The nanny is right on the NY City soda ban
Barb ShellyNews that the New York City Board of Health has cleared the way for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on oversized sodas to take effect is being described in many quarters as the nanny state at its most oppressive.
Yes, well, any good nanny would surely dissuade his or her charges from gulping 16-plus ounces of sugary soda pop. But, seriously, is the New York City policy all that overbearing? I think not.
Nobody is telling folks they can’t drink sodas. They can drink all they want, in fact, if they desire to purchase multiple containers of 16 ounces or less.
And speaking of choice, what about the consumer who wants to purchase an 8-ounce soda? That disappeared years ago, with the industry making the call. It’s pretty hard to even find a 12-ounce soda anymore. Vendors figured out that people would pay extra for “supersized” if it was offered, so big became bigger and small just about vanished.
What Bloomberg is banning is bucket-sized containers of soda pop that offer no nutritional benefit and are a leading player in America’s obesity epidemic. The public ends up paying much of the cost for chronic diseases like diabetes, so it is very much with the purview of public policy to seek ways to cut down on consumption.
The soft drink industry is of course horrified by Bloomberg’s ban, and worried that it might spread elsewhere. I suspect beverage producers and distributors will survive, as will consumers. Perhaps we’ll see the return of the 8-ounce cola.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoSorry, Barb. You have this issue completely wrong.
First of all, you blame the soft drink industry for there being fewer small sized soft drinks available for purchase. You should know that in a free market system, the soft drink industry provides what the consumer wants. Sure, decisions are made by the company, but they are responding to the consumer. I’m surprised we had to have that discussion.
You say that it is OK to ban large sizes because the regulation doesn’t prohibit how much a person can consume. Then what is the point? We are only left with the needless cost of regulating the size of the cups.
Where do we stop? No more double cheeseburgers? Should we be limited to 2.2 oz servings of braunschwieger? Should we only be allowed to go to the Cheesecake Factory once every two months? The government could issue a punch card to control that. Photo ID required, of course.
Other than the slippery slope, of where to stop, there is a very real cost to all of us. The cost of implementing and policing more regulation. That is born by all of us.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoSurprise, surprise, surprise…. ms. sheely is on the side of the lib fascists….
You people are truly a hoot as you continue to cram your ideas down peoples’ throats. Oh well, you can’t write about the big 0’s “performance”, so we might as well write abouot the horrors of large sodas… Truly a hoot….
JR Beillenhouser
9 months, 1 week agoWhat about the it’s my body argument and I’ll do what I want with it?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoBarb. I have a deal for you. I am perfectly willing and desirous to, and do, stay out of your birth control and abortion decisions. But, you need to stay out of my soft drink decisions. Deal?
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 1 week agoIt is amusing to see the folks who are perfectly willing to let the government make the most intimate decision for individuals go ballistic when they have to buy two 16OZ Cokes instead of one 32er. That is an unreasonable imposition, but compulsory ultrasounds is OK.
JR Beillenhouser
9 months, 1 week agoPhil - it is because in abortion issues there are two people involved (the mother and the baby), not one. The fact that you deny one exists, doesn’t make it so.
Steven Fetter
66223
9 months, 1 week agoBig pop joins big oil, big coal, and big banks as enemies of the state.
Tax breaks coming for producers and consumers of fruit drinks.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoNo JR…. to the libs, babies are just masses, they ARE real people who can feel they are being murdered for no reason other then convienence in most cases…..
Yanwen Xia
Overland Park
9 months agoThis is another example of freedom and responsibility. When people are given the freedom to eat and drink as much as their bodies can take in, many of them irresponsibly eat and drink themselves out of shape and come down with all kinds of weight-related diseases, which leads to bursting healthcare cost even before they reach the age of Medicare. These people help boost up the percentage of obese and overweight population. I am sure people know the ultimate intention of Mayor Michael Bloomberg is to reduce future cost to the healthcare not to restrict individual freedom.
Sometimes, external control, for good intention, has its positive impact. I know a high school student who spent so much time on facebook that she herself de-activated her facebook account. A college girl who likes to eat peanut so much that she asked her roommate to hide the peanut bottle for her.
When my son was in middle school, he spent so much time on computer games that I had to take away the game CD. I cannot imagine where he would end up if I failed to act at that time. Adults are no better than teenagers. I know one middle-aged adult who has tried several time to quit smoking and has not succeeded.
When we cannot lack of self-control, that is, unable to break away with some undesirable and unhealthy habits, it is good for both society and the individuals to allow some outside rule coming to our lives.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months agoNothing more exhibits that Pappy then our resident cardshark bemoaning rich need to pay more taxes and then not even making a voluntary contribution.
Libs like to pontificate but as you say, their kids go to private schools and the libs don’t act on their “convctions”….