arguments vary from one another. On the first page of “Ban energy drinks so we can raise energetic kids” the information is quite irrelevant as to what the article really talks about. Sherryn then raises the issues with how “energy drinks are suitable for adults” which then leaves the targeted audience curious to why kids shouldn’t drink energy drinks. She then backs up that statement by saying “children’s bodies are not designed to absorb caffeine”. This convinces the parents that they should restrict

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

Other people think that it is the government’s problem to fix obesity. Although the government’s efforts have been provided, they have been lackluster and ineffective through society. The government has implemented such organizations such as the ABA to regulate beverages in schools to make for a better lunch. They try to regulate beverages in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and even times of day they can and can’t be sold (Source A). This is ineffective because this just causes people to bring in their own unhealthy drinks, and more likely more of them then needed because they can’t buy them in school.

When most people think about sugar, their first thoughts are not: heart disease, addiction, or slow and painful death; yet, unfortunately, these conditions are very real consequences of the unregulated and excessive consumption of sugar. In Nature’s article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” (2012), Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist; Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF; and Claire Brindis, Professor of Pediatrics and Health Policy at UCSF, evaluate the world’s ever-increasing and toxic struggle with the substance sugar – also discussing counter measures to promote healthier diets amongst American’s and other societies. Lustig and his colleagues develop their argument using statistical evidence as they address the global impact of sugar, refuting minor oppositions, before dissecting each harmful aspect of the substance – even comparing it to substances more known for their toxicity. Eventually, presenting readers with possible routes of regulation, the authors firmly suggest government intervention in the production and sale of sugary foods. Although the argument is well executed, I remain unconvinced that government intervention is actually necessary.

It is challenging subject to determine whether government should have jurisdiction on sugar consumption to reduce obesity. In my perspective, government should provide alternative approach to regulate the use of sugar in the food that is consumed regularly. Legislation might interfere with the freedom of choices that public hold. FDA oversees and manages the food industry regulation for the safety of public. Information on the food labels are insignificant to read and comprehend at times if you are not careful. Moreover, some of the marketing claims may mislead the consumer. Long-term effect of sugar and fat intake can lead to obesity and chronic disease. However, effect of ingredients in the food is not labeled unlike drugs. Instead

In early 2013, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City attempted to regulate health by proposing the Portion Cap Rule. This rule banned all food services within city limits from selling sugary drinks with a quantity of 16 ounces or more. Although this proposal was approved by the Board of Health unanimously, the New York Supreme Court rejected it, stating that this regulation was outside of their delegated authority. There is not a clearly defined boundary for where the government can and cannot interfere with the personal lives of the general public. When considering health, the placement of this boundary is often called into question. The responsibility for public health lies with both the government and the individual, as the government

Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and