Unintended Consequences: Bloomberg's Proposed Big Soda Ban Likely To Backfire
Melissa Healy reports in the LA Times -- well, "reports," not bothering to name the researchers or link to the journal:
New research shows that prompting beverage makers to sell sodas in smaller packages and bundle them as a single unit actually encourages consumers to buy more soda -- and gulp down more calories -- than they would have consumed without the ban.Not only would thirsty people drink more, but circumventing the big-drink ban by offering consumers bundles of smaller drinks also would mean more revenue for the beverage purveyors, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE. The sales boost would probably offset the added cost of producing more cups, lids and straws to hold those extra drinks, the researchers found.
The results reveal "a potential unintended consequence that may need to be considered in future policymaking," wrote the study authors, psychologists from UC San Diego.
The findings come a month after a New York judge struck down a bid by New York City's health department to halt the sale of super-sized soft drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and sports venues across the city, calling the proposed measure "arbitrary and capricious.
Study, by Brent M. Wilson, Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino, Edmund Fantino, is here: Wilson BM, Stolarz-Fantino S, Fantino E (2013). "Regulating the Way to Obesity: Unintended Consequences of Limiting Sugary Drink Sizes." PLoS ONE 8(4): e61081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061081
Well, THAT's odd - normally government regulations have EXACTLY the effect that the regulators intend!
(sarcasm, of course!)
TJIC at April 12, 2013 6:35 AM
Once again leftists trip over their self-contradictions... complying with the ban means more packaging, and more trash, for the same amount of product.
Cousin Dave at April 12, 2013 6:37 AM
What is the "libertarian viewpoint" on truly addictive substances.
Not substances like marijuana that presumably most people can self-regulate, but mind altering, mind addicting, body altering, body addicting substances like high fructose corn syrup?
So I "worry" about HFCS as being like a computer virus, hacking into our brains by being so freaking sweet, making us buy more and more of it,
If something is truly addictive that way, exploiting an unpatched bug in our wetware should it really be sold (especially to kids)?
This is not my agreeing with what Bloomberg is doing at all, and is based on my lousy observations of people over the years, and boy do I like a nice cold refreshing glass of Coca-Cola (It's the real thing) on a hot summer's day, but I wonder....
(See also Snow Crash)
jerry at April 12, 2013 7:21 AM
The results reveal "a potential unintended consequence that may need to be considered in future policymaking," wrote the study authors, psychologists from UC San Diego.
What? Actually thinking something through? You can't demand politicians do that! Actually, I like the judges ruling better. "Arbitrary and capricious" can be read as, "Mind your own damn business, Mike!"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at April 12, 2013 10:34 AM
So I "worry" about HFCS
Do you also worry about honey? and before you say "huh?", HFCS (51%) can be used to cut honey.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 12, 2013 10:49 AM
I don't use enough honey, but the honey I use comes from Trader Joe's.
jerry at April 12, 2013 7:27 PM
Leave a comment