A judge decided yesterday that Mayor Bloomberg's proposed law to outlaw sugary drinks over 16 ounces was both "arbitrary and capricious." I don't think anyone can question that the mayor proposed this law for the good of the public health, but it did seem a bit haphazard. The rule applied differently to restaurants than to stores, to clear drinks than to milk based drinks. Alcoholic drinks were exempted. And although restaurants could not sell coffee drinks over 16 ounces that were sweetened, they could sell them unsweetened and have plenty of sugar available for customers to sweeten the drinks themselves.
Mayor Bloomberg has been well known for his efforts to promote the public health. He has enacted indoor smoking bans and required restaurants to post calorie counts. This latest effort was meant to be a revolutionary approach to obesity, which has been proven to be caused by over-consumption of sugary drinks, especially in kids. But the soft drink industry didn't like this proposal one bit, and mounted a huge campaign. There are signs and ads all over the city telling New Yorkers that the mayor is trying to restrict their freedom. (and of course, making something a question of personal freedom is always a good way to get Americans up out of our recliners). They also filed a court case against the law, and the decision yesterday clearly came as a surprise to the mayor, as well as to the many restaurants that had already adjusted their menus and retrained their staff to deal with the new regulations that were set to take effect today. During their campaign against the mayor's proposal, soft drink industry used phrases like, "We don't need the government trying to invade our personal choices on matters of health."
Well, it seems to me that one of the most important roles of the government is to protect the public health. We certainly wouldn't want to get the majority of our health information from corporations who can afford lots of attractive advertising and who produce foods that alter our appetites and make us hungry for more. The 'government' is not trying to 'invade' when leaders or governmental health agencies advocate for our health. We all know soda is unhealthy. It rots your teeth. It makes you fat. It throws off your sugar levels which can lead to diabetes. It's full of colorings and high fructose corn syrup. Everyone knows it's unhealthy, but we drink it anyway. Just like we eat stuff that's bad for us, smoke, sit on the couch too much and make all kinds of risky and harmful personal life choices. As Paul so correctly puts it, "I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time."
I admire Mayor Bloomberg's intentions. He runs a really major city and he wants to promote good health among its citizens and be a model of healthy choices for other cities. Got to say, he's got guts to try this and to stick with it - especially when the personal freedom advocates got their hackles all up, depicting him with a Hitler mustache and all, as such people are prone to do. He was boldly advocating for the common good. Leaders need to have the courage to do that a lot more often. No matter how much they say they care about personal freedom, the beverage industry really just wants to make profits. "Sin simply does what sin is so famous for doing: using the good as a cover to tempt me to do what would finally destroy me." Personal freedom is a good cover for all kinds of sin.
I know as well as anyone that a law outlawing large sugary drinks will not do away with the over-consumption of soda. Where there's a rule, there's a way to get around it, and when something is banned, it becomes forbidden fruit, as Paul wrote yesterday. But I think there is something good about putting public restrictions on things everyone knows is bad. After all, God put the ten commandments in stone, even though God knew we'd break them in a million ways. I think what is lacking is a balance in our nation between profits, sound regulation and plain old common sense.
Today's readings: Jer. 17:19-27; Rom. 7:13-25; John 6:16-27
Elsa is praying the daily readings and praying the news and blogging about it on the weekdays of Lent.
She is reading The Message translation this year.
Note: Elsa is headed off for her yearly Lenten retreat at SSJE. She will return to this blog on Monday, March 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment