Share
Has George Orwell’s 1984 become a reality? Is America officially a “Nanny” state? These are the questions pondered by some experts and pundits after New York City’s Michael Bloomberg announced his plan to restrict servings of soda to only 16 ounces.
The plan to ban, which will forbid the sale of any soda over 16 oz. at restaurants, sporting events, and other venues has become a battleground for opinions on the government’s role in citizens lifestyle choices. Although this legislation is faulty and highly intrusive, it is ultimately a step in the right direction towards resolving a supersized policy problem that is literally eating away at our nation’s health and finances.
Bloomberg’s arrangement is a flawed one to say the least, and I’m glad people like John Stewart are mocking this proposal. There are so many loopholes that it reminds me of Swiss cheese. New York City doesn’t control grocery and convenience stores, therefore the legislation will be unable to stop the sale of the monstrous 7-Eleven 32 oz. Big Gulp, bottomless free refills or ultimately the will of a soda-deprived addict.
Furthermore, I understand the libertarian in each of us is crying out. It’s as if someone told me I couldn’t have more than three glasses of chocolate milk from D2. People are right to complain that the government is intervening in our civil freedoms, our ability to consume whatever we please.
Yet the government has been doing this for quite some time in the name of the public’s interest. Think of the restrictions on alcohol consumption, age limits on smoking, etc. Drunk driving and lung disease do not compare to the harm sugar is doing to our country. For decades the government has prided itself on its ability to stop Americans from hurting themselves and the next stop in this process is food and drink, whether we like it or not.
The CDC reports nearly a third of adult Americans and 17 percent aof children are obese, moreover studies have shown that consumption of sugary drinks is a direct factor in weight gain. And with great obesity comes great diseases like diabetes and heart disease – the leading cause of death in America. The reeling effect of obesity affects all Americans, healthy or not, we pay higher insurance premiums and are forced to dedicate larger parts of our national budget to entitlement expenditures like Medicare and Medicaid.
In a country where it is still socially acceptable to have gigantic portions and all-you-can-eat fantasies, Bloomberg is innovating by using the timeless tale of portion control to do what government does best: banning stuff.
The science is coming out of the woodwork depicting why portioning on soda pop is the next step in banning our obesity epidemic. The case against sugary beverages lays in the theory that your body reacts to drinks differently than solid food. In his case for the ban, Bloomberg states that studies have shown people can be given larger portions and will consume it without noticing the caloric amount, which will not register the need for a reduction in calories at a subsequent meal.
This reminds me of when you have large-sized bag of chips, you can consciously or sub-consciously eat the whole bag without even noticing your bulging belly. Same goes for soda yet you’re still able to eat a full dinner after knocking down a 32 oz. Big Gulp.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily consumption of no more than 45 grams of free sugar, however many people don’t know that by drinking one Big Gulp they are actually consuming 91 grams of sugar. Often we don’t recognize the harm that comes from humongous portions and serious caloric intake of drinking big soda. Regulation of our portions may be the best way to fight obesity in the future.
Its cliché to say idioms like "bigger is not always better" or "your eyes are bigger than your stomach." But in this day and age, these can be kind words of wisdom.
A version of this article appeared in the Jun 14 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 15 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
So your position is that it's wrong for the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat. But it's ok because they've been doing it for a long time?
I've got news for you....people are free to be as stupid as they wish (and it shows) as long as they are not depriving anyone else of life, liberty, property, or their pursuit of happiness. There isn't any valid justification for a government entity to tell a restaurant owner he can't serve unhealthy food.
If it were ok for the government to ban things that might be detrimental to our well-being, then it could very well ban the writing of such poorly argued positions. Somebody could read this, and immediately be dumber. Long-term exposure to such nonsense could be even more damaging.
Reply to this Top
There isn't any valid justification? What about healthcare costs, obesity rates, scientifc validity to excessive sugar causing weight gain. Being obese because of the supersized food our society champions, does inhibit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Govt. will restrict things in the name of the public's interest...the comparison to alcohol and smoking is fair.
Reply to this Top
You still don't get it.
You have every right to limit your OWN life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness (whether by over-eating, smoking, cliff diving, snake wrangling, etc.). But you (or the government) have NO right to limit that of someone else - whether you think it is "better" for them or not. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, but it seems to escape many people out there.
Top
"But you (or the government) have NO right to limit that of someone else - whether you think it is "better" for them or not."
You make a valid point, but what world do we live in? A world where the government DOES limit what people do, whether you like it or not. Libertarians haven't taken over the government yet..or am I wrong?
Top
Well said Hokie 01!..I for one am utterly sick of government dictating every aspect of our lives. It is more or less irrefutable that exercise is good for people. Yet should the government MANDATE that we all walk 3 miles or more per day? And fine us if we miss out? It is already nuts now with the endless regulation and getting worse because the brainwashed youth seem to think government has better answers than individuals. Look, we are all going to die..of something. And it may cost a lot in the end whether you are 50 years old or 90. That 50 year old who died from diabetes may SAVE 'society' a lot of money by dying young, that is the sad fact. Let people make their own decisions as much as possible!
Reply to this Top
there are age limits on smoking?
Reply to this Top
Hokie01, I understand what you're saying. As an Independent voter, and a libertarian, I think this is a prime example of government overstepping its bounds. And I don't think this is going to do anything to the obesity problem in our country. But the lack of exercise and unhealthy eating DOES affect us all, in the form of climbing health insurance costs. About 50% of the healthcare costs in this country is due to important procedures such as angioplasties, stents, and coronary procedures, many of which can be linked to the unhealthy habits of so many people in our country. Do you want to pay for every diabetic who doesn't give a crap about what he eats or drinks, even though he is months away from death, and the procedures they perform on him are just extending a life that's pretty much gone already? The same argument can be made about smoking, and any other vice people may partake in, which is why I don't agree with this legislation. But I do understand the opposing argument from a financial standpoint.
Reply to this Top
I understand that it is the current reality (which is horribly unfortunate). But now I'm really going to upset people. If you make the conscious decision to drink two Big-Gulps for breakfast, eat a pound of chicken wings for lunch, then smoke a pack of Kools for dinner every day, and you end up on a surgical table getting sliced and diced.....then pay for your expensive surgery and rehab up front....or die. This nonsense that health care is some basic human right is just one more problem, not a valid argument for government control. Claiming a right to health care is claiming a right to the work and resources of another human being....no such right exists.
The reasons that health care costs are so high are 1) intrusive government regulations that limit your choices, while discouraging truly talented professionals from becoming doctors, and 2) The fact that billions of dollars in services are provided for "free" every year to people that simply made lousy life decisions, but refuse to deal with the consequences (and for some reason, we allow this). Those costs get passed along to responsible consumers. Make people accountable for their bad choices, and let them reap the rewards of their good ones - that's all I ask.
Reply to this Top
From what I've read, sugary soda sales are actually down -- diet sodas, bottled juices, water, and energy drinks are more popular now. And does this ban pertain only to "soft drinks?" Can someone still order a Big Gulp size of juice (from concentrate), sweetened with sugar or corn syrup?
Reply to this Top
Diet sodas are just as bad, many juices are mostly sugar water and some vitamins, and energy drinks? Basically just as bad as soda. These are not indicative of people making better choices.
Reply to this Top
Hokie01, I couldn't agree with you more. The politically correct viewpoint is that people should never be held accountable for the choices they make. No, they are to be pitied and sheltered, and with your money. Soda today, tomorrow what? "Oh well, I guess banning triple whoppers is a step in the right direction. Oh well, I guess banning pizzas larger than 16" inches is a step in the right direction. Oh well, I guess we can all live without processed meats." The government derives its power from the people. What shall we be? Kings and queens of the government, or sheep who do whatever they're told?
Reply to this Top
Admiring the hard work you put into your blog and in depth information you offer. It's great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same old rehashed information. Excellent read! I've saved your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
north face jackets clearance http://cheapwomensdenalinorthfacejackets.webmium.com/home
Reply to this Top
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My blog is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Cheers!
cheap north face coats http://mensnorthfacetshirt.blogbaker.com/2012/10/31/north-face-jackets-on-sale-guys-1351752003
Reply to this Top
Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog site is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would genuinely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thanks!
Nike NFL Jerseys 2012 http://www.asojerseys.com/
Reply to this Top
Nice and very informative and interesting post . I really enjoyed this article.
<a href="http://www.allwritingsource.co.uk/dissertation-help.php">Help With Dissertation UK</a>||<a href="http://www.allwritingsource.co.uk/essay-help.php">Essays Help Online</a>
Reply to this Top