Doubtless most people’s reaction when they first heard of Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large-size sugary drinks was: There he goes again.
And, indeed, there’s a large dollop of Mike’s trademark nannyism at work here.
But there are some critical differences, too. Which is why this particular attempt to combat America’s obesity epidemic may well be worthwhile.
Bloomberg wants a citywide ban on sugary drinks sold in delis, fast-food restaurants and sports arenas in single servings larger than 16 ounces.
The ban would not apply to vending machines or convenience stores, nor to diet sodas, fruit drinks or dairy-based drinks.
If approved by the Board of Health — a formality, since Bloomberg controls it — the ban should take effect next March.
This isn’t the first time Mayor Mike has gone to war against sugary drinks, of course: He got them out of city and school vending machines, though his efforts to impose higher taxes on their sale failed.
But those approaches have not been shown to significantly reduce soda consumption.
Reducing portion size, on the other hand, most definitely has — as Bloomberg notes.
“You tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you,” he said. “If it’s a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”
And that’s not just speculation.
As Sarah Kliff notes in The Washington Post, in one noted experiment moviegoers were given their choice of medium or large buckets of stale, week-old popcorn.
Despite the bad taste, those with the large buckets ate 33.6 percent more popcorn — that is, increasing total calorie consumption by a third.
Moreover, a recent Belgian experiment showed that splitting a particular cookie in half reduced consumption by 25 percent — people were less likely to take seconds.
“The more general explanation of why large packages and portions increase consumption may be that they suggest larger consumption norms,” according to Cornell’s Brian Wansink, a leading researcher in food-portion size.
“They implicitly suggest what might be consumed as a ‘normal’ or ‘appropriate’ amount to consume.”
Fact is, the proposal would not bar free refills or even multiple purchases — it’s meant to discourage, not to ban.
And, to be honest, localities around the nation have ended up adopting many of Bloomberg’s health-related initiatives.
We’ve never been fans of coercive government measures. But this one seems less onerous than most.
It’s certainly worth a try.