Skip to main content

Banning large sodas is legal and smart

By Lawrence O. Gostin, Special to CNN
March 13, 2013 -- Updated 1652 GMT (0052 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A New York state judge blocks the city's plan to limit the size of sugary drinks
  • Lawrence Gostin: A portion limit is not an attack on freedom; people can still buy soda
  • He says like Big Tobacco, industry has spent millions to fight this effort to combat obesity
  • Gostin: The Board of Health has the power to regulate sugary drinks; portion control can work

Editor's note: Lawrence O. Gostin is professor and director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. He is also director of the World Health Organization's Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights.

(CNN) -- A state trial judge on Monday blocked New York City's plan for a maximum 16 ounce size for a high-sugar beverage. The ban would have included sodas, energy drinks, fruit drinks and sweetened teas. But it would have excluded alcoholic beverages and drinks that are more than 50% milk, such as lattes. The ban would have applied to restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums and mobile food carts. But it would not have applied to supermarkets and convenience stores, such as 7-Eleven.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal was met with fierce opposition by the industry and public outrage at the loss of "liberty," the so-called "nanny state" run amok. Beyond all the hype, the industry's vociferous arguments, now adopted by a trial court, are badly flawed.

In fact, the Board of Health has the power, indeed the responsibility, to regulate sugary drinks for the sake of city residents, particularly the poor.

News: Mississippi governor reviews 'Anti-Bloomberg' bill

Lawrence O. Gostin
Lawrence O. Gostin

Would the ban work?

Nearly six out of 10 New York City residents are overweight or obese, as are nearly four out of 10 schoolchildren. This cannot be acceptable to our society, knowing that obesity is such a powerful risk factor for diabetes, cancer and heart disease. No one would disagree that government should act, but how? There is no single solution, but many ideas that would work in combination. One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption. Why?

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



First, the ever-expanding portions (think "supersized") are one of the major causes of obesity. When portion sizes are smaller, individuals eat less but feel full. This works, even if a person can take an additional portion. (Most won't because they are satiated, and it at least makes them think about what they are consuming.) Second, sugar is high in calories, promotes fat storage in the body and is addictive, so people want more. The so-called "war on sugar" is not a culture war, it is a public health imperative backed by science.

Opposing view: 'Anti-Bloomberg' bill stops overregulation

So, there is good reason to believe New York's portion control would work. But why does the city have to prove that it works beyond any doubt? Those who cry "nanny state" in response to almost any modern public health measure (think food, alcohol, firearms, distracted driving) demand a standard of proof that lawmakers don't have to meet in any other field.

When a law is passed to increase jobs, spur the economy or subsidize a corporate sector (oil, for example), we don't insist that lawmakers prove it works. At least public health officials rely on science and try to craft rules that have a chance of working—if not in isolation, then in combination with other obesity control measures such as food labeling, calorie disclosures, trans fat restrictions and access to affordable fruits and vegetables in schools and poor neighborhoods.

Is the ban consistent?

The industry stoked the fires of public discontent with its campaign against the "inconsistencies" in the soda ban. Why doesn't the ban apply to milky drinks, why can 7-Eleven sell large sugary drinks, and why not ban refills? Justice Milton Tingling Jr. bought both industry arguments: It won't work and it is inconsistent. He went so far as to call the ban "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences" and filled with loopholes. Again, we find a double standard.

Conan: Soda ban overturned

Bloomberg did what every other politician does: balance public health and safety with realpolitik. Consider one of the judge's major arguments: balancing public health and economic considerations is "impermissible." This judicial reasoning makes no sense. If policy makers could not balance economic consequences, virtually every law in America would be flawed. There is another huge problem with this argument. It assumes that unless public health does everything, it can do nothing. The whole art of politics is compromise. The mayor gets a lot of what he seeks to fight obesity, but not everything.

Does the Board of Health have the power?

Admittedly, the soda ban would have been better coming from the city's elected legislature, the City Council. But the Board of Health has authority to act in cases where there is an imminent threat to health. Doesn't the epidemic of obesity count as an imminent threat, with its devastating impact on health, quality of life and mortality? In any event, the Board of Health has authority over the food supply and chronic disease, which is exactly what it has used in this case.

Members of the Board of Health, moreover, are experts in public health, entitled to a degree of deference. The fact that the proposal originated in the mayor's office does not diminish the board's authority and duty to protect the public's health. Many health proposals arise from the executive branch, notably the Affordable Care Act.

Should industry have an outsized influence on public health policy?

The fingerprints of the food and restaurant industries, with their clear economic conflicts of interest, are all over the public and judicial campaign to block the soda ban. Industry undertook a multimillion-dollar campaign, flying banners over the city and plastering ads over the subways. They immediately filed suit and hired the most elite law firms.

Rather than recognize the public health effects of large sugary drinks, they chose to fight, reminiscent of Big Tobacco. What is worse, the public (and now a judge) fell for the industry's manipulations. Most New Yorkers oppose the portion ban, while politicians in other states are scrambling to show their disapproval. Mississippi is about to pass a law forbidding portion control. Imagine that in a state with the highest obesity rate in America!

We are used to fierce lobbying for personal gain in America, but that doesn't mean we should be duped by industry propaganda. Is a portion limit really such an assault on freedom? It doesn't stop anyone from buying soda. If consumers really want, they can buy several smaller drinks. It doesn't stop companies from giving refills.

There is really no great burden posed on individuals, only a little nudge in the right direction. At the same time, it could make meaningful changes in the drinking habits of New Yorkers. Why is the industry fighting this so fiercely? Because when it is shown to be successful in New York, it will be emulated in major cities in America and worldwide. Isn't that exactly what we need to stem the tide of obesity?

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Lawrence O. Gostin.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
July 21, 2014 -- Updated 1235 GMT (2035 HKT)
Frida Ghitis: Anger over MH17 is growing against pro-Russia separatists. It's time for the Dutch government to lead, she writes
July 21, 2014 -- Updated 1227 GMT (2027 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says President Obama called inequality the "defining challenge" of our time but hasn't followed through.
July 21, 2014 -- Updated 1157 GMT (1957 HKT)
Gene Seymour says the 'Rockford Files' actor worked the persona of the principled coward, charming audiences on big and small screen for generations
July 21, 2014 -- Updated 1417 GMT (2217 HKT)
Daniel Treisman says that when the Russian leader tied his fate to the Ukraine separatists, he set the stage for his current risky predicament
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1642 GMT (0042 HKT)
Andrew Kuchins says urgent diplomacy -- not sanctions -- is needed to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine that helped lead to the downing of an airliner there.
July 19, 2014 -- Updated 0150 GMT (0950 HKT)
Jim Hall and Peter Goelz say there should be an immediate and thorough investigation into what happened to MH17.
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1507 GMT (2307 HKT)
Pilot Bill Palmer says main defense commercial jets have against missiles is to avoid flying over conflict areas.
July 20, 2014 -- Updated 1755 GMT (0155 HKT)
Valerie Jarrett says that working women should not be discriminated against because they are pregnant.
July 21, 2014 -- Updated 1953 GMT (0353 HKT)
David Wheeler says the next time you get a difficult customer representative, think about recording the call.
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1933 GMT (0333 HKT)
Newt Gingrich says the more dangerous the world becomes the more Obama hides in a fantasy world.
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1011 GMT (1811 HKT)
Michael Desch: It's hard to see why anyone, including Russia and its local allies, would have intentionally targeted the Malaysian Airlines flight
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 1914 GMT (0314 HKT)
LZ Granderson says we must remember our visceral horror at the news of children killed in an airstrike on a Gaza beach next time our politicians talk of war
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 1206 GMT (2006 HKT)
Sally Kohn says now the House GOP wants to sue Obama for not implementing a law fast enough, a law they voted down 50 times, all reason has left the room.
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 1214 GMT (2014 HKT)
A street sign for Wall Street
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, John McCain and others want to scale back the "too big to fail" banks that put us at risk of another financial collapse.
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 2016 GMT (0416 HKT)
Newt Gingrich writes an open letter to Robert McDonald, the nominee to head the Veterans Administration.
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1601 GMT (0001 HKT)
Paul Begala says Dick Cheney has caused an inordinate amount of damage yet continues in a relentless effort to revise the history of his failures.
July 18, 2014 -- Updated 1404 GMT (2204 HKT)
Kids who takes cell phones to bed are not sleeping, says Mel Robbins. Make them park their phones with the parents at night.
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 1729 GMT (0129 HKT)
Buzz Aldrin looked at planet Earth as he stood on talcum-like lunar dust 45 years ago. He thinks the next frontier should be Mars.
July 16, 2014 -- Updated 1804 GMT (0204 HKT)
Mark Zeller never thought my Afghan translator would save his life by killing two Taliban fighters who were about to kill him. The Taliban retaliated by placing him on the top of its kill list.
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 1518 GMT (2318 HKT)
Jeff Yang says an all-white cast of Asian characters in cartoonish costumes is racially offensive.
July 17, 2014 -- Updated 0124 GMT (0924 HKT)
Gary Ginsberg says the late John F. Kennedy Jr.'s reaction to an event in 1995 summed up his character
July 16, 2014 -- Updated 1641 GMT (0041 HKT)
Meg Urry says most falling space debris lands on the planet harmlessly and with no witnesses.
ADVERTISEMENT