Government Regulations And Its Effect On The Health Of The Population

"Nutrition Experts: Despite Ruling, Soda Ban Is Still a Great Idea - NBC News."NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2014.

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.

The soda industry has been influential since its breakthrough such as companies like Coca-Cola “giving money to and maintaining a cozy relationship with the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted exercise over diet to combat obesity, the financial relationship between soda companies and public health groups have been scrutinized” (Blackmore). The city of San Francisco is bringing back the soda tax proposition which will add 2 cents on soda per ounce. Last time around it wasn’t as successful only getting half of the votes when they needed, at least, seventy-five percent. This time around they will only need the half of votes they got the last time. San Franciscan's should pass the soda tax because it would discourage people

More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar. Consumers who drink excess sugary beverages impose a negative internality on their health; as well as imposing a negative externality on the American

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.

Recently, people have become worried about the health issues associated with consuming sugary drinks, especially soda. The rate of people being diagnosed with type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease has been going up primarily because of beverages with added sugar (Cited in Crawford, 2016). Several studies have found that soda is linked to over 180,000 deaths per year (Cited in Crawford, 2016). An article by the Huffington Post (2011) said that an average American drinks about 44.7 gallons of carbonated beverages a year, which adds up to over 350 pounds of soda. Comparatively, in 2005 an average American drank only 0.5 gallons, making soft drinks the most consumed beverage in America (n/a, 2011). The way the government is trying to fix

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

A single can of soda can have at least ten teaspoons of sugar, that is already the daily maximum recommended intake. Sugar can increase cholesterol levels, heart disease, diabetes and weight gain.Moreover. The obesity is a colossal problem in America. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 35.9% of U.S. adults over the age of twenty are obese (CDC, 2013). The CDC also notes that 69.2% of U.S. adults twenty years of age and over are overweight. The obesity problem does not only affect adults in the U.S. The CDC notes that 18.4% of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 are currently obese (CDC, 2013). These numbers show the harshness of the obesity problem in this

Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, believes that the way to do that is to have the government step in. He brought up this ban to prevent the “obesity epidemic” from worsening in New York, as he believes it as his obligation to keep the people “from harming themselves” (Tobin, galesgroup.com). He hopes that the ban will spread throughout the rest of the country to diminish the extra weight carried on American ground. But whether or not soda causes people to gain weight, is beside the point in this situation, because what the mayor does not understand is that it is still taking basic rights of the people away. People also claim that drinking this large amount of soda is no better than smoking, something the government can prohibit, so the mayor has a right to the ban because sugary beverages are dangerous to public health, just as are drinking and smoking (Tobin, galegroup.com). However, consuming pop is dangerous to the individual doing it, but only to the individual, whereas smoking around others is harmful to them, too, and driving drunk is dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians, hence “public safety”. Drinking too much sugar is not a concern to public safety because it does not refer to the public being in danger of another person’s actions. But the mayor uses a different definition to make it his excuse. Another argument of the backers for the act, argue the significance of the obesity problem. As of 2012, sixteen percent of America’s most urgent health problems were obesity (Diet, infobaselearning.com). Nevertheless, even though obesity is a growing problem and it is not going to go away on its own, this is not the way to go about lessening the situation. These complications are not going to get simpler without giving attention to the other factors of being

Soda companies “dramatically announced that they would aim to cut the number of sugary drinks calories by twenty percent over the next ten years by reducing the portion size and trying to sell more zero-calorie and low calorie options.” By reducing the portion size, Americans could be drinking more cans, and possibly drinking more ounces than they were originally. As for the zero-calorie and low calorie options, the drinks are considered by doctors to be worst than the original because they contain artificial sweeteners that are not ‘natural sugars’, but chemically made sugars that puts an individual at greater risk of being morbidly obese by slowing their metabolisms, and is also known to elevate their blood pressure. Mexico’s soda consumption and obesity rate was once worst than the United States a few years ago, Mexico then established “a significant tax on soda and junk food.. Soda consumption in Mexico fell by a couple of percent points almost immediately.. there was almost as large increase in the sale of bottled water (not taxed).” Mexico had went ahead with its initiative to stop their nation’s problem, as for the United States, soda has become a major part of our diets. I believe that is restricting us from progressing from this aggravated problem.

Focus/Thesis: Over the years soda has become a staple in our lives, and is unfortunately extremely toxic to our bodies. Which is why we need to make the effort to limit the amount we drink and make ourselves aware of the risks we expose to our health when choosing to drink soda.

In an industry dominated by two heavyweight contenders, Coke and Pepsi, in fact, between 1996 and 2004 per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks (CSD) remained between 52 to 54 gallons per year. Consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next three decades. Fueling this growth were the increasing availability of CSD, the introduction of diet and flavored varieties, and brand extensions. There is couple of reasons why the industry is so profitable such as market share, availability and diversity and brand name and world class marketing.

Starbucks is a major reason why things have changed for Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co, they have emerged in the market with balancing their menu with gourmet, coffee beverages that offer sweet and sugary options for their customers. In 2016, the soft drink industry is in the middle of the growing policy debate in the United States regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Therefore, it hasn’t been a great year for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co, and Dr. Pepper Snapple due to the public’s concern on the health issues of sugary sodas. The health problems with the sugar content in soft drinks have increased political pressures, as well as slowed the growth of these giant beverage companies.

Considering that soft drinks are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft

In order to provide an outside perspective, PepsiCo tasked us with creating a recommendation to one of its current problems: how should it adjust its beverage product portfolio to better align with changing retailer and consumer tastes and preferences? After much consideration and analysis, we have decided to approach the problem by focusing on society’s shift to more health and environmentally conscious purchasing habits, which has caused annual decreases in carbonated soft drink (CSD) sales.