Portion Cap Rule: A Case Study

Question 2 – This infographic relates to Nadia Arumugam’s claim that, if not anything else, this ban may teach us about the importance of “portion control”. In her article she quotes Thomas Hardy and according to him the reduction of the consumption of sugary drinks from 20 to 16 ounces “every other week” will help New Yorkers avoid gaining about 2.3 million pounds a year. One of the problems is that people don’t realize the actual amount of unhealthy products they consume in a longer period of time.

To go even further, it is right to take a stand when somebody’s rights are being taken away. The mayor took away basic rights by prohibiting the public from signing this new law. To support this, the author writes, “Bloomberg essentially made this decision himself. It was approved by the Board of Health, but that’s a board of the administration, appointed by the mayor” (Karin Klein 288).

The government is trying to do its best to regulate what is healthy and unhealthy for

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."

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

Question 1: Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s strategy for reducing consumption of sugary drinks in the health code is complex, but not very effective. His plan to change the city’s health code to limit the size of sugary drinks was never going to be fully passed. He also stood by several fairly large drinks with the amount of sugar in each drink represented by sugar cubes.

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.

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.

Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey

In the article "Regulating Diet and Health Choices Violates Individual Rights" written by Jonathan S. Tobin informs the readers that it is a bad idea to give the government the authority to ban or regulate what they think is bad for us. The author started out stating how the mayor decided to ban any sugared drinks in containers that measure more than 16 oz. He thinks soft drinks are part of the obesity epidemic for people. Mayor says that soft drinks are not good for their body because they can contain as much as 16 oz in container. He continues on by stating that citizens should be allow choosing what they want and does not want and that they should not use what they should and

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

Politics influence bureaucratic decisions. For example, public administrators are consistently under pressure by interest groups and elected officials. Furthermore, in a public organization bureaucrat, often tend to advocate for specific importance over another is that due to political influence. Such as, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC advocated along with his health commissioner, Dr. Frieden, persistently for the anti-tobacco bars and restaurant's policy. The mayor elevated support in the City Council for his initiative by utilizing his health commissioner’s and his persistence on this project. It influenced the official decision in the city council to be overwhelmingly in his favor. As well, on 2013, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law the “Tobacco 21”

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.

There are few who might censure Chairman Bloomberg for working towards the objective of a more advantageous New York. Lamentably, there are numerous who might condemn Leader Bloomberg for trying to accomplish that objective the wrong way. Indeed, most New Yorkers think the supposed "pop boycott"— which would restrict the offer of sugar-sweetened drinks more than 16 ounces by most sustenance foundations — is an awful thought.

The common thought of most Americans living in the United States that it is the greatest country on planet earth, and second is not even close. They believe this notion because of the freedoms this great nation was founded on: The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly. These freedoms turn into more simplistic generalities that are assumed and exercised by Americans daily, such as the freedom of choice. Although the freedom of choice is a right given to us at birth, it is a right that the federal government of the greatest nation on earth is slowly starting to rescind. Lets take health care for example, or most specifically, obesity. Law makers are slowing starting to