Are restrictions on sugar and sugary beverages justified?
Recent public health research has shown that sugary drinks are major causatives of obesity and diabetes and that their continued intake could lead to increased risk of heart disease, which is a predominant killer in the US. However, taking action on sugary drinks wrong-foots several sectors of the economy that are driven by sugar. This is in addition to the individual choice that each person has to make when it comes to their health. Despite these dilemmas, the US government has moved to implement bans against sugar-sweetened drinks such as the Bloomberg ban in 2012 that was struck down by a judicial court in 2013. According to Grynbaum & Connelly (2012), 60 per cent of New York residents were opposed to the soda ban, pointing to the need to make such moves a people’s initiative. Irrespective of the government concern over the health of citizens, legislation should target forcing manufacturers to inform consumers of the health risks of their eating habits and leave the final decision to individuals.
Benefits of the sugar industry to the economy.
The major reason why restrictions on sugar and sugary beverages are not justified is the overall benefit it has to the economy. In the 2009/2010 financial year, the sugar sector contributed a massive 8.4 billion dollars to the GDP of the USA (LMC, 2011). Additionally, the wages and benefits of the sugar industry totalled 4.2 billion dollars. Generally, the direct economic impact of sugar on the US economy stood at 19.5 billion dollars. LMC, (2011) adds that the industry also supports over 142,000 jobs in total, pointing to the impact of stringent measures on the industry. These statistics point to the adoption of a better approach, vouching and facilitating an organic solution to the problem of sugar intake in sugar beverages.
Another fundamental concern in enacting of strict guidelines in controlling the beverage industry is the legal questions that arise from it. Deliberate government efforts would be seen as an effort to curtail basic freedoms of choice. Every person should have the liberty to eat and drink what they want. The interference into these freedoms would be seen as an effort to start controlling the private lives of citizens. The Sugary drinks portion cap rule that was introduced by the then New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was fought by several sectors who felt the city was overstepping its mandate, an opinion that was upheld by a court that struck down the soda ban. Conly (2013) cites the soda ban as an example of coercive tendencies in healthcare by authorities while Bakst (2013) termed it as a threat to the freedom to eat. However, the concerted opposition was sponsored by leading bottlers, Coca-cola and PepsiCo.
The impact of beverage manufacturers in the process.
For long, beverage manufacturers have made a habit of affecting the taste of their drinks by adding sugar and associated sweeteners. This deliberate sweetening has led to massive health detriments with experts warning people of the long term effects. Manufacturers are a key stakeholder in the debate over control of sugar intake in beverages. The predominant question is the focus on profits versus the welfare of society. On another plane, the companies employ a sizable number of Americans and contribute massively to the economy through taxes and cannot be dismissed. Consequently, these companies are faced with massive choices to make. It is therefore important to find a common ground that takes care of the interests of the public and the beverage companies. Companies should be ready to conform to recommendations by experts to tailor their drink to agreed standards of sugar for the overall public good.
Beverage companies should focus on creating drinks that have less sugar content. The companies should have a caucus with health experts and design a framework that accommodates their interest and the public good. The companies could introduce alternative sweeteners such as stevia, sucralose and aspartame that are free of calories. These sweeteners could properly replace the excessive amounts of sugar in drinks and maintain the marketing edge of the companies. Additionally, the companies could settle for lesser quantity bottle for soft drinks, encouraging people to take less of their drinks. This way, the choice of intake will be given to consumers and absolve the manufacturers of absolute blame for sugar-related lifestyle illnesses. However, this process is hampered by the lack of business viability for the small bottle approach for most companies (Bourquard & Wu, 2016).
The power of individual decision making
The battle against sweetened beverages is largely a call of the consumers. Sugar is largely associated with the stimulation of the chemical dopamine in the brain, which makes people feel good (Mergenthaler et al., 2013). This leads to a predominant craving and addiction to sugar. This is the major driving force for sugar intake and where most beverage companies capitalize. The development of antisugar culture is the first step in a positive direction. Most manufacturers make their products to suit the dominant fads. E.g., when the society is averse to certain foods due to the existing fad, companies don’t produce them as they did before. These organic reactions should be stimulated within the population to make companies conform and make drinks with fewer calories. The decision to live a healthy lifestyle should be an individual priority, thus the government will not need restrictions. The Coca-Cola Company is already buying into these and has introduced the sugar-free drink.
One way in which consumers can opt for healthier lifestyles is going for drinks that are calorie-free such as water and milk (Zheng et al., 2015). Drinking water as an alternative for sugary beverages comes with an immense benefit such as detoxifying the body besides saving one the dangers of taking sugar-sweetened drinks. Additionally, consumers can capitalize on the feedback mechanisms offered by most companies to rout for an alteration to suit their health needs. Consumers can suggest that the companies reduce the sugar content of their products owing to the health demerits. Such a step will not force the government to intervene by imposing restrictions.
The social space should also be controlled regarding calorie intake. This will spare the government the onus of stepping in to control people’s diet. One of the methods of doing this is by enacting regulations in schools to stack drinks of smaller sizes. This way, it is easier for students to choose drinks with fewer calorie quantities. Research has also proved that most children take sugary beverages at home (Lasater et al., 2011). Better informed parents should reduce or eliminate sugar-sweetened beverages that they stack at home to control the intake by children. Additionally, workplace dispensers should adopt healthier options that enable people to stay away from beverages. These include beverages with fewer calories. All these steps are an organic way to control calorie intake without introducing stringent government legislations to control the industry.
Moderate government input.
Despite the mantra to keep off the government from interfering in the organic dietary change, some mild regulations can be implemented to fast track the process. One of these is the introduction of revised labelling relations that could inform decision making by consumers. The current process allows companies to carry the tag ‘reduced sugar’ if their drinks have less than quarter calories than the standard size of the beverage? However, the new regulations should encompass an increased threshold with drinks qualifying as ‘reduced sugar’ having less than 70 per cent fewer calories. Additionally, drinks that don’t meet this threshold should be labelled with warnings of obesity and diabetes. Likewise, the government can come in by regulating marketing. Commercials on television and social media that target children should be censored like in Britain (Briggs et al., 2013). This is because children are a vulnerable population and cannot make proper choices concerning their health.
Finally, sugared beverages do to qualify as food products and thus should be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes. This is because the government is already spending a good chunk of tax money treating sugar-related illnesses. Additionally, the beverages don’t have any notable nutritional value and are risky to the consumers. These taxes will raise the costs of these products and give consumers an extra financial choice to make. Briggs et al. (2013) realized that the impact of the increase of taxes on sugary beverages had a positive econometric impact. However, these demerits don’t wipe away the benefits of the industry to the GDP of the country. Thus, these taxes should not be so high as to hamper business in this sector since it employs many people and is already beneficial to the economy.
The sugar-related beverages exist in an industry with a huge economic impact on the USA. Therefore, the goal of consumer-driven beverage control mechanisms is to inspire behavioural change that shall lead to a long term solution for the problem. People should be challenged to solve health problems by making better eating choices. Obesity, diabetes and heart conditions have become malignant problems related to the type of food people take and their lifestyles. Part of the initial steps to help stem these problems is trying to control the intake of causative foods and drinks. However, this control should not be forceful but organic and people-driven. Despite the proposition of strict government legislation to control the industry to protect the consumers, the negative effects of the process warrant a safer and more amicable approach. Beverage manufacturers must appreciate the health impact of their products on the population and work towards solving that problem with the community. This should be the focus of any beverage company that is targeting sustainability in the industry and could act as good public relations.
References.
Grynbaum, M. M., & Connelly, M. (2012). 60% in city oppose Bloomberg’s soda ban, poll finds. New York Times.
LMC, I. (2011). The Economic Importance of the Sugar Industry to the U.S. Economy – Jobs & Revenues (pp. 1-24, Rep.). New York: LMC International.
Conly, S. (2013). Coercive paternalism in health care: Against freedom of choice. Public Health Ethics, 6(3), 241-245.
Bakst, D. (2013). Government control of your diet: Threats to” freedom to eat.
Briggs, A. D., Mytton, O. T., Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2013). Overall and income specific effect on the prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar-sweetened drink tax in the UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. Bmj, 347, f6189.
Bourquard, B., & Wu, S. (2016). An Economic Analysis of Beverage Size Restrictions (No. 333-2016-14852).
Mergenthaler, P., Lindauer, U., Dienel, G. A., & Meisel, A. (2013). Sugar for the brain: the role of glucose in physiological and pathological brain function. Trends in neurosciences, 36(10), 587-597.
Zheng, M., Allman-Farinelli, M., Heitmann, B. L., & Rangan, A. (2015). Substitution of sugar-sweetened beverages with other beverage alternatives: a review of long-term health outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(5), 767-779.
Lasater, G., Piernas, C., & Popkin, B. M. (2011). Beverage patterns and trends among school-aged children in the US, 1989-2008. Nutrition journal, 10(1), 103.