When Mayor Bloomberg first conceived his large-soda ban in 2012, he probably knew that there would be backlash from the beverage industry; that may have been why the bill bypassed the City Council was sent directly to the Board of Health. And although the mayor’s desire to have the regulation go into effect as quickly as possible was an earnest attempt to curb obesity and the host of diseases with which it is associated, one of the policy’s biggest weaknesses was that it addressed a symptom of the problem, rather than the root cause.

I do agree with Bloomberg’s sentiment that consumers should be aware of the food and drinks they purchase, especially if they have been proven to be unhealthful. While it is true that increased fast food and soft drink consumption over the past decades has contributed to a higher prevalence of obesity, I believe that ultimately, the consumers’ choices at the grocery store and in restaurants are a much more powerful tool than an arbitrary (albeit well-intentioned) ban on high-calorie foods or big-cup sodas. For people who are used to having a large, 24-oz. soda with burgers and fries every week, for example, having to change their habits can be seen as a displeasure and can be very confusing if the reasoning behind the regulation is not well-understood.

Furthermore, even amongst the people who know the science behind why overconsumption of sugar and artificial flavors can be detrimental to health, there are many for whom swearing off the foods that they enjoy so much is a very difficult process. Additionally, an easy workaround exists for those who want more soda – they can simply buy another drink. Even though the regulation calls for serving sizes to be capped at 16 fluid ounces, there is no rule preventing customers from buying multiple servings should they want to.

Thus, a program aimed at reducing consumption of unhealthful, empty-calorie foods and beverages by educating and advising overweight New Yorkers might yield better results. Such a program would not only decrease the amount of soda being consumed, but also indirectly decrease the power of the beverage industry over consumers and policymakers without explicitly imposing legal restrictions that could lead to protracted legal battles. Though Bloomberg’s ban was a noble effort that was practical in theory, executing and enforcing such a regulation in the more than 24,000 restaurants scattered throughout New York would likely have carried a very high benefit-cost ratio. By targeting the consumer base instead, the same problem could likely be resolved in a more financially efficient and less labor-intensive manner.

In 2014, Bloomberg attempted to implement a ban on the sale of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces within NYC as a means to combat the increase in obesity (particularly childhood obesity) in America. According to the CDC, about a third of Americans are obese. Obesity can cause a myriad of health risks such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, gallstones, and certain types of cancers. Obese children are also at risk of developing diabetes and breathing problems (such as asthma) in response to their weight and are more likely to be overweight as adult.

On the one hand, putting a cap on the amount of soda an individual can buy per cup/container is a seemingly effective solution. Not unlike increasing the sales tax on cigarettes, putting a limit on the size of soft drinks available to the public (and potentially making them pay more if they want to purchase more than 16 oz.) would deter people from consuming large quantities of soda and help prevent health issues (such as diabetes) and weight gain. However, limiting the availability of soft drinks may prompt the city to put a limitation or ban on other “unhealthy” food choices (particularly on fast food).

While consistent consumption of “fast” and processed food can be harmful due to the high salt, caloric, and cholesterol content, people in certain areas of the city and under certain economic constraints rely on fast food to feed their families. With the increasing divide between the upper, middle, and lower class as well as the disappearance of supermarkets from Manhattan, some New Yorkers find themselves in “Food Deserts” or areas of the city where supermarkets and bodegas with fresh food are not readily available. Other New Yorkers simply do not have the time to cook for their families while working multiple jobs or cannot afford the increasing cost of fresh fruits and vegetables (due to the supermarkets hiking up their prices in order to cover their rent). Without the availability (both economically and geographically) of fast food chains, these individuals may not be able to reliable feed their families.

In my opinion, it would be more effective to educate the public on the life-long effects of obesity and promote increased outdoor activity and healthy eating habits (including liquid consumption) rather than outright banning sugar-y drinks, which only curtails the American public’s access to sugar rather than striving to cure it’s addiction to it.

Grynbaum, Michael M. “New York’s Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 June 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0>.

“Childhood Obesity Causes & Consequences.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. <https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/causes.html>.

“Adult Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 01 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. <https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html>.

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.

Alissa Semple
MHC 250
Professor Clyde Haberman
March 7th, 2017
Response Paper 3 – Experience with Homelessness
I walked briskly from the small Wendy’s to the bus stop when a woman who seemed to be in her late twenties or early thirties stopped me. She wore her hair in a neat ponytail and her clothes were neat and clean. The only thing a bit disconcerting to me was that she had no bag or other personal belongings, even though we were at a major Queens transit stop. She spoke calmly and confidently. “Excuse me, miss. Do you have a dollar you could spare so that I can get something to eat?” It was only then that I noticed a small cardboard sign that she had left on the bench that read “Evicted, Please Help”.
I knew it was unwise of me, but I did not have a dollar–I had been walking around with only my debit card for days without withdrawing cash, and I mentally kicked myself for my bad street sense. I gave her a disappointed shake of the head, before I remembered. “Wait, I actually have a cheeseburger that I just got from Wendy’s, right over there.” I nodded in the direction of the store and pulled it out of my bag, still in the paper bag and its cardboard box, untouched. “I haven’t touched it or anything.”
The woman hesitated.
“Does it have bacon on it?”
Now it was my turn to hesitate. “No.”
“You know what, no thanks,” she said, politely enough before walking away.
I was stunned. I felt as if I had been cheated. I put the sandwich back in my bag, and after a few seconds of silently watching her walk away, did the same.