Why Limiting Soft Drink Serving Size is Justified
The proposed ban makes perfect sense if you think about if from the motives of the sellers. By increasing the default size served, the beverage industry is making money—a lot of money—and keeping us fat to boot. Customers are passive receptacles, drinking many more calories than they otherwise would have.
If you want more soda, buy two. Why are people reluctant to embrace that easy workaround? Because people want to be passive victims; they consume what they are served; ALL of it. If 20 ounces are served, then 20 ounces is a serving.
When you pour yourself a glass of soda from a 2-liter bottle, do you pour 20 ounces?
The first time a pimply popcorn seller asked me if I wanted a gallon of Coke for a quarter more than the cost of that puny cup I ordered, I was incredulous. It was illogical. It was crazy. After I recovered, I figured out that the extra soda cost them much less than a quarter. The concession stand pockets a whole lot of quarters that add up to a whole lot of dollars.
Order an omelet at iHop, and the waitress will offer a side of toast or pancakes. Toast or pancakes? How is that an even choice?
I hear the argument that the proposed soda size ban is unfair because 7-11 can still serve a Big Gulp and Carnegie Deli can serve a pastrami sandwich the size of a “cow with a rye yarmulke,” according to Jon Stewart. Normal serving sizes have to start somewhere.
Bloomberg is starting with the worst offender, a category with no nutritional value, just hollow, empty calories. Don’t argue that the initiative shouldn’t happen just because it isn’t going to happen everywhere at once.
Despite my backing of the mayor’s plan, I won’t stop calling the beverages “soft drinks” and rename them “sugary beverages.” It’s odd to me the entire media has adopted the new word choice, even the commentators who are against the ban.