Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed “soda ban” was a hotly debated issue a few years back. The law made it illegal for certain establishments to sell sugary sodas larger than 20 ounces. While the law was not really a violation of freedom as some claim, it does not seem like the best way to go about protecting public health, due to certain businesses being excluded and the fact the alternative, a soda tax, has been proven to work in other places.

Many have argued that the ban would limit consumer choice, including lawyers from the soft drink industry, who argued that the ban gave “the unelected Board of Health has limitless power to impose on millions of New Yorkers its view of how they should live their lives” (Grynbaum). However, no specific products would be banned, only large sizes of those products. Calling this “limitless power” seems to be an exaggeration, especially considering that people could still buy as many smaller sized drinks as they would like. The law simply changes the portion sizes, something which has been shown to be connected to obesity (Sadeghi-Nejad).

The real problem with Bloomberg’s bill lies in its uneven implementation.  Michael Howard Saul of the Wall Street journal writes “The regulations didn’t affect the Big Gulp at 7-Eleven because the board didn’t have authority over supermarkets and convenience stores, but it did affect bodegas” (Saul). First of all, this makes the regulations a lot less effective. If people are in a habit of buying large soft drinks, they’ll just go to the nearest convenience store instead of their usual bodega. If this happens on a large scale, it will not really improve public health, it will just decrease business for the establishments that are affected, while letting places like 7-Eleven rake in more money. A successful soda ban would need to have a wider reach so it does not disproportionately affect only certain types of businesses.

Additionally, there is no practical evidence that a size restriction like this would really limit soda consumption. Meanwhile, taxes on soda have proven, in various regions, to have a large effect on soda consumption. There was an average 7.6% drop in sugary drink consumption in the two years after a soda tax began in Mexico (Boseley). And after Berkeley’s tax was put into place, one study found that consumption of these drinks decreased by 21% in low income areas there (Young). A tax also has the added bonus of providing funds for the government, which can then be used for other purposes, even possibly more health initiatives. Seattle, for example, would use the money from its proposed soda tax to “fund education programs aimed at improving the graduation rate of minority youth” (Young). This would have a larger positive effect on disadvantaged communities than any negative effects the tax might have.

Works Cited

Boseley, Sarah. “Mexico’s sugar tax leads to fall in consumption for second year running.” The Guardian, 22 Feb. 2017, Accessed 24 Mar. 2017.

Grynbaum, Michael M. “New York City Soda Fight, in Court, Tests Agency’s Power.” The New York Times. 4 June 2014, Accessed 23 Mar. 2017.

Sadeghi-Nejad, Nathan. “NYC’s Soda Ban Is A Good Idea, But A Tax Would Be Better.” Forbes, 13 Sept. 2012, Accessed 24 Mar. 2017.

Saul, Michael Howard. “Forward Push on Soda Ban.” Wall Street Journal, 15 Oct. 2014, Accessed 24 Mar. 2017.

Young, Bob. “Should Seattle tax sugary drinks? Here’s what the health research says — and doesn’t say.” The Seattle Times, 13 Mar. 2017, Accessed 23 Mar. 2017.