I’m sure by now you have all heard the debate swirling around Mayor Bloomberg’s latest proposal – the banning of all sodas and other sugary drinks greater than 16 ounces at restaurants, fast food joints, movie theaters, and sports arenas in New York. There are many reasons this makes sense from a public health and obesity prevention perspective, but there are plenty of tweets, radio spots, and other advertisements showing strong opposition. The public outcry and the dollars being thrown out by the American Beverage Association (ABA) and others to shoot down the proposal continues to increase as we get closer to the public hearing next week.
I clearly remember my own “Big Gulp” days back in high school, when just about everyone had a giant mug that we proudly toted around everywhere we went – unfortunately, they were never filled with water or 100% juice. We would joyfully jump in our cars after school and swing by the gas station on our way to softball practice for a refill (yes, this was probably our second stop of the day) of 64 ounces of sugary goodness.
Most of us public health folks think this new ban is a good one, after all, theoretically less soda=less calories=less weight gain or more weight loss=better health. I recently came across another interesting angle that supports the ban in Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food.” In the book, Pollan highlights research that shows, as a culture, Americans tend to eat everything that’s put in front of us regardless of how full we become, which does not bode well for our “supersized” culture. I thought this was an interesting research finding (it certainly jived with my own personal experience), especially when applied to the current issue at hand. If we continue to pour people 32-42-64 ounce drinks then they are going to continue to consume every drop. However, if they have to get up to purchase another bottle or request a refill after the proposed 16 ounces, maybe they’ll actually stop and think about the negative consequences. Just maybe.*
Bloomberg’s attempt at a state tax on soda (explored in an earlier R2R discussion on taxes and public health) and a proposed restriction on food stamps to buy sodas both fell flat, so it will be interesting to see the outcome when New York’s Board of Health votes on this proposal in September.
In the meantime, I’m interested to hear what others think. We’ve been talking a lot about “swimming upstream” on R2R, and the policy, systems, and environmental improvements that lead to long-lasting, sustainable change. Do you think this “upstream” ban could have a positive public health impact? Or do you think New York is better off without a “nanny,” as some opponents have quipped?
*Views and opinions are my own – please share your thoughts, too!
Thanks for the fascinating
Thanks for the fascinating post, Alissa! While I’m personally an enormous proponent of upstream solutions to public health problems, in some ways I sympathize with those who find the new beverage bans intrusive to their daily lives. Bloomberg’s law doesn’t really affect me or my drinking habits on a personal level, but other public health policy initiatives have certainly left me feeling frustrated. For example, even though I may partially believe in the practice of restaurants posting calorie counts on their menus, there are times when I just want to go out and have a burger without feeling awful about it (it’s possible I may be vindicated though, as this study from New York University and Yale shows that posting calories may in fact increase consumption). Perhaps the take-away is that when implementing these policy level changes, as with any other public health intervention, it’s incredibly important that the rationale be evidence-based.
Ultimately, I think solutions could be going even more upstream. For example Alissa, why does the American Beverage Association have the lobbying power to so dramatically influence our legal system in such a way that it negatively affects the lives and well-being of Americans? Certainly personal accountability and health education is necessary, but we must also hold large corporations responsible for activities like targeting children with advertisements and egregiously increasing portion sizes. This does not necessarily mean demonizing these corporations. If we can work with them, leveraging their considerable resources for the common good, we may be able to move much farther than by fighting against them. I’m thinking now about McDonalds offering healthier options on their menu, and establishing anti-obesity campaigns. What do you guys think? Is it crazy to think that we or others could stem the lobbying efforts of entities like tobacco and corporate food? How do you feel about restaurants posting calorie counts on menus? Any food policies we haven’t mentioned that you’d like to “weigh” in on?
*Views and opinions are my own