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 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
The serving size for a soda is usually about 8-ounce, the allowed amount in New York is 16-ounce which is double the recommended amount, but nevertheless a 16-ounce soda is a healthier choice than the banned sizes. It is a controversial topic due to people not liking being told what they can and cannot do and them not liking having a limited number of options. Even though the soda ban has a few downsides, there are exponentially more benefits to having it. The soda ban is a great idea due to it making a healthier society, it helps us make healthier decision, and it is more of an inconvenience as in you can still get it but it takes more effort.
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.
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
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.
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
According to “New York Soft Drink Size Limit”, recently in New York City the limit on the 16 ounce sugary drinks law passed. As of March 12, 2013, eight members of the New York City council approved this law to prohibit more than 16 ounces per beverage. This encounter to ban soppy drinks is supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The law prohibits, fast food restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadiums, and gas stations to sell sugary drinks
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
President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a fat tax on calorie foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing (467).
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.
The government is trying to do its best to regulate what is healthy and unhealthy for
The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of
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”
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.