Sugary Drinks Research Paper

-Putting the soda ban in effect can reduce obesity rates, the amount of sugar being consumed from drinking large sodas is not good for anyone's health. However, banning larger drinks will just make people buy smaller sized drinks allowing them to take in more sugar and calories.

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

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

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.

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

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

They feel like mayor Bloomberg is trying to dictate them, or tell them what they can and can’t do. First he took away their smoking in public spaces, and now he’s trying to take the supersize soda? He isn’t taking away your right to smoke and drink. You can still buy 40oz of soda and drink it all yourself, just go across the street to the gas station for a large drink, because the gas stations won’t be affected by the ban. Only businesses that follow city regulations will be affected by the ban. Other places will still be able to sell whatever sized soda they want. This might make the ban seem ineffective, but the principal is still there. If people are educated about the normal serving size of a product, there will be less people wanting to consume more. There is no reason to have larger portions, other than to consume. Oversized portions reliably lead to overconsumption. This isn’t a hypothesis, it’s hard science. Drinking excessive amounts of high calorie, high sugar content drinks increase your chance for heart disease, diabetes and high cholesterol. Since it has been required that calories and serving sizes be posted on food packaging or in the store, obesity in children has gone down, and the rate of people developing heart disease has also gone

The mayor of New York city is arguing a ban to decrease obesity and increase good health. This ban may be good for some people of New York City, but not for its

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.

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.

According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) more than one third (34.96%) of U.S adults are obese. This proves that people are not taking care of their bodies and being aware of the types of foods that go in their mouths. The issue is that many people are disagreeing with the government regulating what we eat, however if this law is not enforced people will be free to buy excessive amounts of unhealthy sugary foods, leading them to a chronic disease. Even though sugary drinks and foods can have a good taste and be satisfying to many, the government should regulate what we eat because there will be less people with chronic illness, it will be less money wasted on health care for obese people, and there will be less individuals consuming trans fats.

According to livestrong.com in 2015, “Drinking large amounts of soda may affect your brain health and alter your risk of certain diseases. Naturopathic physician Scott Olson says that several scientific studies suggest that a high sugar diet may increase your risk of schizophrenia, depression and anxiety,” (Adams, “Can Food Cause Chemical Imbalance in the Brain”). Sugar in soda can advance to permanent long-term damage to the brain. Additionally, the sugar in a person’s body can increase blood pressure and dilate pupils. While, this evidence had been scientifically proven precisely there are still people who don’t see the ethics in the soda ban. That’s why a state judge ruled against it. According to BusinessInsider.com in 2010, “A New York state judge struck down Mayor Bloomberg's controversial ban on large sodas on Monday, arguing that the restrictions on sugary sweetened drinks did not make sense, partly because the ban wasn't evenly enforced.” (Spector, “New Yorkers Will Be Significantly Fatter Because Of The Soda Ban Repeal”). Although the judge thinks the ban is inefficient he is inaccurate, the restrictions on the ban are based on scientific evidence. The ban will still make sense, even though it does not include diet sodas and fruit juices. Everybody knows fruit juice and diet sodas are better for people

Both alcoholic and caffeinated drinks played important roles in history, and both continue to do the same now. However, the positions they play are unsurprisingly contrasting. In this essay I will be elaborating on one similarity and two differences between alcoholic and caffeinated drinks.

Obesity rates are on the rise, with about 33% of Americans being overweight. Many Americans use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar in an effort to control their weight. Yet, the safety of artificial sweeteners has stirred up a controversy. There seems to be evidence that the consumption of artificial sweeteners in large quantities is harmful and may even cause cancer. However, most people, including medical professionals, have deemed the moderate consumption of artificial sweeteners as safe and a good method of weight control. Still, there have been observations made that artificial sweetener consumption results in users being left feeling hungrier and eating more. Now psychologists at Purdue University 's Ingestive Behavior Research Center under the lead of Susan Swithers, PhD, and Terry Davidson, PhD, have compiled evidence of this occurrence in a study they conducted. Artificial sweeteners turn out to be real diet saboteurs. A healthy diet and exercise are common methods to fight weight gain. As part of a healthy diet many Americans substitute sugar with artificial sweeteners. Consequently, in an effort to cater to these people, many manufacturers have developed products containing artificial sweeteners instead of sugar. Products such as diet sodas and sugar-free cookies, among others, have been touted as healthy and are advertised as supporting a healthy diet helping consumers to effectively cut their sugar intake. Sounds easy, doesn 't it? Enjoy what you love to