Persuasive Essay On Sugary Drinks

For many years, obesity has been a “chronic disease” of America. With an increased number of the population having this ailment, many government officials have different opinions of how to confront this issue. One idea is to limit the maximum size of sugary drinks sold to customers. The theory with this ban is that by cutting out a large portion of sugar from people’s diets the amount of the population with obesity will decrease. However, this idea itself is flawed. Therefore, local and state government should not limit the size of sugary drinks because it would contain too many loopholes, directly control other businesses, and affect people’s rights to control what goes into their bodies.
By only limiting the size of the drink, there are many loopholes which would give
the ban very little effect. For example, businesses will try to find any loophole they can to create the same amount of profits. Brent B. Wilson, a graduate student in of psychology explains that "Sugary drinks are a major source of business revenue, and businesses will adjust their menus in order to maximize profits." (Jaslow). These adjustments can include a raise in prices or bundle several smaller drinks together in order to continue selling the same amount. Also, by limiting only the size of sugary drinks, the quantity bought is not restricted, so customers could easily buy multiple in order to obtain the same amount. Some can even add their own sugar after the drink is bought in order to consume the same amount that they are used to.
Four years ago, the State of New York proposed to limit sugary drinks to 16-ounce cups, but this plan was never put into action. This occurred for a multitude of reasons, including that this restriction would not affect supermarkets and convenience stores while also discluding milk-based products, such as many coffee beverages, and fruit juices. By allowing certain drinks to be sold in large quantities, many companies can use this as an opportunity to enhance their products in order to meet the desires of consumers. For example, drinks such as the “unicorn frappuccino” from the popular coffee chain Starbucks contains an immense 59 grams of sugar in a 16-ounce cup, but this would have still been allowed under this ban because the drink is sold in such a small portion. This clearly shows that no matter what, customers have access to copious amounts of sugar.
By instilling laws concerning the size of highly sweetened drinks, the government would directly be controlling what other companies can sell, and therefore controlling their profits. For example, Small businesses would be affected as they would not be able to sell larger sizes and may lose money if they are required to only sell the smaller sizes. Due to this, many businesses will need to alter working staff in order to stay open with lower profits, and some employees may lose their jobs.New York City Councilman, Daniel Halloran III, called this forceful portioning a, “ ‘feel-good placebo’ that would hurt profit margins at small businesses while failing to improve anyone’s health.”(Gross)
Another issue with this proposal is that by limiting the size of a drink, the government would be directly limiting what product and what amount people can put in their bodies, which infringes on personal rights and choice. This would create a “nanny state” which is when the government is regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice. These personal choices include what and how much someone consumes, therefore the consumer will have to deal with the consequences of how they eat. Education, compared to a size limit, may have a more drastic effect on obesity in America. By teaching how different foods affect the human body, consumers will still have the right to choose what they eat or drink, but they may select smaller portions on their own without the pressure of size restrictions. Also, pressure would be put on large families or groups hosting large occasions. They would not be able to choose to buy larger sizes of beverages that would suit their needs and would be forced to purchase several smaller bottles for a higher price.
Although the decision to implement a ban on sugary drinks has good intentions, it would have little effect on the mass public.
Yes, the restricted sizing would be a small step to the diminishment of obesity, but many more changes would need to be enforced to have a large effect on the population. For example, sugar in foods and drinks is not solely responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. Obesity can be caused by a combination of lack of exercise, unhealthy eating, genetics, and environment. In lower class areas unhealthy food and drink options are preferable because they usually cost much less than other more nutritious ones. For instance, at McDonald's cheeseburgers or french fries can be bought for a dollar, but a salad would cost the customer close to five dollars. Joy Dubost, a nutritionist who works for the National Restaurant Association revealed another flaw, the belief that by eliminating large portions will have a large effect, by stating, “It’s not reasonable to blame or cite one product. [The proposal] produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity.”(Gross). This demonstrates that even trained professionals understand the flaws in a potential
restriction.
There is no doubt that obesity is a problem in America, but there are so many other ways to fight this issue, including education on nutrition and fitness. Also, there are countless people whose lives would be negatively affected by the institution a limitation on the size of sugary drinks. Therefore, if not everyone would benefit from this proposition, it should not be in place.