Today, New York City's Board of Health passed Mayor Bloomberg's ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. Restaurants, food carts, delis, concessions, and arenas must comply by March 12, 2013, and will be fined starting in mid-June. According to Michael Howard Saul's article in the Wall Street Journal, the majority of city voters oppose the ban. I'm undecided.
Initially, I had no qualms. I thought it was great that a policy would finally take a stab at addressing the American obesity issue. Anyway, isn't "prevention the best medicine?" A nutritious diet (sans sugar) would decrease the rate of health-related diseases and, thus, decrease healthcare costs and taxes. Bloomberg's soda ban could create new norms to eat and live healthier, and inspire other policies on nutrition.
But I soon realized that I have no personal stake in this issue. I don't live in the city, and I don't drink soda. If Bloomberg banned 20 oz boxes of the sugar-coated Sour Patch Watermelon candy, I'm not going to lie, I would be upset. To some, it ostensibly takes away food autonomy. As my roommate said, "What's next? Are they going to take away my ice cream after dinner?" The policy appears to conflict with some of our basic rights, making some people view it as far too invasive.
On the other side, this policy may actually influence more food autonomy down the road. If this big-gulp ban proves to be a success, businesses may not only comply to the policy, but also start introducing healthier drinks. Therefore, affordable healthy options may be introduced to impoverished neighborhoods that usually do not have access to pricier health foods. Regardless, at least this policy will make people start to think and talk about the health detriments of sugar-loaded beverages. This may be a good first step in our fight against the obesity issue in America.
Then again, where there's a will there's a way. People can still circumvent this policy by buying multiple "legal sized" sodas, or find a place that has unlimited refills. Moreover, this ban does not address other unhealthy beverages. As Casey Neistat says in a New York Times Op-Ed, "7-Eleven, the ubiquitous convenience-store chain, will still be able to serve its 50-ounce Orange Explosion Slurpee, which contains 107 grams of sugar, the equivalent of nearly four full-size Snickers bars." So despite Bloomberg's valiant effort, the "frapp" and "coolatta" fads are still contributing to unhealthy consumption patterns.
There are multifaceted pro's and con's of the Big-Gulp Ban, but overall I don't think it will cure the 58 percent of obese New Yorkers. Nevertheless, it may be a catalyst to other beneficial, governmental health initiatives. (Hopefully policies that will cover a wider variety of foods, attacking the larger food processing issue.)
Initially, I had no qualms. I thought it was great that a policy would finally take a stab at addressing the American obesity issue. Anyway, isn't "prevention the best medicine?" A nutritious diet (sans sugar) would decrease the rate of health-related diseases and, thus, decrease healthcare costs and taxes. Bloomberg's soda ban could create new norms to eat and live healthier, and inspire other policies on nutrition.
But I soon realized that I have no personal stake in this issue. I don't live in the city, and I don't drink soda. If Bloomberg banned 20 oz boxes of the sugar-coated Sour Patch Watermelon candy, I'm not going to lie, I would be upset. To some, it ostensibly takes away food autonomy. As my roommate said, "What's next? Are they going to take away my ice cream after dinner?" The policy appears to conflict with some of our basic rights, making some people view it as far too invasive.
On the other side, this policy may actually influence more food autonomy down the road. If this big-gulp ban proves to be a success, businesses may not only comply to the policy, but also start introducing healthier drinks. Therefore, affordable healthy options may be introduced to impoverished neighborhoods that usually do not have access to pricier health foods. Regardless, at least this policy will make people start to think and talk about the health detriments of sugar-loaded beverages. This may be a good first step in our fight against the obesity issue in America.
Then again, where there's a will there's a way. People can still circumvent this policy by buying multiple "legal sized" sodas, or find a place that has unlimited refills. Moreover, this ban does not address other unhealthy beverages. As Casey Neistat says in a New York Times Op-Ed, "7-Eleven, the ubiquitous convenience-store chain, will still be able to serve its 50-ounce Orange Explosion Slurpee, which contains 107 grams of sugar, the equivalent of nearly four full-size Snickers bars." So despite Bloomberg's valiant effort, the "frapp" and "coolatta" fads are still contributing to unhealthy consumption patterns.
There are multifaceted pro's and con's of the Big-Gulp Ban, but overall I don't think it will cure the 58 percent of obese New Yorkers. Nevertheless, it may be a catalyst to other beneficial, governmental health initiatives. (Hopefully policies that will cover a wider variety of foods, attacking the larger food processing issue.)
No comments:
Post a Comment