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
JDW
June 18th, 2012
3:13 pm
@Tiberius…”JDW, you DO realize that S.3240 has yet to be passed by the Senate, don’t you?”
Why of course I did. I also have the critical thinking skills to figure out that if the bill passed Cloture by a 90-8 vote it is not “generally opposed by the Republican Party”…apparently you did not make that connection.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 18th, 2012
3:15 pm
Case in point-
More killed in Chicago this year than in Afghanistan…
And guns are “outlawed” in Chicago.
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:17 pm
AquaGirl repeats “good stuff”? Really?
Road Scholar
June 18th, 2012
3:18 pm
“Yes, we have found that when people are given larger portions, they do drink or eat substantially more… ..subjects were given larger or smaller portions of food in a dining or party setting,…”
They didn’t mind since the food was given to them! What would be their satisfaction level if they had to pay for it?
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:20 pm
I Report, 3:15
They have a nice dinosaur in Chicago. I saw it once. It was dead too.
iggy
June 18th, 2012
3:22 pm
“They didn’t mind since the food was given to them! What would be their satisfaction level if they had to pay for it?”
Nice job and confirmation that food stamp programs should be severely curtailed or distributed on a “X amount of stamps per pound of body weight”. Those exceeding their BMI scores are only given the amount needed for a healthy person of same size/weight.
Lets put those food stamp fatties on a diet.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 18th, 2012
3:24 pm
Dusty- They had an economy in Chicago but it died too.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
3:26 pm
JDW, you DO realize that was an amendment to another amendment, don’t you?
Of course you didn’t.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
3:29 pm
JDW
I’m afraid Kyle will take my 64 oz soda away if we go much farther with this. That is your opinion and your figures, I agree with the author. Anything to do with numbers and I am cynical from the jump. Figures lie and liars figure, as they say. All I know, is obviously Rep and most independents agree with the author that he is a big spender par excellence, Dems will defend him to the better end it seems.
Gotta go get me a glass of sweet tea, boy I love that stuff. Thanks Finn. All sugar and no substitutes, strong and sweet, condensation running down the glass; it is good to me.
RC--apoi
June 18th, 2012
3:32 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.
Then there’s the people that buy the super-size burger combo so they can get a large drink. I reckon they don’t notice that the soft drinks are self-serve and they could get a refill 20 times if they want to by using the regular-size drink cup. You want stupid? Now that’s stupid. Or maybe they’re too lazy to get up and refill their cup.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 18th, 2012
3:33 pm
Why can’t liberals mind their own business?
It’s not as if large sugary sodas kill unborn children.
Thulsa Doom
June 18th, 2012
3:36 pm
sfd,
Congrefscritters. I like that one even better.
Aquagirl,
I would steal congresscritters from you except the congrefscritters sounds even better. And they both lampoon both the Rs and the Ds which is what I like best.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
3:38 pm
It’s not as if large sugary sodas kill unborn children.
Maybe if they did, health insurance would cover them and they would not be restricted.
Thulsa Doom
June 18th, 2012
3:38 pm
Lil Larry,
You laid it on em with that one about sugary killing unborn children.
B
O
O
M
!
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:40 pm
JDW 3:11
Since you are making MONEY from BIG BUSINESS and they have been “scarfing” up tax money, you should show your objections by not working with BIG BUSINESS. That’s it! Or…refund the government with your profits from working with BIG BUSINESS..
Take a stand. That’ll show ‘em.
No mo BIG BUSINESS! Just penny-anti stuff. Go fer it!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
3:40 pm
“Why can’t liberals mind their own business?”
Liberals do not have a corner on the control market, LBB.
Just sayin’!
Liz
June 18th, 2012
3:42 pm
Pardon me, I believe the ultra technical medical term is “Transvaginal ultrasound”.
In it march to harass and humiliate women the GOP went too far in Virginia. Even so, disturbingly the GOP has managed to get most states to pass laws passed that require women to get ultrasounds and counseling before an abortion (with few exceptions).
It doesn’t play very well with women, of either party
AmVet
June 18th, 2012
3:44 pm
If I was a member of a political party that was getting ready to nominate the Holy Father of Socialized Medicine, an effete, northeastern, severely liberal RINO and someone who flip flops so much that he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar, I’d be talking about some nonsense like this too.
LOL!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
3:50 pm
“If I was a member of a political party that was getting ready to nominate the Holy Father of Socialized Medicine, an effete, northeastern, severely liberal RINO and someone who flip flops so much that he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar, I’d be talking about some nonsense like this too.”
This from a guy who admits to voting for Ralph Nader.
Too funny!
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
3:53 pm
Liz,
Do you have a comment on the subject de jour? Try that sometimes.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 18th, 2012
3:53 pm
If sugary sodas killed the unborn, libtards would be fighting each other to be a named co-sponsor of the bill to have taxpayers buy them for the moocher class.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
3:54 pm
If I was a member of a political party that was getting ready to
Earth to Amvet, YOU are not. I get tired of Dems telling Reps what to do and vice versa. Here is how it works.
You guys nominate whomever or whatever you like, you vote for your guy/gal, and we will do the same. The people vote and then you will know, what the majority think.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
AmVet would rather cling to the bosom of a man who has made a career out of one single, solitary issue in 1965.
And has done nothing of significance since.
AmVet
June 18th, 2012
4:05 pm
YOU are not.
Thank all the deities everywhere.
Throwing up in my mouth a bit at the prospect of being a neocon is bad enough, thank you very little!
Granted unlike you hater, Ralph Nader is not one of the 100 most influential people of the last century.
Not everyone can be a humanitarian, and the champion of the American consumer and our environment like you.
AmVet
June 18th, 2012
4:07 pm
And has done nothing of significance since.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Your astounding, self-imposed ignorance will never be confused with the reality, hater. Except for the equally naive sheep that you flock with!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
4:09 pm
Ralph Nader is a considerably less influential champion of the American consumer than Clark Howard is, AmVet.
And I wouldn’t vote for Clark, either.
carlosgvv
June 18th, 2012
4:10 pm
Barry – 3:53
If sugary sodas killed the unborn, cons would be marching around soda plants with signs condeming the owners as “baby killers”, crazed snipers would be killing the CEO’s of these soda companies in their homes and the Catholics and Babtists would be condemning them as “evil sinners”. Cons want the Govt. out of our private lives except when they don’t.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
4:13 pm
Well, if you consider getting your mug on TV at the drop of a hat a significant achievement, AmVet, then Ralph Nader is highly successful.
Of course, running for President in 2000 and delivering Florida to GWB might just be considered the true crowning achievement of Nader’s career as well.
But then, you have such low standards for your heroes, don’t you?
md
June 18th, 2012
4:14 pm
“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.”
As if an equation that involves 3 equates to an equation that involves 1…….
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
4:16 pm
Not safe at any speed. Corvair forerunner of the Chevy Volt.
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
4:17 pm
AmVet, 3:44
Go play a tune at Bookman’s. They will help you run down Republicans and give you the joy you need so badly. So long…..
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
4:18 pm
How did we ever get rid of the Chevy Volt, without Ralph Nadar?
AmVet
June 18th, 2012
4:21 pm
Ralph Nader is a considerably less influential champion of the American consumer than Clark Howard is.
This is the magnitude of emotionally based, knee-jerk ignorance and willful stupidity that I speak of.
Hater, even Gore himself said that Nader had nothing to do with losing the election. And I suspect that he knows more about it than some blogging flunky.
I just show up here from time to time you see if what I post here will cause you to go apoplectic.
Mission Accomplished. As always, I own you.
Do come over to Bookman’s sometimes, OK?
Huge LOL…
Thulsa Doom
June 18th, 2012
4:21 pm
” crazed snipers would be killing the CEO’s of these soda companies in their homes”
Yep. Happens all the time.
Liz
June 18th, 2012
4:28 pm
Dusty,
Loss of freedom and liberty is the tie-in.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
4:31 pm
AmVet, Gore certainly knows nothing about basic arithmetic skills, as anyone with a working brain knows that the votes that Ralph Nader received in Florida were greater than the winning margin by far.
In fact, the votes Nader received (and let’s face it, those were liberal votes), exceeded the total of all other third party candidates by about 60,000, meaning that even if all of Buchanan’s and Browne’s votes went to Bush, Gore STILL would have won handily if Nader wasn’t in the race.
Using Al Gore as your election analyst is about as effective as using government-paid “scientists” to make the case for man-made global warming.
md
June 18th, 2012
4:32 pm
“It doesn’t play very well with women, of either party”
I bet it would play real well with those that get snuffed out…..if they were here to be played to.
md
June 18th, 2012
4:35 pm
Enter your comments here
1961_Xer
June 18th, 2012
4:49 pm
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.
So the lesson is: when you are wrong and the facts speak against the point that you so vehemently continue to make through multiple blogs and issues (even though a simple Google search will show you to be wrong)… attack the opposing voices rather than argue the issue or (Diety forbid) admit that you are wrong. Or maybe Aquagirl can’t do a Google search?
JDW
June 18th, 2012
5:05 pm
@Dusty…”you should show your objections by not working with BIG BUSINESS.”
Thanks for the advice. I think I will just keep trying to educate those that prefer to throw their money away on such nonsense.
MrLiberty
June 18th, 2012
5:06 pm
Will fail how? It has done all that it needs to. It has shown the sheeple that the government will violate whatever rights, whatever freedoms and take away whatever liberties it wants and the people will do NOTHING. 100 years ago this clown would likely have been tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a subway. Now, blind subservience. Likely this jerk will even get reelected. Let us hope that when the straw finally does break the camel’s back the response is loud and succeeds in taking back our country.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
5:10 pm
Roger Clemens not guilty on all six charges. From the AP: “After eight weeks, 46 witnesses, two dozing jurors and an estimated $2-3 million spent in taxpayer money, the Roger Clemens trial is finally over.
The verdict: Not guilty on three counts of making false statements, not guilty on two counts of perjury and not guilty on one count of obstruction. The charges stemmed from testimony that Clemens made in Feb. 2008, telling a Congressional committee that he had never taken steroids or HGH.”
Can Obama’s Justice Dept. now get on to more substantive measures, like keeping the AG from contempt of Congress charges?
Dusty
June 18th, 2012
5:13 pm
Liz,
I don’t know what country you live in but I am an American woman and I have lost none of my freedom or my liberty. In fact, I find no hinderances to the choices I want to make about my personal life.
Too bad that you do not find such freedom and keep “sounding off” with what sounds like the motto of an organiation, not your own study of such things. Referring to a woman’s anatomy in the midst of a discussion on sugary drinks seems more like the proverbial brainwashing .
I hope you learn to think for yourself instead of being a follower. Independent women do think for themselves.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 18th, 2012
5:17 pm
I don’t keep up with every legal issue, but has the Oblamer regime or Eric Holder in specific, won any legal case?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
Don’t think so, Rafe.
In addition, they give up on the ones they have won, like the voter intimidation case in Philly.
Incompetents, one and all.
Hillbilly D
June 18th, 2012
5:41 pm
Since I just drink water (And not from them high dollar plastic bottles) and a little juice now and then, I’m glad I don’t have to spend any time fritterin’ about all this.
md
June 18th, 2012
5:46 pm
These are just baby steps HD……sooner or later they’ll come after something dear to you and yours and then it’ll be too late……their foot is already in the door.
It is basically the entire argument behind the SC questions on the hc bill……where will they draw the line?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 18th, 2012
5:52 pm
carlosgvv: Cons want the Govt. out of our private lives except when they don’t.
————————–
…and libtards want the government IN our private lives except those rare occasions when they don’t.
I’ll take the former. It’s a lot less dangerous and enslaving.
getalife
June 18th, 2012
6:05 pm
He is lil brother.
You cons are okay with peeing in a cup and happily handing it to government so you should be okay with this.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
6:12 pm
(even though a simple Google search will show you to be wrong)
I’m not the only one pointing out those corn-fed states have Republican legislators and Governors. So one of us needs help with google, and it’s not me.
You can always call the League of Women Voters if that google thingy is too confusing. Or perhaps you’re confused that states with Republican Governors can award electoral votes to a Democrat in a presidential election. In that case your problem is Obama Derangement Syndrome, and regaining rational thought processes will be quite a challenge. If you ever had them in the first place.