Jessica Ng
MHC250 Haberman
Soda Ban

The proposal of Bloomberg’s ban on sugary drinks over 16 oz brought up two questions when it was passed by the NYC Board of Health and then rejected by the NYS Board of Appeals. First, whether or not the city has the right to put such a ban into effect, and second, whether or not it should have such power.

Looking at past policies that were enacted, such as the ban on smoking in restaurants and parks, and the ban of trans fat, I would argue that based on precedence, New York City has the power to enact bans on certain substances that are considered risks to public health. For example, the smoking ban has generally been seen as effective as the smoking by-products in the air of restaurants and bar has decreased, and there has been an increase in the health of bar workers as a result. The trans fat ban has been extraordinary effective in reducing the usage of trans fat in foods, but it is still unclear whether this has an impact on general health. So what makes limiting soda consumption so different? The issue here is proving that sugary drinks are a risk to public health and that enacting the soda ban would be effective. People know that soda is a sugary drink, but it’s not linked to the public conscious that soda is “bad thing” the way trans fat or smoking is.

Some people argue that the ban is excessive “nannyism” by the government. It’s always tricky when people see policies that may infringe on the people’s rights to make their own choices, whether to smoke, carry arms, or eat junk food. After all, America is based on the idea of freedom and individual rights, not the control of the government. However, rather than seeing these bans as infringements of the right to smoke, carry arms, or eat junk food, one could consider them to enforce the rights of people to breathe clean air, to be safe at school or other spaces, and to have a healthy diet.