Brownell Weighs In on NYC Proposal to Limit Beverage Sizes
The director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity
recently authored an article in The Atlantic arguing in favor of the New York
City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s (DOHMH) proposal to limit the size of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) sold in restaurants and other
food service establishments. According to Kelly Brownell, industry opposition
to the measure is rooted in concern over profits, which “increase as people
buy bigger portions” since “the cost for the soda companies and restaurants
to serve larger sizes may be mere cents for a larger cup and the extra liquid.”
As a result, he says, soda manufacturers have banded together to voice their
opposition to the measure, a campaign that Brownell anticipates will include
lawsuits as well as “new industry-funded studies that will show, contrary to
the large number of existing studies, that portion size does not have an effect
on eating or weight.”
In particular, Brownell contends that previous research has shown how both
adults and children “eat more when they are served more” and “do not report
feeling more full even though they have eaten more.” He also claims that
consumers “tend to consume foods in units—typically what is in a bag, a
bottle or a box,” making SSBs a top priority for public health officials. “These
products are the single sources of added sugar in the American diet,” opines
Brownell, “they represent empty calories (they have no nutrition at all), they
are marketed aggressively by industry, and, most notably, they act on the
body differently than calories contained in solid foods.”
To this end, Brownell dismisses objections to the DOHMH proposal maintaining that people are likely to buy the same of amount of soda in multiple servings. “Certainly, for some people this will happen,” he concludes. “There are speed limits and some people speed, and there are high tobacco taxes and some people smoke anyway and pay more. But the death and disability that would ensue by removing such laws would be massive.” See The Atlantic, June 15, 2012.
