Thursday, July 8, 2010

Banning sugary drink machines

It would seem that the city of San Francisco has decided to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks on city property. At face value one would think that this is a good step towards improving the health of the population. But if you really think about it such a move may not be as helpful as one may think and might even be harmful. I like Jason Kuznicki's take on it.

In order to get people to think twice about what we consume its going to take more than spot banning items that are deemed as unhealthy. What it will take is educating people on how to examine the things we are consuming. And this is why I like Jason's approach. Take a look at this:
I could also point out that a tall Starbucks Frappuccino — also 12 ounces, and not covered by the ban — has 190 calories, largely from sugar and fat.
How are out attitudes supposed to change when we are told that sugar loaded sodas are bad for us while still getting the thumbs up on sugar loaded coffee like products? Hell I'd say its even worse because of the price difference. You can't chose to spend a dollar on a can of soda but its okay to spend $5 on a cup of something that has even more sugar, fat, and calories in it?

I know that the city of San Francisco would have a tough fight on its hands trying ban restaurants from selling such drinks and foods and I don't think it would be very useful anyway because just like the ban on city property you would only end up with banned products without the knowledge to know why you may not want to consume those items.

You'll notice I've said think about consuming rather than not consuming. That's because in the end there are going to be people who will choose to consume those items anyway and it would unfair to try to tell people what they can and cannot eat, which is what this ban is doing.

However even with the knowledge of what to consume and not the issues with food won't be addressed....