retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The Boston Globe reports that city officials “are weighing — gingerly — whether to restrict or even prohibit the sale of calorie-laden refreshments on city-owned property. The city has convened influential health, education, and housing leaders to develop a policy that aims to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.”

According to the story, “There are precedents: San Francisco’s mayor earlier this year issued an executive order banning sale of sugary drinks, and New York has imposed rules governing the mix of beverages in city vending machines to favor water.

“In both cases, politicians and health authorities cited the link between soft drinks and the nation’s bulging waistline: From the mid-1970s to 2000, the average American’s daily calorie load attributed to sugary drinks rose from 70 to 190, one study reported. And Harvard researchers found that women who consume more than two of the beverages a day have an almost 40 percent higher risk of heart disease than women who largely forgo them.”

The Globe notes that Boston officials have imposed such bans before, with initiatives on workplace smoking and trans fats. This time, however, it is possible that a sugary beverage ban might be too far ahead of where most consumers are, and could meet some resistance.
KC's View:
I’m simply not sure how effective such a ban would be. People would buy them elsewhere...and it reinforces the notion of the nanny state. On the other hand, there is a public policy component in terms of the impact of such diseases on the nation’s health care system.