Are large sugary drinks a health risk or a civil rights concern? That’s the debate set off by New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg to restrict the sale of sodas and other sugar sweetened beverages to 16 ounces or less. Although this debate really didn’t come about until last year, it has recently resurfaced when other states such as Mississippi are making it known that they are going against Bloomberg’s decision. Beverage companies, their advocacy groups and some consumers strongly object to the ban. Aside from the obvious reason that it will cut into profits, they claim it will limit choice and amounts to “nanny state” policing of personal nutrition. Just this month judge in New York City ruled that the city’s board of health exceeded its authority last year when it limited sodas to 16 ounces. The judge gave several reasons, but here’s the one most likely to affect your life: The government can’t control lifestyle diseases the way it controls infectious epidemics. Although Bloomberg is just trying to do what he feels best for the people, many think that he is stepping out of his zone of patrol. The soda-size limit, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls a “portion cap,” never went through the city council. Bloomberg imposed it unilaterally last September through his board of health. The city council has complaints that controlling drink sizes “is not the government’s role.” However Bloomberg seemed to ignore such complaints in enforcing such act. Obesity among the country is an ever growing problem, however many believe that this law isn’t going to prevent that. Several individuals argue that Bloomberg needs to focus on more efficient ways to help his people fight the obesity epidemic, in a way that appeals to all, especially his own city council.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/us/mississippi-anti-bloomberg-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_c1