Banning Soda There Is No Real Argument

Banning Soda

There is no real argument in favor of soda; it adds absolutely nothing positive to anyone's daily dietary intake. In fact, it is said to contribute heavily to obesity, diabetes, heart disease tooth decay, and other serious health issues. It is argued that by banning soda many of these negative aspects will be eliminated or at least reduced and therefore reduce health care costs associated with drinking soda. With that in mind, there have been numerous attempts to ban sodas in various venues. Some schools have banned sodas from campus, and in New York, Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban the purchasing of soda from food stamp recipients (Seifman). Some of these bans have come to fruition. Studies show, however, that the results have been less than promising in accomplishing the desired effect: reducing soda consumption. Further, the government has no business deciding what foods people can consume. While soda may seem like a frivolous issue, banning it is not. In fact, some have gone so far as to suggest that banning soda, particularly for select groups of people, is a possible violation of Civil liberties (Meghan).

Looking at sodas with regard to obesity, it there is no real debate that sodas are contributing to the nation's obesity problem. It should come as no surprise, since sodas are filled with sugar. When the Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source examined the possible health effects of sipping too much soda, it was no surprise to find soda linked to obesity-related diseases. "For example, studies have found an association between Americans' soda-drinking habits and the rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in adults and children" (Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source). While the link between sugar and diabetes and obesity is not direct, the link between too much sugar and those health concerns is well-established. "Many concerns about soda center on sugar. One 12-ounce soda typically has nine teaspoons of sugar and 140 calories. Research has shown that adults and children who regularly drink beverages high in sugar tend to have higher calorie intake overall and experience weight gain. As weight increases, so does the risk of type 2 diabetes" (Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source). There is no doubt that drinking too many sodas can help foster obesity, and may lead to diabetes.

In fact, it is the diabetes issue that makes soda such a significant health concern. This is particularly true when one considers how innocuous a soda seems. "A soda a day? That's not so bad -- a 150-calorie blip, burned off with a brisk half-hour walk. But it's not only your waistline that's at stake" (Dubansky). When looked at in that manner, attempts to ban soda seem positively draconian. However, "a study released today in the journal Diabetes Care found that people with a daily habit of just one or two sugar-sweetened beverages -- anything from sodas and energy drinks to sweetened teas and vitamin water -- were more than 25% likelier to develop type 2 diabetes than were similar individuals who had no more than one sugary drink per month" (Dubansky). Still, a person might think that a 25% increase in risk is not substantial. However, when one considers that, "the overall rate of diabetes is roughly 1 in 10, an increase of 25% raises the risk to about 1 in 8" (Dubansky). Furthermore, the link between soda and diabetes was not the only troubling health indication, "one-a-day guzzlers in the study also had a 20% higher rate of metabolic syndrome, a collection of indicators such as high triglyceride suggesting that diabetes is not far off." (Dubansky).

Soda also impacts other areas of health. It is not only correlated to tooth decay; scientists have no problem saying that soda causes tooth decay. " The erosive potential of colas is 10 times that of fruit juices in just the first three minutes of drinking, a study last year showed. The latest research, published in Academy of General Dentistry (AGD) journal General Dentistry, reports that drinking any type of soft drink hurts teeth due to the citric acid and/or phosphoric acid in the beverages" (Lloyd). When one sees that soda is far more corrosive than other commonly ingested beverages, it becomes difficult to make an argument in favor of sodas.

However, there still appears to be little merit to the idea of banning sodas. It has been proven that banning sodas in certain locations really has no significant impact on soda consumption in targeted groups. For example, banning soft drinks in elementary schools is a popular idea. However, a recent study from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that examined the correlation between soft drink availability in elementary schools and soft drink consumption by those students found that the bans were not effective at reducing overall consumption. "26% of children who have access to soft drinks at school consume them. Those who consume more soft drinks at school, such as low-income and black non-Hispanic children, are more likely to consume more soft drinks overall" (Fernandes). In other words, people who drink soft drinks at school have access to those drinks in the home. "Controlling for covariates, limiting availability of soft drinks at school is associated with a 4% decrease (odds ratio 1.38) in the rate of any consumption overall. These findings suggest that soft drink availability at school may have limited impact on overall consumption for elementary school children" (Fernandes). While there was a moderate reduction in overall consumption, that reduction is unlikely to have significant health benefits for those children. Focusing on changing food environments in the home is likely to prove more helpful to those high-risk children.

Furthermore, there is a concern that banning soda creates too substantial a burden on civil rights. Regardless of all the possible side effects from consuming too much soda, the government does not have the right to determine what foods people consume. Such bans may violate civil rights. This is particularly troubling given that soda bans that are directed at adults frequently target at-risk populations. For example, Bloomberg's proposed ban on sodas in New York City was not a true citywide ban. On the contrary, "Mayor Bloomberg proposed a ban on purchasing soda that would apply to any person receiving SNAP benefits that help low-income families put meals on the table" (Meghan, 2011). At first blush, this proposal seemed rational. "The proposed ban would target drinks that have more than 10 calories per 8oz. But juice that doesn't have added sugar, milk and milk substitutes (even if they contain sweeteners) would be allowed" (Meghan, 2011). There were substantial reasons for the proposed ban. First, SNAP recipients are likely to experience malnutrition since they need financial assistance to purchase food and soda has no nutritional value. Second, sugary drinks are correlated with obesity. Third, a similar ban in San Francisco was passed without challenge. "The difference, however, is that the proposed bill in New York City will only affect low-income families receiving SNAP