Health researchers: Bloomberg’s sugary drink ban will fail
Who thinks New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nanny-state ban on (some) large sugary drinks not only won’t work, but will backfire? The very researchers whose work Bloomberg cited as justification for proposing the ban. From The Atlantic:
Yes, we have found that when people are given larger portions, they do drink or eat substantially more. But to claim that these results imply that the ban will be effective is to ignore our larger body of work. In our experiments, subjects were given larger or smaller portions of food in a dining or party setting, where they were unlikely to notice portion size. It is exactly because participants weren’t paying attention that we got the results we did.
The mayor’s approach, however, overtly denies people portions they are used to be able to get whenever they want them. In similar lab settings, this kind of approach has inspired various forms of rebellion among study participants. For example, openly serving someone lowfat or reduced-calorie meals tends to lead to increased fat or calorie consumption over the whole day. People reason that because they were forced to be good for one meal, they can splurge on snacks and desserts at later meals.
The researchers, Prof. Brian Wansink and David Just of Cornell University, note the danger of taking a (pardon the pun) ham-fisted approach to health policy is that it will discourage future attempts to promote good health. And they leave no doubt that Bloomberg’s approach will fail:
150 years of research in food economics tells us that people get what they want. Someone who buys a 32-ounce soft drink wants a 32-ounce soft drink. He or she will go to a place that offers fountain refills, or buy two. If the people who want them don’t have much money, they might cut back on fruits or vegetables or a bit of their family meal budget.
Who buys large soft drinks? It’s not just the people who may have some disregard for their weight. It may also be the construction worker who buys a single drink and nurses it all day. It may be the family of three who decides to split a single drink to save money.
They also point out that Bloomberg might have been more successful had he created incentives for beverage companies to promote their lower-calorie products — and that he expressly rejected such an approach.
It seems to me the researchers’ explanations strike at the heart of the reason we can’t legislate good habits without resorting to Draconian measures (in this case, for example, a total ban on sugary drinks — although even that would fail if the ban didn’t extend well beyond New York City’s borders). And, of course, unintended consequences that could end up being worse than the intended ones.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
228 comments Add your comment
1961_Xer
June 18th, 2012
1:38 pm
Aquagirl: Find me a conservative who likes corn and sugar subsidies. That is, one who is not a legislator who’s been lobbied by the corn and sugar industries
Aquagirl has been bitch slapped on this one before. It is DEMOCRAT lawmakers and BLUE states who benefit the most from corn and sugar subsidies. I’m not sure why she keeps pushing the point. If she has a problem with this, she needs to make demands of her own Democrat overlords instead of insisting that conservatives do something about it.
RC--apoi
June 18th, 2012
1:40 pm
We go to the Varsity and get a large frosted Varsity orange… and split it four ways. My wife and I order an entree… knowing it will feed two… and split it. Then, we split a dessert.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I smell CHEAP—big time. It’s just a shame to hide it while blasting
big fatplus size people. Like that fellow Thomas Hardy once wrote, “Some people call a spade an agricultural implement.”Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
1:45 pm
Rick in Grayson
I’m fine with people eating at fast food restaurants every day and consuming as much sugar as they want to. However, I do not want that person or the government reaching into my wallet to pay for their indulgences.
Amen, brother! That is why we need individual hc policies, not tied to your employer. Each person responsible for their own hc, and each person getting the same incentives that their employer receives, i.e., a tax deduction for you premiums. It would allow you to take your insurance wherever you work and when you lose your job. But, the most important thing, is it would allow your insurer to give you benefits for remaining trim and healthy. People who do as Rick advised would “grow out” of their low priced bracket and into one more fitting their lack of physical health. Reward and punishment work, government programs where everyone is treated the same do not.
And, have you noticed that a person usually sipping a “diet Cola” is usually overweight. They order a triple whopper with the large fries and a “diet Coke”. If “diet sodas” worked we would see some benefit by now. The waist size of Americans has probably increased dramatically since the introduction of the modern sugar substitute.
Kyle Wingfield
June 18th, 2012
1:46 pm
Finn: Whoever Dean Baker is, neither he nor you can reasonably call support for licensing requirements a “conservative” thing.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
1:46 pm
Find me a conservative who likes corn and sugar subsidies.
I can find an awful lot who just can’t be arsed to do anything about them. They’re right here, hollering about a stupid meaningless soda ban while millions of taxpayer dollars are diverted to certain businesses. Sorry, but lacking awareness or action does not prove outrage.
I know it’s standard nowadays to mumble “yeah, that’s not right” and then turn your guns on somebody you don’t like. It says a lot about people who call themselves conservatives.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
1:49 pm
Tom Harkin, Iowa senator, corn, ethanol, corn sugar man. Big Government Democrat!
Thulsa Doom
June 18th, 2012
1:50 pm
Nanny state legislation failing again- this time on sugary drinks? No surprise there. Perhaps Bloomberg needs to hire a special black ops food and sugar police force to make sure nobody takes in to much sugar..
stands for decibels
June 18th, 2012
1:50 pm
Kyle, I didn’t think much of Bloomberg’s proposed ban when I first heard of it, and I like it even less after reading that Atlantic article you’d linked.
To drill a bit deeper though, regarding this:
Bloomberg might have been more successful had he created incentives for beverage companies to promote their lower-calorie products
for the record, here’s what the Atlantic article states:
While consumers deride brands, they love promotions. For instance, perhaps there could be a meal deal discount if a person bought a diet drink. Or a perhaps a healthy habit loyalty card would be given out and punched if a person opted for milk, juice, or water instead of a sugary drink. But the mayor’s office has said that it does not want to work with retailers to brainstorm options for workable solutions.
Wouldn’t encouraging or, possibly, economically incentivizing such options, still run afoul of your notions of marketplace freedom? Or do you think a NYC mayor’s responsibility might include working with restaurateurs to produce such solutions?
md
June 18th, 2012
1:50 pm
“If doctors in the United States were paid the same as doctors in Western Europe, it would save us more than $80 billion a year. The big government subsidy to doctors alone is close to two times the money involved in Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthy.”
For starters, WE is socialized medicine, so the nanny dictates wages and one usually gets what one pays for in that scenario…….I’ll take the private approach were I can choose vs getting stuck with the only option…….
And any subsidies paid for here are for the most part on behalf of those that can’t/won’t pay their own way instead shifting the burden on all the others……….
md
June 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
The answer lies not in the actions but in the consequences. No different than raising children…..if you do xx, then the consequences will be yy.
The problem in our society is too many don’t suffer the consequences without some excuse or another……or pointing the finger elsewhere.
In this case, it’s a simple process…..drinking big drinks may cause xx…..if one suffers from xx, then good luck as one will bear the brunt of said consequences on one’s own. Except the left usually likes to spread those consequences around a bit in order to be more “fair”…….
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
Yeah, there are no Republican politicians in states benefiting from farm subsidies.
Right
In the corn-producing states there are no Republican politicians scared to broach the subject of ending subsidies?
Right
JDW
June 18th, 2012
2:03 pm
@Kyle…”Conservitives” and sugar…
Here is the most recent Senate vote on an bill to elimnate sugar subsidies. Please note it was “defeated” 50 to 46 because Republicans require 60 votes to do anything. Also note that of the nays 30 were Republican…
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/40317
By my count that means about 65% of all Republicans in the Senate do in fact support the subsidies while only about 30% of the Democratics do so.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
2:04 pm
Aquagirl has been bitch slapped on this one before.
Oh, did you bitch slap Chuck Grassley into the Democratic party? Or Terry Branstad? Because that didn’t make the papers.
Your sad fantasies of bitch slapping women are just that—fantasies. You’re gonna have to step it up if you want to join conservative heroes like Bob McDonnell.
Hillbilly D
June 18th, 2012
2:06 pm
I think the modern day “24/7″ lifestyle contributes as much to obesity, as anything else. Only the people can fix that, though.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
2:07 pm
Finn, you are right the Rep senators are just as involved as the Dems in protecting their states’ interest.
Aquagirl was the one, who started the partisanship battle blaming conservatives for loving sugar and corn subsidies. Any Senator, Rep, or Governor of a state that produces a great deal of those, will be in favor of those.
All incentives that favor one product, one state, or one individual over another should end. Aquagirl would not be so happy if we ended green energy subsidies, minority set asides, or affirmative action, just corn and sugar subsidies.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 18th, 2012
2:08 pm
Of the 27 Senate “Nay” votes on ending the $6 billion a year corn ethanol subsidy (voted on in 2011), 52% were Republicans.
carlosgvv
June 18th, 2012
2:09 pm
Finn – 1:35
The medical and legal industries make large contributions to Republican election and re-election funding. So,it’s only natural they will get full monetary protection from conservatives in the Govt. Money talks.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 18th, 2012
2:11 pm
If we took 2 hour lunches every day – to go home and nap or hang out with our spouses – we would all be thinner, healthier, and a helluva lot happier.
md
June 18th, 2012
2:11 pm
“I think the modern day “24/7″ lifestyle contributes as much to obesity, as anything else. Only the people can fix that, though.”
Very much so…..technology has made “us” fatter. Kids no longer play outside, computers in every room, tv’s in every room, xbox, smartphones, etc etc…..
In the past, folks would eat all the bad stuff cooked in lard of all things and not have near the health problems they do today……but they also got up with the sun and worked in the fields until dark…..no fattys in the fields…….
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
2:15 pm
JDW, you DO realize this was simply an amendment to a larger bill that Republicans were opposed to, don’t you?
Of course you don’t.
md
June 18th, 2012
2:15 pm
I think the corn/sugar subsidy argument is basically a wash……subsidizing food is the one item that we may actually need subsidies…….of course if we quit subsidizing corn and sugar and the price of both go up, the same people will be calling for subsidies for the “poor pitiful poor” that can no longer afford as much of either………..
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
2:18 pm
Kyle, forgive me for this aside for JDW, I’ll blame this big ole 64 Oz coke for making me crazy.
JDW
I read this column this week and immediately thought of you. You have been battling Kyle and Tiberius about how you see Oblama as not a big spender compared to other presidents. I know you will disagree, but this guy gives a good explanation for why he is a big spender.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
2:19 pm
Aquagirl was the one, who started the partisanship battle blaming conservatives for loving sugar and corn subsidies.
You mean today? I blamed the blog-dwelling pseudo-conservatives here for whining more about a meaningless soda ban than millions of dollars in subsidies. Kyle brought up the congresscritters, I try not to mention them unless forced to discuss such unseemly creatures.
md
June 18th, 2012
2:24 pm
“meaningless soda ban”
The removal of freedoms should be a problem for everybody in a free society regardless of how small the matter……
JDW
June 18th, 2012
2:26 pm
@Tiberuis…”you DO realize this was simply an amendment to a larger bill that Republicans were opposed to, don’t you?”
You do realize that without the sugar subsidies included that the Senate voted 90 to 8 tto proceed on the farm bill…no of course you didn’t.
iggy
June 18th, 2012
2:32 pm
Sugar/obesity. Chicken/egg.
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
2:33 pm
Well, the great battle of the Sugar Show is still going Another Battle of the Bulge! Calories are being shot everywhere! Liberals lick their lollipops while Conservatives stick to their guns.
Then comes Bookman Buddy RC (Redneck for all you innocents) talking about CHEAP! Here’s a guy living in a trailer with a 300lb wife and he wants to talk about CHEAP. As Charlie Chaplin once said”Every Dem has his day to deviate doggedly!”
I.
Liz
June 18th, 2012
2:37 pm
Yes, it is almost as bad as vaginal wand ultrasounds GOP craze required because women are also presumed to be too stupid to make decisions about their bodies.
SBinF
June 18th, 2012
2:40 pm
Glad you’re coming out about government intrusion in our lives. I assume your next post will conclude that states should stay out of our bedrooms and out of every woman’s uterus?
I can’t wait for tomorrow’s posting!
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
2:42 pm
OHhh, I just thought of it.
Will everyone against farm subsidies please STOP EATING.
Aquagirl, you first! Finn second, JDW third. Then Food stampers!
Who needs that ol’ stuff they grow!! It’s just food.
Thulsa Doom
June 18th, 2012
2:42 pm
“Kyle brought up the congresscritters, I try not to mention them unless forced to discuss such unseemly creatures.”
Congresscritters. Never heard a that one before. Perty funny though. And yes. They are unseemly creatures. Cons and libs both ought to be able to agree on that much.
JDW
June 18th, 2012
2:44 pm
@Rafe..”I know you will disagree, but this guy gives a good explanation for why he is a big spender.”
I do disagree because he is using opinion, assumptions and slight of hand. First off is his bit about additional appropriations…what he doesn’t bother to tell you is that outside of the stimulus the “additional appropriations” were to pay the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan operations that Duhbya had been keeping “off the books”…there is more but he is done at that point.
JDW
June 18th, 2012
2:48 pm
@Dusty…”Will everyone against farm subsidies please STOP EATING. ”
Why what happened to Free Enterprise, limited regulation and smaller government…O’ yeah that doesn’t count when Big Biz is the beneficiary.
stands for decibels
June 18th, 2012
2:49 pm
Congresscritters. Never heard a that one before. Perty funny though.
I’ve always preferred the more traditional spelling: “Congrefscritters.”
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 18th, 2012
2:52 pm
Dusty, we don’t use much sugar and try to avoid anything with corn syrup.
But I do love the popcorn.
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
2:54 pm
LIZ & SBinF
A little modesty please. Nobody wants to hear about your uterus and your vagina, for pete’s sake! Your bedroom either. Aintcha got no manners?
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
2:56 pm
Finn, 2:52
You don’t use much sugar? I”m surprised. You are so sweet all the time.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
2:57 pm
JD
What he did, was dispossess us of the notion that W was responsible for the outrageous spending in 2009. Bush proposed a 3% increase in spending, long after he was out of office, Pelosi, Reid, and Oblamer authorized a 17% increase and then they used that year as a baseline, so that future years could be recorded as a net decrease. Oblamer then picks up on the column by the moron that labeled him “frugal” and tried to willfully deceive the public, which luckily no one bought, into believing he was a prudent spender.
itpdude
June 18th, 2012
2:58 pm
Having grown up poor, my big objection to the ban is the fact that the only way many families can afford a Pepsi or Coke is to get a huge drink and share it amongst themselves. I get that Bloomy is trying to help fat people but he’s hurting the poor and probably doesn’t know it because he’s a rich guy who never had to share a drink with anyone in his life.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
2:58 pm
JDW, you DO realize that S.3240 has yet to be passed by the Senate, don’t you?
Of course you didn’t.
finn mccool
June 18th, 2012
3:01 pm
There could be an incentive to stay within a certain percentage of your target bmi…..
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
3:01 pm
Congresscritters. Never heard a that one before.
Really? I thought I heard it over at Bookman’s lib’rul marxist blog, now this is gonna drive me crazy. I hate it when I can’t remember where I steal the good stuff.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
3:01 pm
Finn
Dusty, we don’t use much sugar and try to avoid anything with corn syrup
Thanks, Finn, it shows that Libs and Conservatives can work together for the benefit of all.
Your not buying corn syrup makes my pecan pies oh, so much more affordable. My coffee with two sugars each morning tastes so much better thanks to you Finn. Muchas gracias, Finn!
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:03 pm
JDW
I think you should be the FIRST to stop eating. BIG BUSINESS keeps this world going and the food coming..
You’d be eating organic dandelion greens without it. Try it. Then you won’t have all the bother with BIG BUSINESS. Show your stuff. STOP EATING!
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
3:06 pm
Iptude
Explain to me why I see people, maybe poor I don’t know, come in as a family and buy several fountain drinks for individual family members, some not putting ice in their drinks in an effort to get more of the good stuff, and they leave the store paying 3.50-4.00. The mystery is why they pass the 2 liter drinks on sale for $1.39. Seems they could buy the 2 liter and some cups and come out way ahead.
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:08 pm
Rafe,
I told you Finn was a sweet guy!
And pecan pies, my favorite, right after fruit cake. Wunderbar!!
JDW
June 18th, 2012
3:08 pm
@Rafe…Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion dollar budget in 2009 actual spending was $3.5 trillion. The difference is about $200 billion in stimulus which I take out when comparing numbers, another $100+ billion in unfunded war costs that Duhbya did not have the decency to request himself and the remaining difference can be attributed to line items in the original submission that were underestimated say unemployment insurance.
There was no “Pelosi, Reid, and Oblamer authorized a 17% increase”. That among other reasons is why the analysis is flawed.
JDW
June 18th, 2012
3:11 pm
@Dusty…I don’t mind bothering with BIG BUSINESS. In fact I make a lot of money bothering with BIG BUSINESS. What I really like about BIG BUSINESS is that they are BIG. Therefore they don’t need BIG help from the rest of us because thier BIG BUSINESS should support them without scarfing up tax dollars.
iggy
June 18th, 2012
3:11 pm
“The mystery is why they pass the 2 liter drinks on sale for $1.39. Seems they could buy the 2 liter and some cups and come out way ahead.”
My guess is they are too lazy, too stupid or both.
scrappy
June 18th, 2012
3:12 pm
“Nobody wants to hear about…”
You don’t want to hear about it, only regulate it for us in case we actually want to make a decision ourselves.