Mayor Michael Bloombergs Soda Ban: A Step in the Right Direction - Essay Example

?Kangdi Zhao Sonya Dunn ENGL 102 20 September Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Soda Ban: A Step in the Right Direction Introduction In the present age, regulations imposing limits on the consumption of foods known for causing obesity surface frequently. This includes ban placed on the offering of toys on the Happy Meals of McDoland’s by the Healthy Food Incentive Ordinance of San Francisco (“San Francisco Happy”), and the requirement of fast food restaurants to publish the calorie counts of their foods on the websites. Recently, Mayor Michael Bloomberg placed a ban on the sale of soda above 16 ounces in volume because of the high sugar content in it. Bloomberg took this step in an attempt to combat the epidemic of obesity. He knows that the customers always have an option of purchasing two drinks to overcome this hurdle, as ways out have been found for similar bans in the past as well. For example, when the San Francisco Healthy Food Incentive Ordinance banned free toys to the customers on the purchase of Happy Meals, McDonald’s started to offer the toys with Happy Meals for an extra 10 cents only so that it adheres to the new law without having its sales impacted much by it. Summaries of Articles In the article “The Ban Too Far” published in The New York Times on 31 May 2012, the author has generally appreciated Bloomberg’s role in improving the health of the residents of the New York City, but does not approve of his recent attempt to ban the drinks sized over 16 ounces. The author has cited examples of several ways in which Bloomberg has helped the community e.g. the ban on smoking and trans fat in a lot of institutions, but as the name of the article suggests, the author considers the ban an unnecessarily strong action. The author believes that instead of placing such bans on the sizes of drinks or eatables, the administration should direct its attention towards educating the community and providing them with healthier alternatives without restricting their access to the high-calorie food. According to the author, making tough campaigns and launching exercise programs are also recommendable, but banning something irritates the people.  In the article “Evolution’s Sweet Tooth” published in The New York Times on 5 June 2012, the author Daniel E. Lieberman says that the libertarian objections to Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of drinks sized above 16 ounces the most noticeable amongst others, that speculates that this ban will be succeeded by bans on the quantities of other kinds of junk foods. Declaring obesity as a biological problem, Lieberman thinks that Bloomberg’s decision is reasonable since such a coercive action is the need of the hour. Lieberman has drawn evidence in his support for Bloomberg from the way human eating habits have been modified by various external factors like advancement of technology. Scarcity of food sustained over millions of years in the past maintained a balance between the cravings for sugar and the human digestive systems. It is beyond the control of many to limit the intake of sugar since the craving for this once-limited-resource is simple tremendous in the present age when it is in abundance. Lieberman puts forth three basic options to deal with this issue. The first option is the discovery of cures for the diseases caused by obesity for which people might have to wait too long while being affected by the diseases. The second and the more popular option is the enhancement of public education about food and healthy eating habits, but this has not proven very effective so far. The third option requires restoration of diets to the natural state with the help of regulations as the times have changed and so has the human lifestyle. Imposing ban on large portions of drinks is just as sensible as banning cigarettes in schools or limiting the access of children to alcohol. Bans are the ultimate solution as schools have proven ineffective in delivering physical education in the past. Along with imposing such bans, the food industry should honestly reflect the health risks of foods on them like it does on the cigarettes. Lieberman essentially thinks that the fast food companies make money by exploiting people’s cravings and this imparts the need to regulate the food consumption. In the article “Bloomberg’s Big Beverage Ban” published in reason.com, the author Jacob Sullum criticizes the 11 members of the New York City’s Board of Health for not refuting Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal of banning the large sized drinks. Sullum sees this ban as imposition of limits on the customers’ freedom. According to Sullum, the board members did nothing more than highlighting the proposal’s timidity. Sullum considers limiting the size of just drinks and not other eatables totally pointless, but this does not mean that he supports the ban on large drinks either. Sullum encourages the readers to raise their voice against such interventions by the government before the people are left with too less choices to make. One factor that is similar between the first two articles is that both authors approve of the bans on smoking in schools and alcohol consumption by children. What makes the two articles different in terms of argument is that the author of the article “A Ban Too Far” thinks of the ban by Bloomberg as an unjustified interference with people’s food-related choices whereas Lieberman thinks of it as the need of the hour and a way of helping the people who are otherwise in control of the fast food companies. On the contrary, Sullum just thinks of the ban as subjugation of one’s right to decide for oneself as an adult and a threat for the foodies as similar bans can be expected to be placed on other food items as well.  Commentary Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban is a matter of huge importance. While it is a move intended to bring a positive change in the society, it is a matter that concerns a significant population in the society, which is what makes this decision very controversial. Over the years, fast food has become an integral part of our culture, and so have soft drinks and soda. People today want to be free in every respect; they want freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and freedom of food. The recurrent overemphasis on the freedom in every walk of life has inculcated a care-free attitude in the people, and the same carelessness reflects in their behavior when it comes to food. I do not agree with the author of the article “The Ban Too Far” that instead of imposing such bans, the concerned authorities should consider making tough campaigns, educating the society about the importance of healthy living, and providing healthy alternatives to the junk food on fast food restaurants. I don’t think our society lacks education, at least in this respect; obesity as a health risk has not been identified recently, it has been decades since the society is suffering from it. People already know what causes obesity and yet they choose to avoid healthy living. People are educated but careless! Providing safe alternatives would not work either because generally the lesser the calories in the food get, the lesser it appeals to the taste buds of the customers. On the other hand, I totally disagree with Sullum. Sullum just seems to stimulate the controversy further rather than proposing some practicable solution if he is not content with the present decision of Bloomberg. All he has done is encourage the customers to be more vocal against the ban which in effect, means an effort for the continuation of unhealthy living and condemnation of any positive effort by the concerned authorities in any way. It is Lieberman who seems to have made the right points in response to the ban. I think it is time that the food ministers and other authorities like Bloomberg take some objective measures to reduce the spread of obesity in the society. While I agree that it is time to turn a deaf ear to people’s strikes about sustaining the unhealthy consumption behavior, I am afraid that the imposition of this ban would hardly make any difference in the obesity rate in the society. What if somebody cannot get 20 ounces in one glass? One can rather purchase 32 ounces in two separate glasses, thus ending up consuming more than one would otherwise have consumed! A very interesting thing about this event is the Bloomberg knows that people can buy two drinks if they think16 ounces are insufficient to satiate their thirst. Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of soda sized above 16 ounces generates a positive message for everybody out there. While making informed decisions regarding consuming just the right amount of eatables and drinks has been increasingly difficult for the foodies with the ever-increasing variety being made available to them in the market, something like imposing limits on the sizes of drinks simplifies things for them. They can trust that the limits have been imposed considering that is just the right portion of a drink for them to consume in order to enjoy the food along with staying healthy. Generally, at least certain communities in the consumers tend to think of such measures as unnecessary interference in their decision-making rights and an underestimation of their ability to make informed decisions by the law-makers. However, it is obvious that the ban has been imposed only for those who care. Those who don’t care are free to purchase another drink, so this move of Bloomberg certainly does not meddle with anybody’s right to decide for himself/herself. In the present age when notions like corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility are so much emphasized upon in every field of life, Bloomberg’s decision to impose the ban on drinks sized above 16 ounces is entirely consistent with these notions and is solely meant to benefit the society at large as consumption of smaller sized drinks would be a potential way to reduce the consumption of calories, and correspondingly obesity. As for the critics’ opinion that ban would prove ineffective because of people’s access to more glasses after they are finished drinking the first 16 ounces, I say that many if not all would avoid consuming the second glass since a vast majority of people is also weight-conscious, and thus would avoid or at least feel discouraged asking for a second glass. It is time that some abrupt changes are made in the current laws regarding food and drinks consumption in the fast food restaurants. I think downsizing the food items or glasses would bring no measurable results. The fast food needs to be made healthier by reducing the calorie count. I think a better way would be to impose ban on any soda that contains sugar in it. Either the customers should consume sugar-free soda, or no soda at all. Till the time the government keeps entertaining the food cravings of this crazy nation, obesity would only keep growing as a risk. Works Cited: “A Ban Too Far.” The New York Times. 31 May 2012. Web. 21 Sep. 2012. . “San Francisco Happy Meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped By McDonald's.” Huffington Post. 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Sep. 2012. . Sullum, Jacob. “Bloomberg’s Big Beverage Ban.” Reason.com. Issue of Oct. 2012. Web. 21 Sep. 2012. . Lieberman, Daniel. E. “Evolution’s Sweet Tooth.” The New York Times. 5 June 2012. Web. 21 Sep. 2012. . Grading Chart for Essay Two: Quality of Summary: The essay offers a clear and accurate summary of the event that demonstrates an understanding of the significance of the event. The essay also provides a well-organized overall summary comparing and contrasting a variety of articles and commentary on the event. 14/15 points The summary of the event and of the sources seems to take over the essay when the essay should focus on your opinion. Substantiveness of Commentary: The essay is focused around a thesis statement that arises out of the writer’s careful reading of three articles on a single event. This thesis statement represents the writer’s new thinking on the event after having considered other points of view. The body of the essay adequately develops this thesis with new claims and support. BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE TABLE. 9/15 points You compare and contrast sources, but I don’t yet see your opinion here. Organization: The essay is organized coherently as a whole and at the paragraph level. Strong topic sentences support the thesis and help the reader to easily make sense of and follow the essay’s ideas. 9/10 points Editing and Format: The essay properly incorporates sources (in the form of summary, paraphrase, and direct quotation). The essay also correctly uses MLA citation style and is free of spelling, punctuation, and other mechanical errors. It meets the length requirement and is formatted according to the Guidelines for Formatting Drafts. 8/10 points TOTAL POINTS FOR FINAL DRAFT 39/50 points Read More