The Soda Ban-d Wagon...

This week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first-of-its-kind ban on the sale of sugary drinks over sixteen ounces in restaurants was due to go into effect, but was at the last minute blocked by New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling. Contrary to popular assumption, though, the Judge did not put forth an outright ban on Bloomberg's initiative, but rather took issue with the way it was attempted by the Mayor. Specifically, Tingling argued that Bloomberg and the New York Board of Health's committed what he deemed a breach of the separation of powers by passing such legislation. He also argued that, because larger sugar-based drinks could still be purchased in supermarkets and convenience stores, the ban would be "more troubling" than the drinks themselves because they would unfairly affect the restaurant industry. 

Wait a minute. This food legislation would not be the only thing in New York to only target that industry. For example, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, also can not be put towards prepared food at restaurants. Was that measure meant to hurt the food service industry? No. It was intended to get people slightly healthier by forcing them to get into supermarkets and cooking for themselves. So where is the uproar about that stipulation?

Furthermore, this ban wouldn't actually stop anyone from ingesting more than sixteen ounces of sugar-crap. If restaurants really are that concerned about the effect of the ban, why not drop a small amount of their greed and offer free or discounted refills, like restaurants in virtually every other city in the country? One may argue that that would lead to people taking advantage of the opportunity to endlessly refill their cups, but that one would not be thinking logically. The easy fix would be to establish a time limit for said refills, say within an hour of paying for their initial drink. This would have the added benefit of forcing people to occasionally get up from gluttonously gorging to refill their own cups, shaving a much-needed few calories off of their meals. 

And by the way, Bloomberg nay-sayers, this is not the first ban against the sale of certain types of drinks in restaurants. This year, Concord, Massachusetts banned the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles under one liter. The aim of this is obviously not to tackle obesity, but rather to tackle the absurd amount of waste caused by their disposal. The effect, though, is still that people wishing to buy that particular item will have to do so from a store rather than a restaurant. Where's the backlash against that city's "nanny" mayor? Almost nowhere. While some Concord business owners have expressed displeasure with the new law, they plan simply to sell larger bottles. In nearby Cambridge, too, Bloomberg-esque laws are being considered with their mayor lauding the large soda ban and considering a similar one.

All in all, there is some merit to the arguments of some that this law treads lightly over people's freedom of choice. Then again, the same could be said about laws prohibiting the sale of dangerous illicit drugs or prostitution. And while those laws too are questionable, if we look at the numbers, it's quite clear that unhealthy food choices are the bigger (and more costly) threat.