New York’s Soda Size Limit and Public Health

07 Feb, 2013

Guest Post by Marion Nestle

New York City soda adHere’s my monthly (first Sunday) Food Matters col­umn from the San Francisco Chronicle. The ques­tion (edited) came from a reader of this blog.

Q: You view New York City’s cap on any soda larger than 16 ounces as good for pub­lic health. I don’t care if sodas are bad for us. The ques­tion is “Whose choice is it?” And what role should the nanny state play in this issue?

A: Your ques­tion comes up at a time when the New York State Supreme Court is hear­ing argu­ments about whether New York City’s health depart­ment has the right to estab­lish a limit on soda sizes.

As an advo­cate for pub­lic health, I think a soda cap makes sense. Sixteen ounces pro­vides two full serv­ings, about 50 grams of sug­ars, and 200 calories—10 per­cent of daily calo­ries for some­one who con­sumes 2,000 calo­ries a day.

That’s a gen­er­ous amount. In the 1950s, Coca-Cola adver­tised this size as large enough to serve three people.

You may not care whether sodas are bad for health, but plenty of other peo­ple do. These include, among oth­ers, offi­cials who must spend tax­payer dol­lars to care for the health of peo­ple with obesity-related chronic ill­nesses, employ­ers deal­ing with a chron­i­cally ill work­force, the par­ents and teach­ers of over­weight chil­dren, den­tists who treat tooth decay, and a mil­i­tary des­per­ate for recruits who can meet fitness standards.

Poor health is much more than an indi­vid­ual, per­sonal prob­lem. If you are ill, your ill­ness has con­se­quences for others.

That is where pub­lic health mea­sures come in. The clos­est anal­ogy is food for­ti­fi­ca­tion. You have to eat vit­a­mins and iron with your bread and cere­als whether you want to or not. You have to wear seat belts in a car and a hel­met on a motor­cy­cle. You can’t drive much over the speed limit or under the influ­ence. You can’t smoke in public places.

Would you leave it up to indi­vid­u­als to do as they please in these instances regard­less of the effects of their choices on them­selves, other peo­ple and soci­ety? Haven’t these “nanny state” mea­sures, as you call them, made life health­ier and safer for everyone?

All the soda cap is designed to do is to make the default food choice the health­ier choice. This isn’t about denial of choice. If you want more than 16 ounces, no gov­ern­ment offi­cial is stop­ping you from order­ing as many of those sizes as you like.

What trou­bles me about the freedom-to-choose, nanny-state argu­ment is that it deflects atten­tion from the real issue: the fero­cious efforts of the soda indus­try to pro­tect sales of its prod­ucts at any mon­e­tary or social cost.

The law­suit against the soda cap is a per­fect exam­ple. It is funded by the American Beverage Association, the trade asso­ci­a­tion for Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and other soft-drink com­pa­nies, at what must be astronomical expense.

To con­fuse the pub­lic about cor­po­rate prof­its as a motive, the bev­er­age asso­ci­a­tion enlisted two dis­tin­guished civil rights groups—the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation—to file an ami­cus brief on behalf of its lawsuit.

Never mind that the obe­sity rate for the com­mu­ni­ties these groups rep­re­sent is con­sid­er­ably higher than aver­age in New York City, and that these neigh­bor­hoods would ben­e­fit most from the soda cap. The ami­cus brief argues that the soda cap dis­crim­i­nates against them.

The brief, how­ever, neglects to men­tion that both ami­cus groups received large dona­tions from soda com­pa­nies and that the NAACP in par­tic­u­lar has a long his­tory of part­ner­ship with Coca-Cola.

Financial arrange­ments between soda com­pa­nies and osten­si­bly inde­pen­dent groups demand scrutiny. National and local reporters—bless them—have done just that.

They report, among other con­nec­tions, that one of the law firms work­ing for Coca-Cola wrote the ami­cus brief, and that a for­mer pres­i­dent of the Hispanic Federation just took a job with that company.

Last fall, the East Bay Express exposed how the soda indus­try exploited race issues to divide the elec­torate and defeat the Measure N soda tax ini­tia­tive in Richmond. It revealed that the bev­er­age asso­ci­a­tion not only paid for the suc­cess­ful “grass­roots” cam­paign against Measure N but also encour­aged views of the soda tax as racist.

Driven by this expe­ri­ence, the soda indus­try is repeat­ing this tac­tic in New York City.

Is a cap on soda sizes dis­crim­i­na­tory against groups work­ing for civil rights? Not a chance.

Public health mea­sures are about alle­vi­at­ing health dis­par­i­ties and giv­ing every­one equal access to healthy diets and lifestyles. This makes pub­lic health—and ini­tia­tives like the soda cap—broadly inclu­sive and democratic.

If any­thing is unde­mo­c­ra­tic and elit­ist, it is suing New York City over the soda cap.

In fund­ing this law­suit, the soda indus­try has made it clear that it will go to any length to pro­tect its prof­its, even if it means dis­cred­it­ing the groups that would most ben­e­fit from this rather benign pub­lic health initiative.

Marion Nestle is Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health (the depart­ment she chaired from 1988-2003) and Professor of Sociology at New York University.

Twitter 

GD Star Rating
load­ing...
GD Star Rating
load­ing...
New York's Soda Size Limit and Public Health, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

About the author

Related Posts

  • http://twitter.com/Squishablebaby Lisa Nelson

    I can see the point of this – but I really don’t get it. If some­one wants more, can’t they just go buy another one? Please explain this to me because my tiny brain just can’t wrap itself around this.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • http://www.facebook.com/georgia.view Georgia View

    This argu­ment pre­sup­poses that the state cares about my health and the mega-corporations do not; in truth, a sym­bi­otic rela­tion­ship has formed with a ‘cor­po­rate state’ behe­moth now mak­ing all of the rules. One case in point– the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal industry’s cozy rela­tion­ship to FDA and the mass drug­ging of the American peo­ple (infant to elderly) with psy­chi­atric meds *known* to cause great harm; this the state encour­ages, cast­ing an ever-widening net in spite of the resul­tant (and pre­dictable) increased rates of sui­cide and mass homi­cide. Yet it dares to assume a man­tle of ‘moral author­ity’ over our col­lec­tive health by lim­it­ing the amount of *soda* consumed??

    (the pre­vi­ous com­men­tor points out the shere ridicu­lous­ness of state lim­its on bev­er­age size by not­ing that any­one is able to but more than one…).

    Stop the mad­ness. Encourage indi­vid­u­als to learn more, and to take more responsibility.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • http://www.facebook.com/georgia.view Georgia View

    ^ *buy (not ‘but’)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    GD Star Rating
    loading...
QR Code Business Card