Reference no: EM133329949

Case Study 11.1 New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg drew the wrath of soda drinkers, beverage companies, fast-food chains, and other eating establishments when he spearheaded a ban on selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. The ban applies to restaurants, delis, movie theaters, ball-park concessions, and sidewalk carts, all of which are regulated by the city health department. The ban does not apply to grocery or convenience stores (which are not under the jurisdiction of the city health department) or to drinks, such as zero-calorie Vitamin Water, that have fewer than25 calories per 8-ounce serving. As a result, a customer at McDonald's receives a cup size of 16ounces or less but can return for refills. The same consumer can buy a 50-ounce Double Gulp at a7-Eleven store. The big soda ban is the latest in a series of public health initiatives by Mayor Bloomberg. Earlier Bloomberg initiated bans on smoking in restaurants and in parks, posting of calorie information on restaurant menus, a prohibition against artificial trans-fat in restaurant food, and are requirement that restaurants post their health inspection grades on their windows. Mayor Bloomberg believes banning super-sized drinks will help reduce obesity in a city where more than half of all adults are seriously overweight. According to Bloomberg, Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, "Oh this is terrible." New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do. Some citizens responded to the initiative by calling the mayor a "sugar Nazi" who wants to interfere with people's right to eat and drink what they choose. They point out that there is nothing to prevent someone with a 16-ounce cup from returning to get a refill. McDonald's tweeted that it trusted its customers to make their own choices. Critics also consider the ban as further evidence that the mayor is out to an intrusive "nanny state." One restaurant group ran ads depicting Bloomberg (seen in a dowdy dress with a scarf draped around his neck) as the "nanny." The ad copy reads, "You only thought you lived in the land of the free." The ban is supported by a number of public health experts and organizations. Supporters note that poor consumer choices have contributed to $192 billion a year in medical costs for obesity-related illness. Everyone ends up paying for this care through Medicare, Medicaid, and higher health insurance premiums. Health researchers point out that when served more, Americans consume more, which means that the ban is likely to reduce calorie consumption. Proponents of the ban point out that this is just the latest in a series of mandates that promote health care in the United States. Previous mandates, which are generally widely accepted, include childhood vac-cines, seat belt laws, and taxes on cigarettes. All of these regulations have improved health and saved lives. (Note: A state court judge struck down the ban in March 2013.)

Discussion Questions 1. If put to a vote, do you think New Yorkers would vote to support this ban? Why or why not?

2. Would being forced to drink small portions reduce your consumption of soda?

3. Do you think the ban will succeed in reducing obesity? Why or why not?

4. How much responsibility should government officials take for the health of citizens? Does the mayor's initiative go too far?

5. Does this restriction violate individual freedom?

6. Is New York City in danger of becoming a "nanny state?"

7. Do you support a ban on large sugary drinks? Why or why not?