The mayor of NYC is determined to get obesity under control To that end, he has put into effect a rule that will become official next year that no public venue can sell a sugared drink above 16 ounces in size--no more giant cups will be allowed. The law will cover restaurants, sports arenas, and street vendors initially. Talk is that he also would like to ban groceries from selling sugared drinks above that size--good luck to him if he thinks he can take on the drinks industry. "Diet" drinks would not be covered under the ban.
Why do I find this so ironic? Today is National Doughnut Day in the US. Early morning news reports showed people lined up twelve deep at places that sell doughnuts, all eager to participate in this national "commemoration." Lots of buyers getting lots of doughnuts so they can extend this holiday over the weekend. Want to bet that plenty of the City offices will have doughnut celebrants chomping on a doughnut or two? Wouldn't surprise me if Hiz Honor was also a doughnut aficionado today.
Perhaps it's time to get obesity control out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of those with more knowledge and better ideas about how to prevent and reduce and control obesity.
5 comments:
Other than governmental action, the only other option is people to take responsibility for themselves and their health by eating better and exercising more. We all know how well that is going.
I don't agree with this paternalistic approach, but from the mayor's perspective you do need to start somewhere and it's unfair to criticize someone for choosing to address one issue first while leaving another untouched. I doubt one would question why the police are cracking down on one type of violent crime instead of another.
In terms of sodas versus doughnuts, the average american is drinking several sodas a day - the average american is not eating several doughnuts a day (or even several a week most likely). Also, there's no question soda size has increased dramatically over the years and there is a psychological aspect to people wanting to finish the bottle.
Again, I don't agree with this paternalistic approach, but I think your criticism is a bit off the mark.
Personally, if the government were to act, I'd rather see it subsidize healthier foods than ban unhealthy ones (and stopping subsidies for industries that produce unhealthy foods would be good as well).
The Mayor officially proclaimed today as dou8ghnut day in a public gathering. Doughnuts of all kinds were present. Someone asked him outloud about the sugar soda ban. He dodged that question a whole bunch of times and then one of his aides said that the two aren't related and shouldn't be brought up together. So sugar in doughnuts isn't related to sugar in sodas? Seriously?
In terms of sodas versus doughnuts, the average american is drinking several sodas a day - the average american is not eating several doughnuts a day (or even several a week most likely). Also, there's no question soda size has increased dramatically over the years and there is a psychological aspect to people wanting to finish the bottle.
Beware the use of average American JS. Average can mean what you want it to mean when you are using it. Average Americans drink several sodas a day according to you? And a lot of those average Americans are drinking diet sodas. And some don't drink soda at all. They don't eat many doughnuts? Maybe you don't, but then you wouldn't be that "average" American being talked about when doughnut eating figures are presented. In the US over ten billion doughnuts are eaten every year--yes, ten billion.
So I'll agree that there is something inconsistent about deciding to go after only some sellers of sugared drinks and make no mention of doughnuts and other similar types of baked goods, and do it all in the same week.
Wouldn't worry about that size ban. There are already groups preparing legal challenges to it, especially since it is aimed at only some sellers and not all sellers of a type of product. One group that is preparing a legal challenge has said that nowhere does government have the right to tell citizens how much of a food item they can eat. Government can make suggestions as to what is a good portion but it has no right to enforce that we eat what that suggested portion is. Should be interesting to see the legal wrangling that is going to on if the city follows through with this size ban. And once again a huge waste of taxpayer monies as elected idiots insist on playing dictator.
Anonymous,
It will be an interesting challenge. There's no fundamental constitutional right at issue here, i.e., there is no fundamental right to consume sugary beverages. Compare to the fundamental right to not be discriminated against on the basis of race (e.g., a law that only let people of race X consume sugary beverages).
So, any attack would likely be based on the fact that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government goal (rational basis review). Pretty much anything is rational - very, very few laws are deemed completely irrational. Picking one item to legislate over another is perfectly rational - you can't legislate everything at once from a practical perspective. It's rational to see if it works before proceeding to other areas. So, sodas but not doughnuts is perfectly rational. Irrational would be banning sodas because pornography is a big problem.
So, it comes down to whether this is a legitimate government goal - ensuring public health and welfare. Hard to argue it isn't. Also, the court's are ridiculously differential to the govt in this respect and sometimes even MAKE UP the govt reason (even if the govt never had that reason) in order to save the law. For example, let's say the govt did say porn was a problem so we're banning soda. The court can step in and say it has health benefits, so it's OK.
Very, very, very few laws get tossed on rational basis grounds.
Will be interesting to watch.
Post a Comment