Have you seen the news about Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to make selling soda illegal in NYC? Today's guest post is from a reader who emailed me about this and was all riled up, so I knew she'd be just the person to tell you all about it. Thanks Kimberly!
I think I have always had a streak of rebellion running through my veins.
Yes, I have to keep that in check, but it has come in very handy at times. I find that I question everything. About five years ago, I found myself questioning why my kids needed to go to public school. As a public school teacher, you can imagine the backlash I got from that question. Yes, we homeschool now. And the questions didn’t stop there. When I was told that butter was evil and canola oil was good. I questioned it. Without realizing it, I was on the road to a real food diet – a very long and winding road…but I digress.
That brings us to the present. I am a news junkie, or so my husband says. (I will admit that a few times I have experienced withdrawal when on vacation and away from news sources, but don’t tell my husband.) So, currently I find myself questioning some things I’m hearing in the news.
I heard several months ago that the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, was proposing a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters, and the like. My first thought was, “Gosh, soda is so bad. It’s great that someone is putting that in the limelight.” Then the questioning side of me kicked in. Soda and sugary drinks are terrible, but should the government have that kind of power?
Should the government be able to tell people what they can and can’t put into their mouths?
Mayor Bloomberg had already banned the use of trans fats from New York City restaurants. That’s a good thing, right? It’s easy to sit back and say, “Hey, sugary drinks and trans fats are horrible. It doesn’t bother me.” After all, the NY Times reported that because of the ban, restaurants are changing the oils they use. “Wendy’s has switched to a soy-corn blend cooking oil”. I’m not sure what they used before, but as Kelly would tell you, that switch is not a good thing. And as scary as it all may sound, even if the policy was to be adopted nationwide, it still doesn’t really affect us real foodies.
But I had more questions – of course. Where does it stop?
If we allow government officials to tell us what we can and can’t put into our bodies, think about what could come of that down the road. “Experts” say butter isn’t good for us. Should we ban it? Should we mandate that restaurants only use soybean oil? Do we ban raw dairy completely? Instead of an outright ban, do we tax so-called unhealthy foods so much that people can’t afford them? Do you see where my brain went with this? I know my questions may sound irrational and improbable, but where, exactly, is the limit to the government’s control over our individual rights?
Just one day before the ban on sugary drinks was going to take effect, a judge overruled it.
Although I counted it as a victory, I was slightly disappointed when I heard why it was overruled. The judge overruled the ban because, to quote the New York Daily News, it had “too many exemptions and loopholes.” For example, certain establishments would not have to adhere to the ban, while restaurants and movie theaters would. Also, milkshakes were exempt, but sodas were banned. The judge also overruled the ban because (here is where I got excited) the city lacked the authority to ban sugary drinks. However, (less excited here) although the judge said the Board of Health, which is appointed by the mayor, doesn’t have the authority to issue the ban, he did say that such a ban would have to come from the city council. I know the judge said the ban was an overreach, but I would have been happier if he had said more clearly that such a ban was an infringement on the rights of the citizens of NYC.
Whether we are talking about an outright ban or the sneaky version, which is taxing something in order to limit the consumption of it, in my opinion, we are headed down a slippery slope.
Mayor Bloomberg feels that sugary sodas are bad, as are trans fats, and that people should exercise portion control. I couldn’t agree with him more. Where we differ is in the thinking that the government has the ability and the right to legislate such things. Once we ring the bell of allowing someone else to tell us what we can and can’t put in our bodies, can we un-ring it?
Will we sit silently by while sugar and trans fats are banned only to have them come after our butter, cream, coconut oil, or red meat next?
What do you think? What is the role of government when it comes to what we eat and drink?
Kimberly is a former public school teacher and currently a homeschooling mom of two boys. She lives on a farm with her husband and sons where they raise beef primarily, but also have goats, sheep, and chickens. She volunteers in children's ministry and lives in Iuka, IL, which is a tiny town in Southern Illinois.
Bloomberg photo and soda photo
Bobbiann says
Oh, you are so right! I completely agree; I’ve been thinking and talking about these very things for quite a few weeks now. I think it’s fine for the government to require labeling and warnings, but telling people what they are allowed to eat and drink is definitely infringing on human rights.
Jean says
Studying history is always a good idea when looking at current events. This ban sounds like Prohibition to me. I’m picturing “underground” fast food joints, where you need a password to enter, that serve large size sodas! Through Prohibition, we learned government bans do not keep people from partaking of the banned item, most of the time it just takes it behind closed doors. Cigarettes have plenty of warnings and taxes placed on them, but still people continue to smoke.
The founding fathers set up our government to be less controlling, not more, as they had just come out from under the control of England. Your freedom of choice may be different than mine, so who’s freedom is the one that the government chooses?
Free market economy works well, not the government, in creating supply and demand. Money talks. If people have to pay their own insurance, doctor and hospital bills they may begin to think about the choices they make, or they may get sick and die earlier. The government (with our money) should stop paying for people’s mistakes.
My opinion – I wouldn’t touch even a small soda or a cigarette with a 10 foot pole. But I do not believe the government has the responsibility or the right to choose for me.
Kimberly G says
I agree!
Becki says
The government should never make health decisions for us! They are clueless as to what is healthy. Look at all the “safe” food and drugs they approve. And it is taking away personal freedom which is totally opposite of what our country is built on. 🙂
Commenter via Facebook says
haven’t had a chance to read the article yet but all I can think about is when government/health care used to tell women that breastfeeding was bad. Are you kidding me?!??!! worst advice ever
Commenter via Facebook says
Why doesn’t the govt just outlaw the very companies that make the unhealthy crap in the first place? Oh–that’s right–because the companies are using govt subsidized crops to make the very crap that Bloomberg is screeching about. Govt telling us what choices we are allowed or not allowed to make regarding food is something I NEVER thought I would see in this country…
Commenter via Facebook says
But the point the well meaning like Adele miss is that government shouldn’t be in the “sick care” industry either. If people want to make unhealthy lifestyle decisions, let them deal with the consequences instead of demanding (at the point of the government controlled gun) that everyone else pays for their choices.
For the same reasons, I do NOT want the government to “Educate” instead of legislate. They do a pretty crappy job of that too (just think about the “food pyramid” or now “food plate”). And frankly, they legislate too much anyhow. As others have pointed out here, food labels are damn near useless – I prefer to buy food without labels at all!
Commenter via Facebook says
Will the ones giving the opinion be required to release the names of all the companies they have stock in…
Commenter via Facebook says
You mean the people who can’t figure out how to balance the budget? They probably can’t boil water without burning it!!!!
enniegibs says
I find it very interesting that you said you question everything. In a time like this, you HAVE too. All of our lives, we have been fed lies. Where is the truth? Who has the truth, So I came to the realization, that the PROPHETS had the truth. I can’t accept information from cnn, msn, cnbc, mtv on how to live. I cant accept from them the answer on how to raise my children. I cant accept from them about how I should dress or dress my children. The prophets came with the truth, they had revelation from God, so thats who I follow. I follow Moses, Abraham, Jesus, David , Muhammad-the last messenger who came with the final revelation. His revelation is complete and he came with the same message as all the prophets, Worship one God. In the end when the dirt is thrown over us, we will be questioned who is your Lord..How dare they say how can God ressurect me after this life, have they forgotten that they have already been assembled for this life? How hard is it for God to ressurect us? He has already created us…Seek truth, it will set you free and you will find that whatever passes you was never meant to touch you and whatever touches you was never meant to pass you.
Commenter via Facebook says
Love it, Kelly!
Commenter via Facebook says
Agreed Adele, that is an important distinction that is often overlooked in this debate.
Josh says
Say what you will about Bloombergs proposed ban, at least he is trying to do something about a big problem. Also, people keep saying it is not the governments job to tell me what I put in my body, and I agree, but that was not what this tax did. It did not keep people from drinking soda, but it prevented retailers from selling it in ridiculously large quantities. That is a big difference. Government should help prevent business, retailers, etc… from taking advantage of people and doing things that are bad for people all to make a little more. Is it really any different then laws which make sure cigarettes are labeled to make it clear how dangerous they are, or keep minors from purchasing them.
I wont say I fully support the law, but it really bothers me that people turn this into a battle about the government telling us what we can and cant put in out bodies. This is totally different from things like raw milk laws where a substance is actually illegal. This is an attempt at government trying to regulate retail, which is within its right, or at least should be if any of us actually believe there should be laws banning certain food dyes, or other dangerous items in our food.
Kimberly G says
I don’t think you give people enough credit. When made to think for ourselves, we can be pretty smart.
Josh says
I agree, but the the argument still stands. People are claiming this is an attempt at telling people what they can and can not put into their own bodies. I disagree. It was not what the law did. Rather it was a law about quantity and marketing. And yeah, many people can think for themselves, but that does not change the fact that marketing in general is a very deceptive practice that is meant to slowly chip away at people and often can work, especially when it comes to kids. I am not even necesarily saying this law was wise, but the point is that it was not targeting consumers and preventing them from drinking and or buying Soda. At the very least, this is one of the few governmental attempts I have seen that makes a stab at actually changing the public health in this country.
And yes, people can be very smart, but that does not negate a need for goverment and regulation. The question is where do we draw the line, and that is not always a clear decision. This country has a serious health problem that is a result of processed food and sugar, if a solution is not found it will simply continue to get worse. I agree that education would be best, but that alone may not work, especially when it will likely be considered controversial, and that politics are always going to come in and cloud the issue. At least this was an attempt at trying something.
Ernie says
You draw the line when the government tells you what you can or cannot consume. Period. I am well aware soda is bad for me, I do not consume it. If someone else wants to that’s their decision. Let’s ban certain books too because the viewpoint could be “unhealthy”. Sounds a bit like what happened in Nazi Germany. Government nutritional guidelines are incorrect anyway. You want these morons telling you what to eat? Nor should the government be able to regulate how much of something a retailer can sell.
Commenter via Facebook says
Uhhhhh…no.
Stacy says
I’m with Kimberly. Educate? Yes. Regulate? No.
Commenter via Facebook says
The government has no business in promoting, subsidizing, or prohibiting any food, business, or trade.
Commenter via Facebook says
I would have to say that Bloomberg was not outlawing sodas and sweet drinks but was controlling the size of the servings. Our nation has been involved in controlling many public health issues – take cigarette smoking for an example. The greatest cost to our medicare and medicaid systems is end of life dialysis which is done predominantly for diabetes patients. It is an issue that effects us all.
Wendy says
Yes, that is the problem though. As soon as the government starting paying for and subsidizing health care they opened the door to controling us. They also made the cost of health care go up for all of us. Yes it is frustrating that the taxpayers will be paying for diabetes care for people who drank too much sugar laden pop, but studies now show that diet pop is just as bad for diabetes. So who is to say what is bad or what is good? Hospitals and doctors have sliding scales for people who have trouble paying their medical expences. The govt. should not be in the business of health care. With the passage of the “affordable care act” we are no longer on a slippery slope we are already in the ditch!
Commenter via Facebook says
A government that allows GMOs and aspertame and other things into our food supply that are unhealthy should NOT have ANY control over what we choose to put on our tables.
Commenter via Facebook says
in some ways the government already does by subsidizing stuff like corn – so we can make cheap unhealthy calories – corn syrup – so all of us can be addicted to sugar – I wish they would get out of food AND my personal decisions. Perhaps they could subsidize grass feed meat and vegetables like broccoli, carrots, greens.
Commenter via Facebook says
no they should not tell us what to eat but I sure would like them to at least make it so we know (GMO) what is IN the stuff we are eating!
Zachary Nathoo says
genetically modified organism literally encompasses all living organisms. everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified and is organic cause it has carbon in it unless you eat lead or tin.
Commenter via Facebook says
Educate, not legislate.
Commenter via Facebook says
the government should get the heck out of my personal choices
Commenter via Facebook says
he should educate people not try and hilter them..
Eileen @ Phoenix Helix says
Your last point especially hits home. Remember Denmark’s fat tax, applied to foods which contained saturated fat (like meat and dairy)? Thankfully, after a year, they rescinded it. Given the US governments food pyramid (and lobbyist influence), if they decided to tax food groups, it would likely be the healing real foods I eat the most. Where does it stop, indeed.
Marcie says
The biggest problem is that by subsidizing the corn and soy industry, the government is already making it cheap and easy for people to consume junk food. Banning certain foods just puts a bandaid on the problem. End the subsidies!
Jill says
Super good point, Marcie! It’s hypocritical for the government to limit or ban the consumption of a substance they are pouring millions (or billions?) of tax payer dollars into artificially reducing the price of by subsidizing the crops that substance is made from! They can’t feed the junk food industry and then tell people not to eat junk food! Isn’t that like “creating criminals” and then “punishing them” for their “crimes”?
The government needs to get their paws out of agriculture, health, and food, and get on with the business of representing their constituents (rather than huge corporations) and running the country (and getting us out of debt).
Sher says
I have come to the point, that anything the gov’t wants to do that isn’t right I will just ignore! They have taken a dictatorship point of view so I DO NOT recognize them in that capacity!!!! It’s time for a revolution !!!!!!!!!!!!
Kimberly says
I’m ready!
jenny says
I totally agree. Very well said. Unfortunately, that bell has already been rung. From seatbelts and helmets to vaccines and drugs. It’s not about whether these things are good or bad for us… it is simply that we’ve already told the government that it is okay to make those decisions for all of us because of those who lack the common sense to do what is best for themselves. If they want to intervene, why not provide incentives and education to do the right things rather than dictate what we we can’t do?
leigh says
My dad’s former health insurance offered incentives for healthy living: he got shopping cards once a quarter or so based off his results. Our health ins. offers a discount on your premium if you sign up to track your health and take certain initiatives, but I don’t like the idea of my ins. knowing more about me than necessary.
Jen says
I totally agree! When my preemie son came home from the hospital 2 years ago, a nurse called from our insurance company and started asking questions. She was very nice, and the call was so unexpected, that I answered her questions. She was part of a “program” offered to “help” make sure our son got all the care he needed. Her questions hit on a variety of topics, such as how we were feeding him (breast milk), were we doing Synagis (we did one dose and regret it), and vaccines (no). She was shocked, and actually questioned our decision not to inject our less than 5 pound baby with HepB. Then she asked about our 3 year old, because she noticed that he had no claims. Even though it was relatively new insurance, I didn’t tell her he hadn’t been to the doctor since he was 6 months old. I guess my answers weren’t acceptable to her because then she questioned my health. When I told her I consider myself very healthy, she actually asked me how much i weigh!!! Her tone was snotty and condescending, like she didn’t believe me, and knowing my weight would tell her all she needed to know about whether I really was healthy or not. That’s when I got off the phone, and I was ANGRY. I realized it is NONE of their business what kind of health decisions we make for our son, and we certainly didn’t need her “help” in making them. When she veered into questions about other family members, I doubted the whole purpose of this “program”.
My poor husband had to listen to me rage about that call. My rage was probably made worse by the fact that my husband and I are both highly educated and experienced in science and medicine. Heck, I TAUGHT anatomy lab to nursing students back in the day. How dare she question our educated medical decisions regarding OUR children?!
I never answered another incoming call from our insurance company. I had to call them many time to deal with all the claims, and make sure they were processed correctly. It literally took a year to get everything straightened out and paid. They had to return my calls several times during that time period, but I always let them go to voice mail, and would call back if it was about claims. That “nurse” attempted many times to reach me, but I never got caught by her again. She eventually gave up.
Sorry for venting, but it still boils my blood to this day. 🙂
KitchenKop says
@ Jen, I got so worked up, my heart was racing just *reading* your story!!!!!!!
Feel free to vent here anytime. 🙂
Jill says
Our health insurance recently went up slightly because my husband’s cholesterol was considered “high”. When I double checked the ratio of his HDL by his total cholesterol numbers the percentage was well within normal parameters (I used guidlines on mercola.com, which say that dividing HDL by total cholesterol should ideally give you a percentage over 24%). I read that the vast majority (8 out of 9) on the panel who set the most recent maximum acceptable LDL levels had conflicts of interest because of financial ties to drug companies that make statins.
Jill says
I couldn’t agree more with Kimberly. It is in no way appropriate for the government to legislate our food and drink. The government was formed to serve the people, not to lord over them or treat them like children. The raw milk issue is an example of how the government has ALREADY far, far overstepped their bounds and why they need to shrink back to an appropriate size and reach of authority. In reality, every person is responsible for their own choices and removing choices from people (whether that be their food, drink, pharmaceutical use–think: vaccine mandates), etc… is criminal and hindering to the development of a healthy society made up of mature, responsible, healthy individuals and families. Some people will make poor choices, but, again, that is THEIR responsibility, and without the opportunity to educate themselves and make better choices (and choices require freedom or they are not really choices) they will remain in a state of irresponsibility and infancy.
Kimberly says
Amen!!
Kimberly says
I couldn’t agree more. Well said.
Peggy says
I have to confess that this riled me up as well. I’m anti-sin-tax as well, a position that many of my real food friends don’t understand. I mean, if soda is bad, let’s make it harder to get and use sin tax to fund programs to help people eat better! Yay! Except it doesn’t work that way. The money never ends up going where it is supposed to go, “sin” (unless Biblically defined) is in the eye of the taxer, cigarette taxes have proven that people will consume regardless of cost, and it’s none of the government’s business what choices I make at the store.
If a politician wants to make strides toward reducing obesity, how about a farm bill that makes sense? How about relieving the onerous regulations on family farmers and dismantling the systems that allow our food to be provided by seven international mega-corporations? Why not remove the subsidies on the truly unhealthy corn and soy crops and allow those prices the stabilization of the free market?
Kimberly says
Well said!!!
Kimberly G says
Agreed, but lets remove ALL government subsidies. If something can’t stand on its own two feet, it shouldn’t be produced. I also am NOT a fan of sin tax. Let people be independent, make their own choices, and pay for their own healthcare.
porcupine73 says
Interesting info. Right on the surface it almost seems like a good thing, but from there it is a very slippery slope. The government already oversteps its authority on other levels, and allowing this kind of control would only increase its reign. Next we’ll need a new government agency to oversee and enforce this program.