When Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City Department of Health limited the size of sodas and other sugary drinks that could be sold to sixteen ounces, there was an outcry from many convenience stores, grocery stores, restaurants, and food outlets who felt this would impact their business negatively. It was particularly true of minority-owned establishments and was also opposed by many minority legislators. This was in spite of the fact that the health benefits would go disproportionately to minority children. Bloomberg was assailed as trying to be a “big brother” to everyone, determining what they could and could not eat and drink.
Then, a year and a half ago, a judge struck down the ban on the drink restrictions, saying they were “arbitrary and capricious” and beyond the purview of the Department of Health. Last week, the judge’s ruling was upheld by an appeals court that said it exceeded the scope of the Department of Health’s regulatory ability and should be decided by a legislative body- in this case the New York City Council. However, more than thirty of the fifty-one members of the Council had announced their opposition to the ban, so it appeared that it was dead.
Neither the courts nor the Council members seem willing to stand behind a measure that would improve the health of New York City’s residents, cutting down on obesity, diabetes, strokes and heart attacks. Obviously, large sodas are only a part of the equation needed to improve health, but a good start. However, the City Council members succumbed to the lobbyists fighting against the ban, unwilling to take on the fast food restaurant industry and grocery store owners.
In addition to worsening the health of those who imbibe the large size sugary drinks, throwing out the ban also means that health care costs will be rising as health insurance will be more expensive for children and adults who are obese or have diabetes. Will the judges who curbed the ban or the City Council members who refuse to re-establish it pay for the increase in health care costs, or will that fall to society in general as is usually the case when the judiciary or legislative bodies do something stupid?
Other Department of Health measures under Bloomberg that would appear to be equally arbitrary and capricious have been left in place by the courts, including banning smoking in bars, restaurants, and parks, curbing trans fats, and requiring restaurants to post calorie counts for the foods they are selling.
If the City Council does not want to limit the size of sugary drinks, another approach would be to increase taxes on them to make them inordinately expensive, as has been happening with cigarettes. Increases in the price of these drinks might stop children from buying them so often, as they would not be able to afford the costs. However, this means the Council would have to take on the same lobbyists and industries that were opposed to size limitations on sugary drinks, an unlikely scenario.
It is true that obesity and health problems can’t be legislated out of existence, but increasing the cost of sugary drinks and other unhealthy foods would certainly be helpful. Shouldn’t government at all levels be playing that role?
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Political junkie, Vietnam vet, neurologist- three books on aging and dementia. Book on health care reform in 2009- Shock Therapy for the American Health Care System. Book on the need for a centrist third party- Resurrecting Democracy- A Citizen’s Call for a Centrist Third Party published in 2011. Aging Wisely, published in August 2014 by Rowman and Littlefield. Latest book- The Uninformed Voter published May 2020