This past Thursday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced plans to prohibit the sale of large sugary drinks — particularly 16-oz. drinks with at least 25 calories per eight ounces. This would include nearly all sodas, sweetened teas and some juices. Drinks with at least 70 percent juice, or half milk or milk substitute are exempt.
America does have a growing obesity epidemic (nearly 36 percent according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and fostering a healthier environment should be top on the priority list in improving health care.
However, outright bans are far too intrusive to promote that particular ideal. Urging the public to choose healthier options can be done in a much stricter manner — voluntary public hearings and presentations, or marketing campaigns, for example.
New York’s proposal should be immediately rejected, before any other cities or states choose to implement such policies as well.
To merely prohibit drinks over a 16-ounce limit that contain more than 25 calories per eight ounces leaves too much room for unfair and undeserving regulation. The size and calorie amount is a rather arbitrary figure.
It doesn’t allow for specific evaluation of each individual product — are these empty sugar and fat calories, or is there some protein content?
For instance, something like chocolate milk — a common post-workout drink for runners — will have fat, sugar and protein, things necessary for the body, at least in moderation. Then, given this case, it would make sense that this ban does not include diet sodas or any other drinks with at least 70 percent juice, or half milk or milk substitute.
But this exemption makes a distinction between sugar in soda and sugar in juice. In reality, a 16-ounce orange juice’s sugar content can be just as “unhealthy” to the body — particularly to a child who drinks juice in the morning, soda in the afternoon and milk at night — as a soda or a flavored coffee drink. And such drinks, like Starbucks ‘Frappuccinos, would be exempt from this ban, as they have a large dairy content. Clearly, this is a flaw in the policy.
Moreover, limiting the legal size to everything under 16 ounces may just lead the consumer to purchase two 16-ounce drinks for their (initially) 24 ounce desire.
New York’s proposal ignores the fundamental reasoning behind limits on sugary drinks: to encourage a healthier choice. The public will never support a mandate to reduce consumption; they will only allow efforts to reduce consumption.
Americans, no matter how the definition of political ideologies may divide them, won’t allow one individual — an administration in this case — to tell them how to live their lives. And businesses won’t support the concept either.
Beyond the mere flaws in implementation of the policy, this ban undeservingly restricts free enterprise within the food industry. What a fast food company wishes to sell should be of no concern to the city. Consumers can decide for themselves whether they want a Big Gulp or a V-8.
Though, in this case, there is no difference between the two. And that’s really the issue here — inconsistent and superficial regulations.