The recent debate over banning sugary drinks in New York City has
predictably turned into name-calling on both sides. I was sucked in to
this tactic in a recent article in which a reader replied by calling me
an idiot and so on. No big deal, I've been called worse, as they say. I
always remain civil during debate until the other side fires their
salvo, leaving me with no option but to unleash a fierce, fact-based
assault. I'm like the Hulk.
Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.
Actually, I have fun at their expense and I enjoy reading their
insults. At least their fingers are getting exercise, if nothing else.
NYC has proved to be an intense battle ground over the quintessential
right of choice. The choice, being able to purchase a sugary drink in
excess of 16 oz, is being taken away by Mayor Bloomberg in a
far-reaching, autocratic move based on the notion that government knows
best. Bloomberg said last week on
CBS This Morning
"if government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of
its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." That sentiment, right
there, is what has long concerned people that government has lost it's
sense of purpose. And that has led to average citizens voicing their
opinions on things such as the soda ban, because they fear the slippery
slope effect. And, it is those opinions that have brought out the other
side, convinced it is in fact the government's role to protect us,
cradle to grave.
There have been many comparisons made to the restrictions on the sale
and use of tobacco. My rebuttal to that argument is tobacco will harm
the user, but some science suggests that it can also harm non-users
through second-hand smoke. I don't know all the science about
second-hand smoke, but, if smoking is proven to cause cancer, then I
don't think it's a good idea to blow your smoke in my child's face. If
science has already said is toxic to you, then it could potentially be
harmful to others? Irrational, self-proclaimed subject matter experts,
however, will get nasty and personal when data disproves or shoots holes
in their defense. It's simple; my contention is the act of me drinking
soda can not physically harm a child sitting in the same room. It's not
the same as cigarettes, so don't go there. For that belief, I have been
accused of being fat, lazy, an idiot, a moron, stupid, not caring about
fat people and, last but not least, racist.
I was wondering about that last tag until I read a comment by someone
about how "poor people" and "low-income" folks are basically forced to
purchase large unhealthy drinks such as soda because they can't afford
the "more expensive, healthier" drinks. That idea is just one step away
from turning the debate on it's ear by claiming a higher percentage of
blacks are poorer than whites, therefore, being against a large soda ban
makes you likely to be "against" blacks. That is where the debate has
shifted, unfortunately.
There are groups that are trying to defeat the soda ban because of it's
broad and not very well thought out approach. Mayor Bloomberg has
adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate,
with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being
passionate about obesity isn't enough to slap a ban on those who aren't
obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary
drinks. The unintended consequences of the ban are merely collateral
damage, as they always are, for the feel-gooders in our society who
claim to know better than we do about what to put into our bodies. One
group,
New Yorkers for Beverage Choice,
has taken up the fight against the ban. They claim to lay out what the
ban will and will not do. They also place an emphasis on moderation,
diet and exercise. How about that? Three seemingly forgotten pillars of
personal responsibility when it comes to health. Other groups, such as
The American Beverage Association
(ABA), have also spoken out against the ban. Groups like this will be
demonized for having companies such as Coke and Pepsi show their
support. What would you expect Coke and Pepsi to do? Apparently, there
are those who feel an industry under attack should just sit back and
take it. A recent tweet by @MicheleRSimon warned her followers by
tweeting "Big Bev astro-turf alert" seeming to infer that Coke and
Pepsi's support for New Yorkers for Beverage Choice somehow makes the
group a non-organic effort. Michele has an affinity for the use of the
term "big" on her blog. That's a code word meant to identify a company
as "greedy polluters". You know, big sugar, big tobacco, big oil, big
agriculture. Pretty much any big industry that prefers to make a big
profit. Michele, who holds a JD, says on her Twitter profile "I am a
public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice. My
book, Appetite for Profit, exposes food industry marketing and
lobbying." Bam! What catches my attention are "advocate", "justice",
"profit" and "exposes". That's all I need to hear to understand
Michele's position. Call me short-sided, but I just read a book by it's
cover. And you know what, I don't have a problem with her. She is using
her experiences, education, knowledge and, presumably her money (I don't
know for sure), to advance her agenda. I see nothing wrong with that.
But, don't demonize corporations for defending their industry. In the
spirit of full disclosure, Michele and I are now dating on Twitter.
However, the efforts of groups like New Yorkers for Beverage Choice and
the ABA need to go beyond the ban's current theater of operations and
fight an urban, house to house assault. We are fighting a much larger
scale effort, brought on by those interested in simply penalizing a
specific group at the behest of another by using class warfare as part
of the debate. I ask the Bloomberg supporters this; Rather than making
sure I can't buy a 32oz ice cold soda at a movie, why not focus on
making sure the morbidly obese person in front of me gets a little
exercise once in a while? Wouldn't that do more to combat obesity? Or,
is that too mean of me to ask?
