Pouring on the Pounds

No one can deny the New York City government's dedication to public health goals. Seven years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused a tidal wave of reaction when he decided to battle against the city's smoking culture. It started with a ban on smoking inside public areas such as bars and restaurants, a measure which now may be expanded to include some outdoor public areas as well. The offensive was then compounded upon by a hefty tax applied to all purchases of tobacco products in NYC. Although the unconventional taxation and social exile still brings furrows to the brows of many of NYC's smokers, there is no denying the positive impact of the counter-cigarette campaign, as at the time of its inception, help was offered by the city to any smoker willing to try and fight their addiction.

Now, Bloomberg is launching yet another public health battle. Along with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, the mayor has released target health goals for 2012 which include a strategic health agenda to preemptively target preventable sickness and death, including lung disease and cancer, HIV, and heart disease. Recognizing that poor diet is directly related to poorer health, the city has released its newest campaign- against sugary beverages. The ads that are being run throughout the five boroughs feature the title "Are you Pouring on the Pounds?" and are accompanied by gag-inducing images featuring soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages pouring greasy, fatty deposits into a glass.

Although the ads are somewhat sensationalized, they represent exactly the kind of shock doctrine which might just result in behavior change. As obesity and diabetes levels soar in the United States, at least one city is fighting back against one of the biggest adversaries to our health: high fructose corn syrup, found in most sodas and juice "drinks."

Is it enough, though? Some are suggesting that besides a media campaign, an economic extension should be included in the strategy to combat these sugary devils. Much like the formidable taxes placed against tobacco products, they think that taxing another harmful product would be a wise means of aiding public health goals, with a very opportunistic economic advantage tagging along right behind. It could be just what we need in these hard economic times. Then again, we have to wonder who this tax will effect. Like the smoking tax, a tax on sugary beverages would hit those of lower economic standing hardest, as their mobility to find alternatives is limited, and their budget for food products is more humble. As one friend put it, a 12 cent tax on a can of soda won't bother a guy who pays $3.50 for a latte each morning. And as Professor Edward L. Glaeser put it in the New York Times, comparing ads to taxes: "Both approaches try to reduce soda consumption by making it less pleasant to drink soda. One approach hits you in the wallet; the other hits you in the stomach."

Either way, the incentive for increasing public health is a legitimate one. As of yet no taxes have been imposed, but a sense of awareness about our bodies certainly has. The 'ick factor' of the city's newest ads are effective in their ability to inflict a sense of responsibility in our minds, so that maybe next time we will choose that water or that healthier option of drink. Basically, if it grosses you out, that means that it's working!