The Politics of Public Health Policy: Soda Ban

In 2012, the New York City Board of Health passed a regulation called the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule which prohibits sales of sugar-sweetened drinks in containers above 16 fluid ounces in the city’s food establishments. This was intended to limit the alarming rise of obesity which was believed to be positively correlated with the increase of sugary drinks consumption. However, the beverage industry and numerous vendors sued the city, arguing that the board had overstepped its authority. In 2014, the State Supreme Court sided against the board and negated the regulation. 

Opponents of the Soda Ban had proposed various arguments against the policy. One of the most common ones stated that the regulation would not be effective because “there is no evidence the policy will change consumer behavior or affect obesity” (Roberto) as proven by the failures of many similar food policies in the past. Along the same line, they believe because the policy could only target certain food establishments such as small-businesses and city-regulated restaurants, people will either just buy multiple sugary drinks, go to chain stores that are not affected by the policy, or even switch to other beverages such as alcohol. Those who were against the regulation suggested that instead of limiting serving sizes of sugary drinks, the government should enforce a more aggressive approach, such as increasing taxes and implementing zoning laws to the manufacturers involved. 

The assumption that the Soda Ban policy will not work because of past experiences alone should not be detrimental in deciding the validity of the regulation. This is because the policy is based on a strong scientific rationale. According to a survey done by American Journal of Public Health, “142 people revealed that 37% felt restaurant portions were usually too large. In another survey, 62% of the respondents reported that they would select a “downsized” portion option for a small discount” (Roberto). Therefore, limiting the size of sugary drinks is a solution for consumers who want smaller portions without restricting choices for those who want larger amounts. 

Certainly, there is an obligation to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness and possible unintended consequences such as people buying multiple drinks or other beverages like alcohol. However, this assessment cannot  be done if the policy is not implemented. Hence, considering the surveys, opponents’ suggestion for a stronger program, as well as concerns regarding the policy’s repercussions, the government should first implement this policy in a small-scale pilot test. Additionally, instead of just testing the Soda Ban, the government should at the same time enforce other public health strategies such as increasing sugary drink taxes, menu improvement in School Breakfast/Lunch Program and restaurant calorie-labeling. Implementing a holistic set of programs is not only in accordance with the opponents’ advice, but also can be perceived as a more effective approach to improve population’s health for there will be multiple safeguards to ensure a balanced consumption. The perception that Soda Ban is a part of a larger intervention to combat obesity, instead of an isolated or random regulation is very crucial because it can now be regarded as an integral component of a progressive movement for an overdue public health problem. 

Another opposing argument against the proposed regulation stated that the policy will place low-income families who share large sugary drinks to save money at a disadvantage. However, when we are thinking of potentially putting these families at a financial disadvantage, we should also consider the health and potential financial benefits of Soda Ban. Soda Ban can act as a powerful agent for these families to cut down a couple of fluid ounces of sugary drinks per day, which will decrease their risk of obesity and potentially spare some money usually used to buy sugary drinks for something more substantial. 

References:

Barnhill, Anne. “Impact and Ethics of Excluding Sweetened Beverages from the SNAP Program.” American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, Nov. 2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222381/. 

Roberto, Christina A, and Jennifer L Pomeranz. “Public Health and Legal Arguments in Favor of a Policy to Cap the Portion Sizes of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages.” American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, Nov. 2015,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605196/#!po=15.9091