LUIS QUAIL
<Contributor>
It is no secret that there is an increased concern over the “obesity epidemic” that is sweeping across North America. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, among developed countries, the United States and Mexico hold the #1 and #2 ranks for worldwide obesity rates, respectively, while Canada is #6. There is clearly something about our North American culture that allows us to truly excel at gaining these pounds. The question is: what, if anything, should be done about it?
In September 2012, the New York City Health Board approved a ban on sugary beverages over a certain volume. The ban, which is to take effect on March 12th, imposes a $200 fine on restaurants, delis, movie theatres, and other eateries that sell high-sugar drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces (470 mL). This governmental effort to shed the pounds is the first of its kind in the US, and is being challenged by beverage makers and sellers in the New York State Supreme Court. The Judge will have two interesting arguments to consider. On the one side, it is argued that the ban will help reduce obesity, thereby reducing costs associated with treating obesity-related illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. On the other side, it is argued that the ban is an infringement on consumer freedom, liberty, and autonomy.
Health research has had a major effect on the public’s willingness to accept government action that limits our choice as consumers. This has been the case with respect to cigarettes and products containing trans fats. The detrimental effects of these products were proven without question. The research has led to governmental action limiting the public’s access to these products and the public has largely accepted those limitations – it is common sense to limit and ban the sale of deadly substances.
But is sugar deadly? What about alcohol? Water may be deadly if I drink 10 litres in 2 minutes. The difference between the limitations placed on cigarettes and trans fats, and the limitations being placed on the sale of large sugary drinks in New York is the deadliness of the product. There is nothing that can be done about the harmful health effects of tobacco and trans fats. It makes sense for the government to limit, and even ban, consumer choice with respect to those products. However, the harmful effects of sugar, alcohol, and even water only arise if they are consumed in excess. Sugar is a natural part of our diet and healthy when consumed in moderation. Similar claims can be made with respect to alcohol and, of course, water. I believe that, rather than government regulation limiting our ability to make lifestyle choices, there are other ways to change the way we decide how much of product “X” to consume.
I think these changes begin with education and some of them have already begun to take hold in Canada. Studies in the last 20 years have led to an increased awareness of the benefits of exercise, and have resulted in more people engaging in activities such as yoga and attending fitness clubs. We did not need government regulations requiring a minimum number of weekly exercise activities. We used the information we had to make our own informed lifestyle decisions. I have faith that North Americans can and will become aware of the harmful health effects associated with 16 ounces of pop, and that many will opt for the 10 ounce cup without the need for government intervention.