Should NYC ban sugary drinks?
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban the sale of large sugary drinks really the best way to reduce obesity, or is there another way?
Over the past week, the political airwaves have been filled with dialogue about New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban the sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. While cries of a "nanny state" remain fierce, ban supporters stand firm in their belief that the measure would help curve obesity.
Much of the debate has centered on the legitimacy of the government limiting personal actions -- actions that include purchasing a large soda. In criticism of the proposal, the Coca-Cola Company recently stated that New Yorkers “can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase”, as they are “smarter than the New York City Health Department believes.”
However, the problem with arguments such as Coke’s is that they are founded on the assumption that one person’s soda intake has no effect on anyone else. This notion has fueled much of the criticism of the ban, as opponents believe that the government has no business interfering in personal decisions, such as one’s weight.
But obesity does not just affect the obese individual.
According to a study by Reuters, obesity currently costs the United States approximately $190 billion a year in additional healthcare costs -- 20.6% of our total healthcare spending -- and has eclipsed smoking as the largest single contributor to healthcare expenditures. This total is expected to grow, and may reach as high as $340 billion by 2018.
Obesity also accounts annually for about $36 billion in lost productivity and $4 billion in increased fuel consumption (over 900 million gallons of gas per year). With the profound societal cost of our growing obesity epidemic, all but the most hardened libertarians should recognize that it is in the public’s best interest for the government to address the subject.
However, critics are right to question whether an outright ban on sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces is the best way to go about curbing obesity. While it is likely that this ban would achieve its desired goal of reducing obesity caused by sugary drinks, as many people would consume smaller drinks rather than buy two, there is a better way to tackle the problem. If the government were to tax sodas to ensure that one paid roughly double for a drink that was twice the size, consumption would fall and revenue would be generated that could help fund public health efforts elsewhere.
Often the problem with large drinks is not that we feel we need them, but that they are only a few cents more than their smaller counterparts. Why buy a 16 ounce drink when the 32 ounce is only a trivial 20 cents more? Industrious Americans that we are, it is only sensible to get the most drink for our money, so often we find ourselves throwing in the extra quarter to supersize and ensure that we have more than enough to drink.
Instead of banning drinks in cups over 16 ounces, we should tax these larger containers per ounce over 16. That way, no one will stop you from grabbing the proverbial Big Gulp, but instead of paying only a few cents more for the extra soda, you will pay the same price per ounce as someone who gets by with the healthier —- and therefore socially beneficial -— 16 ounce cup.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teenagers and young adults consume more sugary drinks than any other age group. Per ounce taxation of sugary drinks provides an effective way to reduce one of the major contributors to obesity, while also protecting the right of consumers to indulge in sugary delight, and is better suited to tackle obesity than Bloomberg’s proposed ban.
J. Christopher Proctor is a Summer 2012 Paste BN Collegiate Correspondent. Learn more about him here.
This story originally appeared on the Paste BN College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017.