It's war now.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg lobbed the first cannon ball last week when he proposed banning the sale of large portions of "sugary drinks" in his city's restaurants, movie theaters and even street carts.
It's one of the favorite fronts in the war on obesity, so far marked mostly by softball education on one hand and the lamentations of many public health advocates about our ever-expanding waistlines on the other.
There are serious consequences to obesity. Unfortunately, no one seems to have good solutions. Mayor Bloomberg decided something had to be done and took action. It's really in his DNA to do so, having had good success with a similar ban on public smoking.
The media are full of articles, commentary, and angry op-eds about the soda ban (the NYT has collected many opinions), so real clarity is hard to come by. But, it's pretty clear what the two armies will look like.
On one side we have the Restaurant Association, the beverage industry (remember the defeat of the soda tax in 2010 in New Jersey?), and all be free or die believers; and on the other public health advocates and many nonprofits with health themes (see this news release from the United Way of New York City).
It's a big financial issue for several industries, and they'll fight back hard. But will nonprofit health organizations be in favor of this kind of government help and/or intervention? Will the soda wars become as nasty or dangerous as the cigarette war was? Can overeating be turned around like smoking or safe sex?
Let me know what you think, especially if you work in a nonprofit that addresses health issues. Take the poll below, and do leave your ideas in the comments.
Related:
- New York City Mayor Plans to Ban Big Soda - About.com's Guide to Nutrition.
- Nanny State - Great Cartoon at About.com's Political Humor blog.
- Soda and Drink Guidelines - About.com's Guide to Pediatrics.
Photo credit: Irochka/Bigstock
Comments
You cannot legislate common sense. People who have poor eating habits will always find a way around a law of this nature. Only people with self control will obey it, but they don’t need it. It is my opinion that education is the answer to the problems of society when things get out of hand. Continue to explain to people the calorie content and dangers of too much sugar intake. The reason the government feels compelled to interfere in these things is because the unhealthy want financial support for their health care costs even though, in some instances, those health problems were self inflicted. It’s understandable that we want to try to mitigate our financial risk from those who just won’t take better care of themselves, but enforcing broad based laws on what we can eat and cannot eat is not the answer.
I appreciate your thoughts on this complex issue, Catherine.
Certainly this is government is overstepping its powers in a free enterprise system in this case. People should have the right to freely make their own choices as long as those choices don’t negatively impact others. Since obesity, smoking, etc. do have consequences for the public as a whole, I support modifying those behaviors by heavily taxing those kinds of products. Sometimes when dealing with the public ‘hitting’ the pocketbook is the best way to truly modify behaviors.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Cindy!
It is not the government’s job or duty to regulate our entire dietary habits through bans such as this one. What is comes down to is personal responsibility, adults should be able to decide what they want and don’t want to eat. As long as it is public knowledge of the harmful effects of these products, people should be free to make their own decision whether to use them or now.
I do think government intervention can be useful in some instances, for example banning soda sales from public school cafeterias. Or even taxing certain harmful products more heavily, and using the revenue for public health awareness campaigns. There is a fine line between regulations helping those who need it and ones that simply try and control our lifestyles.
I think supply-side regulation seldom works and often backfires, and we should work harder on the demand side of this issue; that is, on health education. I think it’s often assumed that “everyone knows that soda is bad for you,” but studies show that it’s not actually common knowledge, at least not in the sense of how bad for you it actually is, what constitutes an appropriate portion, how necessary it is to brush your teeth shortly after consuming a soda, etc.
As for banning huge sodas… can’t I just buy 2?
I think supply-side regulation seldom works and often backfires, and we should work harder on the demand side of this issue; that is, on health education. I think it’s often assumed that “everyone knows that soda is bad for you,” but studies show that it’s not actually common knowledge, at least not in the sense of how bad for you it actually is, what constitutes an appropriate portion, how necessary it is to brush your teeth shortly after consuming a soda, etc.
As for banning huge sodas… can’t I just buy 2?
Hi Megan! Thanks for commenting. I like your idea about our assuming that people know that soda is bad for you. I hadn’t thought of that, but it’s true I think that we need to return to the basics over and over again. Maybe we all get tired of saying the same things over and over, but that’t what needs to be done. And maybe more patience with educational efforts.