Soda Ban In America Research Paper

Question 1 - In her article Nadia Arumugam acknowledges some of the counter arguments to her own claim. She admits that the ban does not prevent customers from buying two cans of soda if they wanted, it only forbids “food services establishments regulated by the city” to sell sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces. Through his art, the creator of the cartoon Dave Granlund demonstrates his position on the soda ban by questioning its effectiveness. He would likely disagree with the Nadia Aruguman because if someone wants to drink more than 16 ounces, he can and he will most probably do so.

In many households, these options are the only options to eat at all. Taxing soda is only a gateway into placing a sin tax on many other unhealthy products and this will have a detrimental effect on low income families that rely on cheap, fast, easy processed food to eat. A better option to combat obesity and diabetes would be to make healthy options more accessible to the average home. There is no reason that eating organic can cost almost twice as much as eating non-organic. There is no reason that a burger costs a dollar when a salad costs five. If instead of focusing on making more profit off of taxing soda, and more focus was placed on making fresh meats, produce, and dairy accessible, the demand for unhealthy products will naturally decrease without damaging low income households. Gorman touches on this briefly by saying, “[t]he biggest solution is to encourage and support people to drink water instead of sugar.” (Gorman) Just the act of encouraging people to make healthy choices could make a world of difference, but instead the advertising markets are dominated by big cooperate soda companies. A balance of public announcements about healthy options could help knock down the consumption of

First of all, I do not think that this Big-Soda Ban will work in the long run. One set back of Mr. Bloomberg’s ban is that it only applies to portion size and not how many portions. So, if you are not satisfied with your 16oz drink you can just go and get another refill. Also, many restaurants offer free refills, so how much of a ban is it really? Although I will say this, according to a study

How is this plain old bubbly drink, soda, such a huge controversy in New York? The new soda ban is the answer. Soda isn't being banned completely. But at many of your favorite food places the maximum amount of soda that is allowed to be purchased is a 16 ounce cup. Back and forth, is this a good thing or bad? Believe it or not the soda ban will actually be beneficial to a serious and fatal health problem you yourself might not even know that you or somebody close to you is suffering from. This extreme health issue is known as obesity and more than 1/3rd of our population is suffering from it today. Dr. Joel A. Forman, a board member and professor of medicine has been quoted saying "I can't imagine the board not acting on another problem that

Their advertisement proclaimed that all they wanted to do was “protect their Freedom of Choice.” “This is New York City; no one tells us what neighborhood to live in or what team to root for,” says the narrator, as Yankees and Mets fans shout in the background. (Grynbaum, 2012). Since May 30 when Bloomberg wanted to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16 ounces in regulated food establishments such as movie theaters and sport arenas. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, recommended there be a federal study linking together sugary beverages and obesity. “The talking points are ‘Nanny State,’ that it won’t work, because people will just buy as much as they ever would, and that this disproportionately hurts the poor,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. (Grynbaum, 2012). People that are not middle or low class would buy as much soda as they wanted and the rest of the people would be stuck with whatever drink is leftover. The lower class minority groups seem to always get the shorter end of the stick and in most cases unless a big group of them get together their voices will not be heard. The mayor or the city council should not have the right to tell you what size soda to drink or what kind of soda to drink; We live in The United States of America and there is no law that says anything about a specific size or flavor of soda so until that day comes nobody should

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

On October 11th, 2016 Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago passed a one cent per ounce soda tax. Due to a lawsuit by the Illinois Merchant Association the new law did not even come into effect until August 2nd 2017. Now, due to a repeal, the law will cease to be in effect by December 1st, giving this law an effective life of about four months. The tax seems a no brainer with about 25% of United States boys and girls suffering from obesity. However the law had two major shortcomings. First, it had a bad start due to a poor implementation of the tax, since the tax was originally levied on producers instead of at the point of sale. This caused what is known as a double tax situation, soda companies were being charged two taxes in

2 Obviously, it’s not about soda. It’s because such a ban suggests that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and this has become, in contemporary American politics, highly controversial, no matter how trivial the particular issue. (Large cups of soda as symbols of human dignity? Really?)

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, believes that the way to do that is to have the government step in. He brought up this ban to prevent the “obesity epidemic” from worsening in New York, as he believes it as his obligation to keep the people “from harming themselves” (Tobin, galesgroup.com). He hopes that the ban will spread throughout the rest of the country to diminish the extra weight carried on American ground. But whether or not soda causes people to gain weight, is beside the point in this situation, because what the mayor does not understand is that it is still taking basic rights of the people away. People also claim that drinking this large amount of soda is no better than smoking, something the government can prohibit, so the mayor has a right to the ban because sugary beverages are dangerous to public health, just as are drinking and smoking (Tobin, galegroup.com). However, consuming pop is dangerous to the individual doing it, but only to the individual, whereas smoking around others is harmful to them, too, and driving drunk is dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians, hence “public safety”. Drinking too much sugar is not a concern to public safety because it does not refer to the public being in danger of another person’s actions. But the mayor uses a different definition to make it his excuse. Another argument of the backers for the act, argue the significance of the obesity problem. As of 2012, sixteen percent of America’s most urgent health problems were obesity (Diet, infobaselearning.com). Nevertheless, even though obesity is a growing problem and it is not going to go away on its own, this is not the way to go about lessening the situation. These complications are not going to get simpler without giving attention to the other factors of being

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

Soda banning is one of the uttermost debatable and controversial topics in the country. One of the questions that people are asking is should soda be banned? The soda ban is the best way to go to eradicate obesity in the country. It will lower the risks for diabetes, cancer, and death. If we banned it, we will save people from the ramifications of their health. More importantly, the economy could increase and create numerous jobs for out of work people. However, if the ban does happen diet soda won’t be a part of the ban even though it consists of a dangerous chemical, aspartame. Furthermore, if we banned it, we might be taking away a citizen's right to drink whatever they crave whenever they please. That being the case, the biggest

According to “New York Soft Drink Size Limit”, recently in New York City the limit on the 16 ounce sugary drinks law passed. As of March 12, 2013, eight members of the New York City council approved this law to prohibit more than 16 ounces per beverage. This encounter to ban soppy drinks is supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The law prohibits, fast food restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadiums, and gas stations to sell sugary drinks

Short stories have been told for centuries to teach valuable lessons, to pass down history and culture and to entertain. It is fascinating to analyze all of the examples of writer’s craft and literary elements and see how they make a decent story extravagant. Both Lamb to the Slaughter and The lady or the Tiger used literary elements in important ways, but Lamb to the Slaughter was more effective in its use and enhanced the story more with its use of literary elements and writer’s craft.