Debating the New York City Ban on Over Large Sodas - Case Study Example

Debating the New York Ban on Over Large Sodas Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg envisioned implementing a total ban of sodas being served to people Nobody would have been allowed to purchase a soda larger than 16 ounces in size. Health advocates applauded the ban and noted that it would be beneficial to the adults and school children of the city as their daily sugar intake portions could now be better controlled. The problem with the ban, that is continously supported by newly installed New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, is that the law did not take into consideration the financial impact that such a ban would have on the soft drink industry in the city. The law, in the opinion of the others who oppose it, also over stepped the limits of government control by controlling the portion size rather than allowing purchasers to choose their soda size. Both sides of the argument manage to present valuable and plausible reasons that are acceptable on both sides of the aisle. However, it is my opinion that the law did overstep the bounds of governance and should not have been passed in the first place. Therefore, this paper will discuss the valid reasons in support of my argument while also presenting the facts of the other side and why their reasons in support of the ban are actually weak and without legal basis. To begin this discussion, I would like to first discuss the reasons as to why the people who suppor the ban on the soda size portions make a good presentation for their case. It was Mayor Bloomberg himself who, during his term, argued that the best reason to combat the serving size of sodas lay solidly on health reasons. In an interview with The New York Times, Mayor Bloomberg suggested that: Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible, New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something, I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.” (Grynbaum, Michael “New York Plans to Ban Sizes of Sugary Drinks”) Since then Mayor Bloomberg had made health policies a centerpiece of his governance, he had been known to advocate for highly aggressive health policies and measures. Some of his controversial health policies include bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, prohibition of trans fat in restaurant food, the posting of health inspection grades in restaurant windows. (Grynbaum, Michael “New York Plans to Ban Sizes of Sugary Drinks”). His success in the implementation of these other programs have made New York City a template for governance for other cities in the country who, may also begin to consider a similar type of ban depending upon the success of the New York City Ban. In a city where more than half the adult population comes in on the heavy side, it is easy to see why the sodas would get the brunt of the blame for the problem. After all, sodas are cheap, easily accessible, and addicting to a certain degree. Such is the case that the city health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, in support of the soda size ban explained that he blames the sodas for: ... up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. ... the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common. (Grynbaum,Michael “New York Plans to Ban Sizes of Sugary Drinks”) A quick look at the students in New York elementary schools shows that more than 40 percent of student population is overweight.Reports indicated that: “Some 20% of New York City public school children are obese and another 20% are overweight, according to the city. Latino children are twice as likely as white children to be obese (23.5% vs. 12.3%). (Watkins, Tom “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”) It is because of this startling percentage of overweight elementary and middle school students that Board of Health member and professor of medicine at Columbia University Deepthiman Gowda thought to support the move as well. According to Dr. Gowda: “We are dealing with a crisis ... we need to act on this “ (Park,Alice “Goodbye Big Drinks”). By banning the oversized drinks, the New York City Board of Health members believe that the city will have taken an important step towards encouraging their residents to live a healthier lifestyle by being more conscious of their soda intake and hopefully encouraging them to make healthy changes to their diet as well. They based their collective assumption on the results of data that showed 43 percent of added sugar in the American diet comes from soda intake. (Park,Alice “Goodbye Big Drinks”) Mayor Bloomberg, during his term in office, argued that soda intake needed to be regulated because: Sugary drinks are a leading contributor to the obesity epidemic that is hitting low- income communities especially hard, and we cannot afford to pretend otherwise. Our plan to limit the portion size of sugary drinks is a sensible step that has won increasing levels of support from the public health community. (Watkins, Tom “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”) Claiming that obesity claims over 5 thousand New Yorker lives each year, the city government points a finger at the insane portion size of sodas being served to the public in movie houses, sports arenas, restaurants, and government regulated stores. Linda I Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human services added: ”The health consequences of obesity are dire, leading to diabetes, cancer and loss of life.."The real fear that todays youth may be the first generation to live shorter lives than their parents is a call to action.” (Watkins, Tom “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”) However, Scott DeFife of the National Restaurant Association questioned the claims of Mayor Bloomberg and his supporters stating that: We very much questioned the efficacy of putting a dent in obesity by restricting the cup size in restaurants in New York City that sold sugar-sweetened beverages. We dont think that micromanaging food service packaging is the way to end obesity in New York City. (Watkins, Tom “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”) It is truly important to admit that there are times when people need to be saved from themselves. Such as the case with the consumption of sodas, whose advertising encourages its intake as part of a lifestyle, the people who do advocate the lifestyle of soda consumption need to be reminded that they may go overboard if they are continously encouraged to do so. Thus putting their own health at risk without their knowledge. Thinking of the argument on the ban in soda size in that light, it becomes highly acceptable to agree with and implement the ban on over sized sodas in New York City. But then comes the question as to whether the law restricts the right of people to choose and decide for themselves is violated. Free will is a constitutionally guaranteed right and, as those who oppose the law see it, the ban that Mayor Bloomberg and De Bliaso supports is in direct violation of that right. While the ban successfully went into effect, it did so with much negative criticism. People of New York were not happy that they were being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. The soda sellers and other groceries and supermarkets that are government regulated were negatively affected by the lower sales, and manufacturers were econimically impacted by the ban as well. Therefore, while the ban could be considered a success for the city government. It was a failure in garnering the support of the people of New York. That is precisely why a number of lawsuits were filed agains the city and Mayor Bloomberg regarding the ban on over sized sodas. Its constitutionality was called into question and its violation of human rights were but a few of the lawsuits that were filed after the law took effect. The succeeding paragraphs will now present factual evidence and data that proves my claim that the ban on over sized sodas was unconstitutional. On July 30, 2013, a New York state appellate court declared the law unconsitutional. (Baldwin, Lorna “New York Citys Soda Ban is Dead”) This declaration prevented the law from being further implemented in the state of New York. The reason that the ban was over turned? According to the court, the law violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine. (Snider, Brett “NYCs Sugary Ban Ruled Unconstitutional”). The Separation of Powers Doctrine was violated in the sense that the New York City Board of Health had “over reached in its official capacity by limiting sugary drinks to 16 ounces”. (Snider, Brett “NYCs Sugary Ban Ruled Unconstitutional”) The law, which became known as the Portion Cap Rule was struck down in a 4-2 decision that shed light on the fact that there was a power struggle for the administrative leadership of the city when it came to this particular regulation. According to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers: In New York and elsewhere, much of the work of governing falls to administrative agencies, whose job it is to put the laws passed by legislators into practice. The legislature articulates broad goals and then directs agencies, like the New York City Board of Health, to use their expertise to tackle the specific problems those goals address. (Briffault, Richard “The Soda Ban Decision: What it Really Means”) It was the understanding of the appelate court that the Board of Health did have a wide discretion to issue regulations pertaining to the general health of New York citizens. However, the sugary drink ban was not a regulation. Rather, it was presented as a law, which could only be passed by legislation and as such made the ban unconstitutional. The lawsuit was successfully presented by the New York City Beverage Association, which is an arm of the soda industrys national trade group. It was the opinion of the association that the city government has singled out sodas for the ban based upon their unhealthy obsession with sodas. According to Stefan Friedman, spokesperson for the group: The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front. (Grynbaum,Michael “New York Plans to Ban Sizes of Sugary Drinks”) Mayor Di Blasio is currently embroiled in a court room war to get the Portion Cap Law reinstated in New York. However, he is facing an uphill battle at the moment due to the unpopularity of the law. He is appealing with the state Supreme Court to impleent the law that he feels would help save lives of New Yorkers. In defense of the law, Mayor Blasio has been quoted to have said: “The citys proposal to cap the size of sugary drinks responds to the alarming obesity and diabetes crisis" affecting the citys minority groups:. (Saul, Howard Michael “New York City Soda-Ban Fate Weighted”) But the judges on the bench do not share his sense of urgency and the need to dictate upon the citizens of the city. Reports from the court room indicate that the panel of judges cannot accept the reasoning that the Portion Cap Law is similar to the cigarette warning label. Although it is meant to cautiont he buyer into making an informed decision in a similar manner, by limiting the portion, the decision has already been made for the buyer by the state. Admittedly, there have been schools in the city and other states that have totally banned the sale of sodas in their cafeterias in an effort to safeguard the health of their students. Some of the states have even gone so far as to ban the sale of sodas in public buildings. All because sodas have been said to aid in the increase of a persons obesity. Yet nobody in the city health department has taken a second look at the drinks that have fewer than 25 calories per 8 ounce serving which, when taken in large amounts, also adds up to the very calorie count that they wish to ban. Therefore, limiting the soda intake of people will only send them to another “government accepted” drink that when abused in intake, results in the same “evil” that they are trying to protect the people from. The Portion Cap Law is a regulation that actually defeats its own purpose. It stands to reason that when such a law is implemented, the loopholes that exist would be plugged by the legislation provided. But that is not the case. Instead At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed. (Grynbaum, Michael “New York Plans to ban Sales of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks”) So why then does the city government allow the restuarants, fast food chains, and other places where they regulate the means of business, to continue serving sodas in a method that they know will circumvent a regulation that they are so actively promoting? It does not make any sense to have the city government support a bottomless soda campaign but not a large cup size campaign. There is no sense in such actions by the city government. If the past and present mayors turly wish to protect the welfare of the citizens in relation to soda intake, then they would ban the aforementioned actions as well. Surely sodas are not the only reason that people find themselves overweight or with high health risk factors. And yet the sodas have been signled out by the city for this very purpose. The food industry does not take kindly to being dictated upon by the city in such a manner. Alice Park interviewed some fast food chain owners such as mcDona;ds and the opinion was that; “Many restaurant owners, fast-food chains and makers of sodas, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and McDonald’s, are also upset because they say the ban could hurt certain businesses while rewarding others. (Park , Alice “Goodbye, Big Drinks”) Micromanaging the way the citizens of New York eat and drink is not something that should be openly accepted by the people. It is a direct affront on their freedom to choose and their free will. The city of New York chooses to questions these rights before the state supreme court simply because they were allowed to get away with it in the past. In what is becoming a dictatorial city state, the people, business owners, and all those concerned must take action to put the government in its rightful place. As New York Gov. Phil Bryant said in March of 2013 ;” It is simply not the role of government to microregulate citizens dietary decisions.” (Watkins, Tom “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”) Studies have shown that the Portion Cap regulation did not have any real positive effect on the students of New York because there were no changes in soda intake and health results of the students. In the latest study, published this week in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, ... researchers looked at soda and sweetened beverage consumption among roughly 7,000 fifth and eighth grade students across 40 states. The students were followed between 2004 and 2007, a time when many states and school districts were beginning to enact bans.The researchers found that the proportion of students who purchased sugary drinks at schools in states that removed only soda — 28.9 percent — was similar to the proportion in states that had no bans against any sugary drinks at all — 26 percent. Both groups  also reported having identical levels of access to sugary beverages at school: about 67 percent in each category.(OConnor, Anahad “Soda Bans in School Have Limited Impact”) The laws were designed to limit the intake of sugary beverages in a certain place. There is nothing in the law that will stop the person from going to various soda sources to get his fix. For example, nobody will stop him from taking a 16 ounce soda glass and drinking it at home. Therefore, the law cannot be effective in implementation. There are just too many loopholes existing within the regulation for it to actually be of benefit to the people of New York. Instead of helping the people of New York better their health choices, they instead forced the people to make the lesser informed decision all because they wished to arbitrarily regulate the movent of the public. This is also why the ban on large sugary drinks will never succeed regardless of the number of appeals that the city does. Any law that restricts the freedom of the people is bound to fail. As the appellate court judges declared when the appeal was denied; “Like the Supreme Court, we conclude that in promulgating this regulation the Board of Health failed to act within the bounds of its lawfully delegated authority.” (Strauss, Gary & Castagna, Rebecca “Drink Up -- NYC Ban on Large Sugary Drinks Fizzles Again”) It is my opinion that the Portion Cup law needs to be adjusted to be less dictatorial and all encompassing in public for it to be of any effect. Rather than focusing on limiting the intake of the people, they should instead be focusing on making it cost prohibitive to order larger drinks. In a matter of mind over finances, finances will usually win. Therefore, the portion sizes will be limited by the people themselves instead of by the government. In this manner, the portioning of the cup size will also be more acceptable to the public. The city government should not be expected to micro manage the health of the people. The laws that they design should merely aid in making an informed decision instead of making the decision for the person. The board of health should also be conscious of the fact that although sodas are readily available for kids to consume, there are other alternative beverages such as energy drinks that also have a direct impact on the health of the kids and should also be regulated. Limiting the access of people to something that is bad for them is alright and is an applaudable action on the part of the city government. However, dictating how it is to be done is not. Freedom of choice and the free will to make informed decisions should always be a priority for the city. They should never overstep their bounds and allow the city health board to pass off what should only be a regulation as a law. That is totally unacceptable. Therefore, the decision of the courts to strike down the Portion Cup Law is something that sends a clear message to the city government and health board. Know your place, do not over step the bounds and confuse your duties. Let the people decide for themselves when it comes to any decision about their personal health and well being. People need to be aided in making decisions. Not dictated upon and treated like children. Even those in school have the right to choose and those basic freedoms should never be curtailed for any reason. Sources “Appeals Court Rejects New York Citys Large Soda Ban”. thinkprogress.org.thinkprogress.org.30 Jul. 2013. Web. 12 Jul. 2014. Baldwin, Lorna. “Drink Up -- New York Citys Soda Ban is Dead”. PBS. pbs.org. 26 Jun 2014. Web. 10 Jul. 2014. Grynbaum. MIchael.” New York Plans To Ban Sale Of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks”. The New York Times. nytimes.com. 30 May 2013. 15 Jul. 2014 OConnor, Anahad. “Soda Bans In Schools Have Limited Impact”. The New York Times. nytimes.com. 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 10 Jul. 2013. Park, Alice. “GoodBye Big Drinks”. Time. time.com. 13 Sept. 2012.Web. 11 Jul. 2014. Snider, Brett. “NYCs Sugary Drink Ban Ruled Unconstitutional”. FindLaw. findlaw.com. 30 Jul. 2013. 11 Jul. 2014. Strauss, Gary & Castagna, Rebecca. “NYC Ban on Large Sugary Drinks Fizzles Again”. USA Today. usatoday.com. 30 Jul. 2013. Web. 13 Jul. 2014. Watkins, Tom. “New York Appeals Soda Cup Decision”. cnn.com. cnn.com. 30 Mar. 2013.12 Jul. 2014. Read More