-----------------------------
Well, it happened yesterday. The New York City’s Board of Health voted to approve Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg’s ban on sugary beverages with an almost unanimous vote (9 yeas, 1 abstention). And so, unless a judge overrules the new law, it’ll take effect in 9 months, restricting the sale of sugary beverages larger than 16-ounces at stadiums, restaurants, delis, food carts, movie theaters, and the like.
Unless they have more than 50% real juice or milk in ‘em, they’re out. No more Venti Frappachinos at Starbucks. No more barrel-sized Coca-Cola next summer when you go see “Transformers 18” at the mega-plex.
However—and this is the absolutely absurd part—you are more than welcome to buy TWO 16-ounce Sprites if you want. And can even drink both bottles at the same time. Open wide! And, you can still get a 32-ounce Super Big Gulp at 7-11, because only establishments that get inspection grades from the health department need to comply. Makes zero sense to me.
But, if you are caught buying ONE 17-ounce Mr. Pibb from the deli on the corner, it’s off with your head, Mister. And the salesman gets fined $200.
When Bloomy made all the smokers go outside for their cigs at NYC restaurants and bars, there was a similar uproar. Business owners thought their bottom line would be affected. That didn’t actually happen, thank goodness, and most everyone agrees that that particular ban has been, in large part, a good thing. Perhaps it’s not the most libertarian of restrictions, but at least you don’t have to breathe in my fumes when you’re trying to eat your burger.
However, if I decide to drink 32-ounces of corn syrup and carbonated water from a massive plastic cup and you happen to be sitting next to me, I’m pretty sure that you’re not harmed in any way.
Until the burping starts.
But seriously, I understand that the consumption of large amounts of sugary drinks is bad for us. We’ve been told by doctors and nutritionists and teachers and parents our whole lives that water and juice and milk (if you can still tolerate it) are better alternatives. We know we shouldn’t smoke. We know we shouldn’t have unprotected sex. We know we should get off our collective asses and take a walk every now and then. We KNOW what we are supposed to be doing to prolong our lives.
But it’s our choice if we do it or not. What we stick in our bodies should be our choice and our choice alone.
Okay, okay. I hear what you just thought. What about the sake of saving people from becoming a burden on the rest of us because of their ill-advised personal health choices? You know, the ones who don’t have access to healthcare and depend on the generosity of public health programs.
Trust me, if people want to drink a gallon of Pepsi and smoke a pack or two of Marlboros every day, these laws don’t do anything to stop them. Gluttons will be gluttons, no matter how large the package is. (There’s a sexual joke in there somewhere.)
So what’s next? That’s what I’m asking. Are they going to come into our bedrooms and try to tell us which holes are appropriate and which aren’t? Will we lose even more freedoms? Of course we will. Once they start, they don’t know how to stop.
Sure, this new law won’t ruin your life. But just think about what I said above…what’s next? How much control are you willing to give up?
(Honestly, I wish Bloomberg would do something about the horrific lives of the horses that have been enslaved in Manhattan, forced to work 10+ hours a day on busy, traffic jammed streets. And the ones made to pull fat tourists through the park. It’s not romantic, people! Not when those poor, majestic animals live in cramped, dank cells down near the Javits Center, get spooked by taxis and large trucks (one was seriously injured just a few days ago), and have their lifespan cut short by 10 years because of the utter nastiness that is their lives. Think about that!)
OMG…am I on a soapbox today or what?
I’ve got to go, anyway. This Triple-Venti Mocha Frappachino with Extra Choco-Syrup ain’t gonna drink itself.
- R. Scott
Nowhere in this legislation is it placing a "limit" on how much soda you as a consumer can purchase. Nobody is keeping you from ingesting disgustingly huge amounts of soda, you're just going to have to do it in several "more normally sized" portions. This is a regulation on the SODA INDUSTRY and BUSINESSES, not on individual rights and freedom.
ReplyDeleteLet's get one thing clear here: If you are caught walking on the street with a 32oz soda - the government is NOT going to come after you. They will, however go after the business who SOLD it to you. This has NOTHING to do with personal freedom. Nobody is taking away your freedom and sadly this is the point I think the majority of people who oppose this ban are just not getting.
When you have large corporations who 1.) are dishonest about what actually goes into their products 2.) who spend BILLIONS of dollars per year on advertising - much of which is directed towards children 3.) who use unnatural, chemically engineered substances in order to make their products as calorie-dense and addicting as possible, then YES, you DO need government to step in say that this is NOT okay. I'm all about personal responsibility, but do you REALLY think the average consumer has any chance against a multi-billion dollar money making monster? Wake up people! These corporations have license to sell you products that contain some of the most addictive chemicals on the planet and then lie to you about how addictive and dangerous they really are, just to turn huge profits.
When you have a food industry that is systematically and maliciously trying to destroy the health of an entire nation - all in the name of profit - the government CERTAINLY needs to step in and regulate. Government is regulating the CORPORATIONS, not your individual freedoms. If you think that this legislation, or any other legislation relating to the food industry is an attack on your "personal freedom" then you have fallen victim to the false propaganda put forth by the food industry to make the consumers believe the attack is on them and not the big businesses. This is exactly the same as the whole cigarette fiasco a few decades ago. History repeats itself and people never learn.
Well, tell us what you really think, Justin M. lol
DeleteHey, I get what you're saying: big, profit hungry companies are bad. The truth is that the vast majority of companies are good, law abiding, and care about their customers and aren't that way because the government tells them they have to be. And while there are a few that give the rest a bad name, sure, more and more costly and unfair regulation on business is simply not the answer. I've read both government and independent studies on the astronomical costs of regulations--they are simply out of control.
The point I was trying to make in my tongue-in-cheek blog post today is two-fold: 1.) The whole ban is ridiculous because you can still go get the 32-ounce Super Big Gulp right next door to the pizza restaurant that is forced to sell 16 ounces or less. What kind of stupid sense does that make? 2.) My personal freedom IS attacked every time a law like this is made because I don't have the personal freedom to buy the 32-ounce soda at the pizza restaurant.
Bottom line, it is all just a big fat waste of time and money when there are many more serious issues to be dealt with.
And one more thing...I agree with you that companies should be forced to tell us exactly what is in the products they sell, absolutely, and if they want to put nasty things in there, let 'em. And we can buy them or not.
Thirty-two ounces of pure sugar in a cup should never have been allowed to begin with. Look at any other country in the world, and what we consider to be a "small" is really their "oh my god why the hell are you drinking all of that soda?" At least in those other countries soda is made with actual sugar instead of the high fructose corn syrup they use here in the United States.
ReplyDeletePortion sizes have gotten way out of control and this is a good first step in combating the issue. It should NEVER have come to this but thanks to a highly trained team of advertisers, chemists and engineers, these portions sizes have been allowed increase exponentially over the years.
Studies have shown that sugar elicits a similar response from the brain as opiate drugs. I think most of us would agree that heroin and narcotic pain killers should be regulated - so why not these companies who use substances that are equally as addictive, marketing them to an ill-informed public and to one of the most impressionable demographics of them all, children?
The obesity rate is out of control, and I think ANY effort to combat this issue should be accepted as well as praised. I stand by my conviction that this is not a regulation on personal freedom more than it is a regulation on businesses and the soda industry as a whole.
I would add that there is a great deal of research that shows how choice architecture impacts behavior. You see this at play with the size of the beverages now. They offer 4 sizes, and each 'upgrade' in size is generally some small increase in cost from the size above, decreasing exponentially. For instance: A small is (for the sake of the explanation) $2.00, a medium $3.00, a large $3.50, and a mega $3.75.
ReplyDeleteThis is savvy salesmanship at work. Sugary beverages are the most profitable item at most food establishments. Two dollars seems like a lot for so little, but 3 seems reasonable for (ever larger looking) mediums... but wait! If i'm getting that much more for a dollar, look at how much MORE I could get for only .75 cents more. But for the distributor that's all pure profit. They're pushing you (sometimes explicitly like at McDonalds when they say "you can have a large drink for just X cents more.") to buy bigger by the way they present the choice to you.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong for the State to intervene, but the choices you're talking about are not as "free" as one might think. Selling you fat, and salt, and sugar is a science. Given that, the question is not merely how should the asymmetries of power and information in the transaction be balanced? The question is also: even if given full information are people capable of making the choice in a truly free fashion? If they're not (and I'd venture to say, they're really not) then you have to balance the negative effects of letting the distributor limit your choice against the negative effects of letting the government limit that choice.
Framing the question that way, since in either case we're letting an outside force limit our choices, wouldn't you rather have the party interested in combatting obesity and bettering public health do the limiting rather than the party who profits from obesity and whose products threaten the public health do the limiting?
You are absolutely correct! The soda industry has long since eliminated personal choice by using these manipulative tactics to force you into buying the larger size. Placing restrictions on the maximum size that is allowed to be sold to the consumer is a regulation on the soda industry, not on the personal freedom of the consumer.
Delete