Monday, June 4, 2012

New York City Soda Ban


            New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced his intention to ban sugar-sweetened sodas in servings over 16oz in restaurants, fast food outlets, street stands, and sporting arenas.  Some are up in arms, but my arms are up in celebration.  This is a bold and courageous step forward in America’s battle against obesity.
            The concern about the nanny state is legitimate in general, but misattributed in this case.  The ban will not restrict freedom of choice, as everyone will have the same access to soda as before.  The mayor is not telling New Yorkers what to drink.  Rather, he’s reminding them that soda is unhealthy, a fact no one disputes, and limiting a profiteering food industry from swindling customers into buying significantly more soda than they actually want.  32 ounces of soda for one person in one sitting is just too much. Period, point-blank.  If you really, really want that much though, then prove it, and buy two.
            Jon Stewart mocked the proposal as draconian and likely ineffective.  He is clearly missing the point.  Study after study has shown us that people are terrible at determining in advance how much food or drink is likely to satisfy them as well as when they are actually satiated.  The result is that people tend to order whatever they see as the best deal and will consume whatever is in front of them.  Sure, some people just want more soda.  But the science seems to indicate that many folks will be happy with a 16-ouncer and will keep it moving.
            Coca-Cola responded to the proposal by saying that New Yorkers expect and deserve better and can make their own choices about what to drink.  Duh.  Huge profit margins on increased serving sizes couldn’t possibly be what are motivating soda companies and fast food restaurants to push these “comically oversized” portions[i] on unsuspecting customers.
            Isn’t it odd that Americans would prefer corporations make decisions for them rather than the government, while the former profits from their business and the latter is invested in their health and well-being?  I think so.  If Coke and Pepsi were paying the medical bills, we’d see how quickly they’d hop on board.
           
           


[i] See Stewart’s commentary here