The Pros And Cons Of The New York Soda Ban

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

Question 1 - In her article Nadia Arumugam acknowledges some of the counter arguments to her own claim. She admits that the ban does not prevent customers from buying two cans of soda if they wanted, it only forbids “food services establishments regulated by the city” to sell sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces. Through his art, the creator of the cartoon Dave Granlund demonstrates his position on the soda ban by questioning its effectiveness. He would likely disagree with the Nadia Aruguman because if someone wants to drink more than 16 ounces, he can and he will most probably do so.

First of all, I do not think that this Big-Soda Ban will work in the long run. One set back of Mr. Bloomberg’s ban is that it only applies to portion size and not how many portions. So, if you are not satisfied with your 16oz drink you can just go and get another refill. Also, many restaurants offer free refills, so how much of a ban is it really? Although I will say this, according to a study

The story acknowledges that soda consumption can contribute to obesity, but emphasizes the need for individuals to make informed choices about their diet and lifestyle. For instance, in the text in paragraph it highlights the importance of education, providing individuals with the necessary tools to make healthier choices. The author elaborates, “. But the mayor’s initiative goes further than something like a soda tax, which might aim to discourage people from purchasing something by making it cost a bit more but leaves the decision in their hands.” Illustrating the importance of a personal

Coke or Pepsi? Diet or regular? These are questions that many of us hear on a regular basis when making choices about what we want to drink. But if a new law has its way this variety of drink choice could be no more, which is largely because soda and sugary beverages are contributing to the staggering increase in obesity rates in recent years in the United States. Obesity is defined as an abnormal accumulation of body fat that is usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight for their specific height, age and gender (Free Medical Dictionary 2007). Body weight and obesity risk are a result of genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, culture and socioeconomic status, wherein behavior and environment play two of the largest roles (University of Drexel 2015). People make decisions based on their environment or community which influence their health decisions and due to this it is essential to create environments that make is easier for people to engage in physical activity and eat a healthy diet (University of Drexel 2015). This is a problem that is particularly persistent in low-income populations causing them to suffer higher rates of obesity and the adverse health consequences that follow as a result of these poor diets. This is due in large part to their poor economic state but also their environment because they are surrounded by people that are in similar situations and dealing

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

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

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

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.

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

Bloomberg’s commitment to public health was certainly strong throughout his time as mayor of New York. On the one hand, he understood the importance in addressing some of the largest health issues of our time. On the other however, it seems that many of his policies were made without proper scientific evidence and backing and were made based on his own personal philosophies rather those of the people they affected. He himself said “I just spent roughly $600 million of my own money to try to stop the scourge of tobacco” {NYT}

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

One of the main problems of the ban is that it would selectively impact small businesses negatively in downtown New York that rely on the significant profits of large soda drinks. The ban only applies to certain businesses and can easily be avoided, thus businesses affected are not given a fair opportunity. Since the ban only applies to certain restaurants and businesses, customers can still buy large soda drinks at other retailers, causing stores like restaurants and fast-food joints that rely heavily on large soda sales to lose business due to an unfair standard. According to the Huffington Post, “two stores on the same block might very well be held to different standards.” The economist states that the ban “would not apply to grocery stores,” which is one of many examples of how the ban can easily be

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