Supersized Sodas and Freedom
Published in Siglo 21
(Guatemala) on 17 March 2013
by W. Javier Zepeda (link to original)
How would you feel if the government decided what you could and couldn’t eat? What would you think if your dining options were reduced overnight just because some civil servant took it upon himself to regulate everybody’s dietary habits? It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But it was about to become a reality for the people of New York after Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s drive to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.
The measure was approved at the end of 2012 by the New York Department of Health (what a surprise, given that the members of the department were named by Bloomberg himself) and was supposed to go into effect on March 12, 2013. But on Monday, March 11, Judge Milton Tingling stepped in to dash Bloomberg’s plans. Tingling blocked the ban, declaring it “arbitrary and capricious.”
The judge’s decision sets an important precedent regarding the separation of powers. Instead of turning to the New York City Council, with which he had already clashed on this type of issue, Bloomberg turned to the indulgent and obliging Department of Health. However, because the ban was also a legal matter, Tingling responded with a reminder that it was up to the legislative branch to settle the matter. In doing so, he put a stop to this attack on individual freedom.
The ban is arbitrary and capricious because it only prohibits certain sugary drinks and the criteria lack clear logic. While sodas and energy drinks fall afoul of the law, lattes and milkshakes containing astronomical levels of sugar are okay. Regulation on the types of establishments that are subject to the ban is also arbitrary. Restaurants, stadiums, movie theaters and highway rest stops have to pull supersized sodas from their shelves, whereas convenience stores like 7-Eleven can sell sugary drinks in sizes up to a gallon if they want. Thus the competition becomes unfair.
Bloomberg is known for having a strange obsession with making decisions in the name of the people. To see it in action, one only has to look at other laws he has passed with this same aim. Who knows what makes him think he is capable of making decisions for others? “New Yorkers Need A Mayor, Not A Nanny,” read an advertisement in The New York Times funded by an association that promotes individual responsibility and freedom of consumer choice.
That’s the problem: This ban ignores the fact that it is the people’s responsibility to make their own decisions on questions of health. Instead, the ban places responsibility on the establishments that sell sugary drinks, as though they are to blame for the extra pounds that consumers have been accumulating. What’s more, given the amount of alternatives on the market and consumers’ lack of exercise and affinity for fatty foods, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would have any positive impact on the city’s waistlines.
This should open our eyes to cherish our freedom and protect it from attacks, even those that come disguised as “good intentions.”
The measure was approved at the end of 2012 by the New York Department of Health (what a surprise, given that the members of the department were named by Bloomberg himself) and was supposed to go into effect on March 12, 2013. But on Monday, March 11, Judge Milton Tingling stepped in to dash Bloomberg’s plans. Tingling blocked the ban, declaring it “arbitrary and capricious.”
The judge’s decision sets an important precedent regarding the separation of powers. Instead of turning to the New York City Council, with which he had already clashed on this type of issue, Bloomberg turned to the indulgent and obliging Department of Health. However, because the ban was also a legal matter, Tingling responded with a reminder that it was up to the legislative branch to settle the matter. In doing so, he put a stop to this attack on individual freedom.
The ban is arbitrary and capricious because it only prohibits certain sugary drinks and the criteria lack clear logic. While sodas and energy drinks fall afoul of the law, lattes and milkshakes containing astronomical levels of sugar are okay. Regulation on the types of establishments that are subject to the ban is also arbitrary. Restaurants, stadiums, movie theaters and highway rest stops have to pull supersized sodas from their shelves, whereas convenience stores like 7-Eleven can sell sugary drinks in sizes up to a gallon if they want. Thus the competition becomes unfair.
Bloomberg is known for having a strange obsession with making decisions in the name of the people. To see it in action, one only has to look at other laws he has passed with this same aim. Who knows what makes him think he is capable of making decisions for others? “New Yorkers Need A Mayor, Not A Nanny,” read an advertisement in The New York Times funded by an association that promotes individual responsibility and freedom of consumer choice.
That’s the problem: This ban ignores the fact that it is the people’s responsibility to make their own decisions on questions of health. Instead, the ban places responsibility on the establishments that sell sugary drinks, as though they are to blame for the extra pounds that consumers have been accumulating. What’s more, given the amount of alternatives on the market and consumers’ lack of exercise and affinity for fatty foods, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would have any positive impact on the city’s waistlines.
This should open our eyes to cherish our freedom and protect it from attacks, even those that come disguised as “good intentions.”