There are 380 calories in a McDonald's milkshake http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/mcdonalds/milkshake/, 110 calories in one 12 oz. beer http://www.beer100.com/beercalories.htm, and 112 calories in a cup of orange juice. There are 140 calories in a 12 oz. can of coca-colahttp://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/coca-cola/.
Mayor Bloomberg and his administration decided that they should ban soda over the size of 16 oz., but only at restaurants. I understand that soda is not healthy for people in any way, but neither is beer. Light beers like a Bud Light has 110 calories in one can, and yet nothing is mentioned about liquor sales in restaurants. It seems that people who go to dinner at a restaurant are just as likely to drink multiple beers throughout dinner, which could add up to nearly a fourth of a person's daily caloric intake. What I find even worse, is that one McDonald's milkshake has 380 calories. One. That is ridiculous and the amount of fat in one milkshake is usually pretty outrageous.
I don't fault the mayor for wanting to make the city healthier, but I think it is hypocritical to put limits on soda sizes and yet milkshakes and alcohol are unaffected. Orange juice also has a lot of calories, but it's actually healthy to have real fruit juice so I don't want to try to lump it in with the other beverages I've mentioned. However, from a caloric standpoint, the juice is almost as bad as a 12 oz. soda. It's easy to find justification for banning foods and beverages, but limiting size on one specific drink, and not actually limiting the amount you can buy seems like a scam.
Alcohol makes a lot of money in taxes for the state and now soda can too. They already raised the tax on soda, and now they are forcing people to buy multiple soda beverages in a sitting if they want more. What they are really doing is creating revenue through taxes for the government and forcing people to spend more money. If he was really concerned about health, he would crack down on milkshakes, ice cream, candy, and other unnecessary snack foods that contribute to the obesity of the american public. Furthermore, he would try to do something about alcohol and the adverse effects it has on the body. Not only do alcoholic beverages contribute to weight gain, but it also can cause liver damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, and addiction. The monetary aspect of this law is already on his mind and he uses it as a defense for his actions, "He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop." This shows that money is what this law comes down to. So now people are going to spend more money at restaurants and be charged more for soda when outside of the city they can get it for much cheaper and without regulation.
I'm not saying that I think soda is good for people. I actually don't drink much myself, but until he is willing to really crack down on the weight problem, bring more physical activities to the schools, create exercise regiments or free gym memberships for citizens and ban snack foods, I don't think that his actions are justified. It literally will do absolutely nothing beneficial for the citizens, but it will make the city's government richer and force the people to spend more. I think that the obesity issue in this nation needs to be addressed, but I think this is the wrong way to go about doing so.
Interesting perspective, John. I like how you play Devil's Advocate and attack the soda ban's faulty logical premise. Also liked the alternative avenues the Mayor can explore(increasing physical activities at school, free gym memberships, etc.) that you presented. All n all, this is quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs and I'm looking forward to reading your unique perspective with each post.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you incorporate the negative health effects of different drinks such as alcohol, as well as other foods that are contributing to the obesity epidemic. Your ideas of a more influential and comprehensive way to go about helping people overcome their health issues. It seems to me that you have a more proactive stance to helping people - such as providing gym memberships and promoting healthier lifestyles that may also incorporate nutritional education, than that of the current soda ban. I like encouraging people and telling them yes - they can change their lives, they can have opportunity, rather than telling them no they're not responsible. Thanks for sharing your positive ideas.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you guys liked my perspective on the ban. There are some obvious positives to the legislation as well, such as higher tax revenues which could benefit the schools, as well as, deterring some people from wanting to drink as much based on fiscal concerns. I really do find it disconcerting that the government is now telling us what to drink and how much. I'm very much opposed to the big brother strategy government's try to adopt because once it starts, where do you draw the line? I think it's great that the mayor wants to help people, but the wrong administration could keep whittling away at our civil liberties until we don't have any. I think that one of our biggest problems in this country is the lack of personal responsibility. People can't keep being told that it's not their fault. They have to understand that it's not Coca-Cola or McDonald's making you fat, it's you. People have to have the will power to avoid these temptations. If people choose to stop, they will be empowered and more likely to stick to their convictions and decisions because it comes from a positive place. The negativity associated with government bans will only make people spiteful and angry, and not interested in the benefits they may reap from a healthier lifestyle.
ReplyDelete