The intentions of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg may be

Question

laudable, but it’s wrong for one man, even an elected official and
even a well-meaning one at that, to dictate to people how big a cup
of sugary soda they’re allowed.
Not that I have tremendous regard for soda. It’s bad for you,
especially in large quantities. The evidence against it mounts on
a semi-regular basis. But the mayor’s initiative goes further than
something like a soda tax, which might aim to discourage people
from purchasing something by making it cost a bit more but leaves
the decision in their hands. Bloomberg is playing nanny in the
worst sort of way by interfering in a basic, private transaction
involving a perfectly legal substance. In restaurants and other
establishments overseen by the city’s health inspectors, it would
have been illegal to sell a serving of most sugary drinks (except fruit
juice; I always wonder about that exemption, considering the sugar
calories in apple juice) that’s more than 16 ounces.
Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven are overseen by the state
and would be exempt, but a Burger King across the street would
be restricted. A pizza restaurant would not be able to sell a 2-liter
bottle of soda that would be shared out among the children at a
birthday party. But they could all have a 16-ounce cup. The inherent
contradictions that make it easy to sneer at such rules have been
well-reported and were a good part of why earlier this week a
judge stopped the new rules from being implemented. But he also
pointed out a deeper problem: Bloomberg essentially made this
decision himself. It was approved by the Board of Health, but that’s
a board of the administration, appointed by the mayor. That was
1. the land of “Big Brother” place in which the government or another organization
exercises total control over people’s lives; the term Big Brother was coined by George
Orwell in his famous dystopian novel, 1984.
4

intentions (ihn TEHN shuhnz) 1
n. purposes for or goals of
one’s actions
dictate (DIHK tayt) v.
give orders to control or
influence something

2

exemption (ehg ZEHMP
shuhn) n. permission not to
do or pay for something
that others are required to
do or pay

3

CLOSE READ
ANNOTATE: Mark the
term in the fourth
sentence of paragraph 4
that the author repeats.
QUESTION: Why do you
think the author repeats
this term?
CONCLUDE: What effect
does this repetition have
on the reader?
NOTES

288 UNIT 3 • WHAT MATTERS

LIT17_SE08_U03_A3C_WC.indd 288 31/10/19 9:37 PM

Copyright © SAVVAS Learning Company LLC. All Rights Reserved.

NOTES
CLOSE READ
ANNOTATE: Mark the
text in paragraph 4 in
which the author makes
exceptions to her claims.
QUESTION: Why might
the author have chosen to
include this information,
which does not support
her argument?
CONCLUDE: What effect
does the author’s inclusion
of this information have
on the reader?

an overreach that thwarted the system of checks and balances,
according to the judge: The separately elected City Council would
have to approve the law.
That still leaves the question of whether governments or their
leaders can begin dictating the look of an individual’s meal, the
portion sizes for each aspect. There are times when government has
to step in on obviously dangerous situations—especially those, such
as smoking, that affect people other than the person whose behavior
would be curbed—but it’s my belief that we want to scrutinize
them carefully and keep them to a minimum. For that matter, it’s
not as though the mayor is moving to limit sales of tobacco to two
cigarettes per transaction.
Not that government has to aid and abet the situation. Schools
don’t have to sell junk foods, and, thankfully, after years of sacrificing
their students’ health to their desire to raise more money, most of
them have stopped allowing vending machines stocked with sodas.
Governments are under no obligation to sell such stuff in park or
pool vending machines or in their offices. In such cases, government
is simply the vendor making a decision about what it wants to sell.
I don’t buy the argument that people are helpless in the face
of sugar and that it’s better to have the government rather than
the corporations dictate their behaviors. If people are so helpless
against soda, the mayor’s edict would be even more meaningless
because people would simply buy two 16-ounce cups. But people
are not helpless, and it’s worrisome to promote a philosophy that
infantilizes the individual. The public is simply ill-informed. It takes
a while for people to become aware, but they do and they react.
Soda consumption already is slipping nationwide.
Let’s not forget that scientists and even governments have at
times pushed people—with better intentions than food corporations,
certainly—into eating high levels of refined carbohydrates and sugars
by sending out word that the only thing that really matters when it
comes to obesity is to eat a very low-fat diet. ❧

why is this argument not convincing?

Answer 1

This argument may be considered unconvincing for several reasons:

1. Overgeneralization: The author presents a broad argument about government intervention and individual choice, but this oversimplifies complex public health issues. While some individuals may be well-informed and able to make healthy choices, many people struggle with unhealthy food options due to lack of education, socioeconomic factors, or overwhelming marketing from food corporations.

2. Ignoring Public Health Data: The author acknowledges that soda consumption is harmful and cites evidence against it but then dismisses the government’s role in addressing these harms. This approach undermines the seriousness of the public health crisis associated with sugary drinks and obesity, which many health experts argue necessitate intervention.

3. Nanny State Argument: The author frames the initiative as an overreach or "nanny" state action, which may alienate readers who believe in proactive government measures to protect public health. Many public health advocates argue that protecting citizens from harmful products is a valid function of government.

4. Contradictory Claims: The author states that people are not helpless against soda consumption but then swiftly moves to argue that if people are not helpless, then regulation is meaningless. This contradiction can confuse the reader about the efficacy of government measures and individual agency.

5. Lack of Alternatives: The argument does not present a viable solution to the problems associated with sugar consumption or the obesity epidemic. Suggesting that people are simply uninformed doesn't offer a constructive pathway for how to improve public health without government intervention.

6. Failure to Address Societal Influences: The author overlooks the impact of food marketing, accessibility of healthy options, and other societal factors that severely impact individual choices related to diet. Simply asserting that individuals should be responsible for their choices ignores these larger systemic issues.

7. Choice vs. Health: The argument prioritizes individual freedom and choice over public health concerns, which may resonate with a particular audience but fail to convince those who prioritize collective well-being.

Overall, the argument’s fundamental appeal to individualism and skepticism of government intervention lacks depth in exploring the complexities of public health and the variety of forces influencing dietary choices.