Recently, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proposed a prohibition on sugar drinks larger than 32 ounces. My first thought was . . . NANNY STATE - I don't need no government bureaucrat telling me what to eat or drink. I still feel the same way.
Later, I read Mayor Bloomberg's reasoning that obesity was driving up his health care expenses, which he was trying to control. As it is now, an irresponsible consumer of sugar (or alcohol or tobacco) becomes a burden on either the taxpayers or other policy holders or both. Why should I pay the obesity-related healthcare costs for people who eat sugar carelessly?
On a short road trip this weekend, I was in a convenience store, standing in line behind a mother with two kids. Those kids each wanted a 12-oz bottle of sugar water (Coke) plus a bag of some candy I never heard of. In fact, they were insistent that they NEEDED the sugar water and candy, AND they NEEDED that particular type of sugar water and candy.
Even though it is considered cute in our culture to watch children put unhealthy foodstuffs into their mouth, this young mother didn't want to do it and suggested less unhealthy options to no avail. As someone who had to stand in line next to the strident children, I was relieved when she finally relented and paid $3.71 to pacify the kids. After all, anybody who has ever been in a car with two cranky, disappointed children knows that $3.71 is a small price to avoid it.
As I drove away, I suspected the kids wanted sugar because it tastes good, and society smiles at kids having it. It was more interesting to me that they had strong feelings about the particular sugar drink and candy. That could come from long trial & error, which I doubt, or recommendations from their peers, which is possible, or from TV advertising, which is the most likely.
While Mayor Bloomberg is right to control his health care expenses, should he try to regulate behavior of adults or should he tax the advertisers of unhealthy foodstuffs and use that revenue to cover obesity-related healthcare costs? (Certainly, that tax or increased cost to sugar sellers would be passed on to the consumer, making the product more expensive, but maybe that will also discourage buying it.)
Do we really expect the good intentions of a young mother to overcome the relentless carpet-bombing of TV commercials? Is that fair to the young mother? And, when she fails, why do taxpayers have to pay for the medical costs of her kids when they become obese and elderly?
Later, I read Mayor Bloomberg's reasoning that obesity was driving up his health care expenses, which he was trying to control. As it is now, an irresponsible consumer of sugar (or alcohol or tobacco) becomes a burden on either the taxpayers or other policy holders or both. Why should I pay the obesity-related healthcare costs for people who eat sugar carelessly?
On a short road trip this weekend, I was in a convenience store, standing in line behind a mother with two kids. Those kids each wanted a 12-oz bottle of sugar water (Coke) plus a bag of some candy I never heard of. In fact, they were insistent that they NEEDED the sugar water and candy, AND they NEEDED that particular type of sugar water and candy.
Even though it is considered cute in our culture to watch children put unhealthy foodstuffs into their mouth, this young mother didn't want to do it and suggested less unhealthy options to no avail. As someone who had to stand in line next to the strident children, I was relieved when she finally relented and paid $3.71 to pacify the kids. After all, anybody who has ever been in a car with two cranky, disappointed children knows that $3.71 is a small price to avoid it.
As I drove away, I suspected the kids wanted sugar because it tastes good, and society smiles at kids having it. It was more interesting to me that they had strong feelings about the particular sugar drink and candy. That could come from long trial & error, which I doubt, or recommendations from their peers, which is possible, or from TV advertising, which is the most likely.
While Mayor Bloomberg is right to control his health care expenses, should he try to regulate behavior of adults or should he tax the advertisers of unhealthy foodstuffs and use that revenue to cover obesity-related healthcare costs? (Certainly, that tax or increased cost to sugar sellers would be passed on to the consumer, making the product more expensive, but maybe that will also discourage buying it.)
Do we really expect the good intentions of a young mother to overcome the relentless carpet-bombing of TV commercials? Is that fair to the young mother? And, when she fails, why do taxpayers have to pay for the medical costs of her kids when they become obese and elderly?
