Example of regulatory policy-supersize article review

The news article provides information on New York City’s mayor proposal on banning supersized sugary drinks in the city (Laura, 2012). The board of health in the city went on to approve the ban on sale of high calorie drinks served in containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban targets the city’s restaurants, movie theatres, street carts, sports venues and delis. The ban takes effect from the 12th of March 2013 (Laura, 2012). The ban aims at drinks which contain higher than 25 calories per 8 ounces. 100% juice drinks and beverages with milk content of more than 50% will be unscathed (Laura, 2012). This paper will develop an argument for and against the regulatory policy on super-sized drinks in New York City.

Benefits of the regulatory policy

The regulatory policy on the size of beverage containers serving high-calorie drinks targets to improve the health of citizens in the city (Laura, 2012). According to the New York mayor, the obesity epidemic has affected many citizens and the new policy will help to cushion the citizens from the epidemic. The health of citizens in any state or country comes first and it is for this reason that the policy receives. Mass consumption of sugar does contribute to obesity and diabetes and this poses a danger to the health of the community

The regulatory policy on the size of soft drink beverages can also help to reduce the health cost incurred by the government and individuals. By reducing on consumption of sugary drinks, the policy helps to prevent lifestyle diseases such as obesity, heart diseases and diabetes. The cost currently used to treat such cases can be allocated to research on other chronic disease conditions, which have little information or cure.

The policy does not ban individuals from drinking the amounts of soft drink they desire. The policy allows the citizens to still purchase as much of the soft drinks they desire but in the recommended appropriate sizes. The policy does not therefore curtail on the liberty or freedom of choice of consumers as argued by others. The policy only prevents the consumers from taking the soft drinks in junk calories (Media News Group, 2012).

Against the regulatory policy

The ban on supersized drinks is limited to a few areas such as; movie theatres, delis, arenas, restaurants and workplace cafeterias (Media News Group, 2012). The policy does not target supermarkets or convenience stores. This policy therefore may turn out to be fruitless if it does not fairly cut across all the soft drinks outlets. This ban should target all retail outlets if it is truly aimed at reducing the size of sugary drink containers. With the current exemptions, it simply means that if a sugar addict desires a large drink, he or she runs to where the policy is not in effect and obtains the drink (Media News Group, 2012).
.
It also creates for uneven competition among the retail outlets as grocery stores and supermarkets get to obtain unfair market advantage (Media News Group, 2012). This policy will massively cut on the profit margins of soft drink manufactures and sellers. The ban places many small businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
The ban limits consumer choice. The ban appears to make decisions for consumers on what to eat and drink. If an individual desires his or her big gulp of a sugary drink, he or she should be free to purchase on his or her own (Media News Group, 2012).

References

group, M. n. (2012, September 15). Don’t ban them, tax them. Retrieved September 26, 2012,
from Brattleboro Reformer: http://www. reformer. com/reformereditorials/ci_21549138/don-rsquo-t-ban-them-tax-them
Petrecca, L. (2012, September 13). ‘Supersized’ drinks on the way out in NYC. Retrieved
September 26, 2012, from USA TODAY: http://www. usatoday. com/news/nation/story/2012/09/13/supersized-drinks-on-the-way-out-in-nyc/57775970/1