Mayor Bloomberg's ban on the sale of large sodas and other drinks in New York is temporarily defeated. Starbucks had defied the ban, while Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds were prepared to follow it. When the ban went before the court, a state judge blocked the ban.
You can read more about it here.
Or watch Bloomberg's response below
I've never been a huge fan of Starbucks, nothing against them mind you, just never understood the obsession with them. That said, I love that they stood up for what they believe in.
Crossing a mayor like Bloomberg has potential repercussions. There's a million different ways the city could become a thorn in Starbucks' operations. I suspect that's why Dunkin and McDonalds fell in-line.
The reason why this is a huge PR win for Starbucks is that, in general, people don't much appreciate a politician acting like their parent and telling them what they can or cannot eat or drink.
I'm not sure why Bloomberg decided to do this in the first place to be honest. I understand the logic behind eating healthier but what I don't understand is FORCING people to eat the way YOU say they should.
I always find it funny the way (most) politicians address health issues as well. Instead of addressing the real issue.. which is that fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive (hence people end up eating cheap, high calorie, low nutrient junk food)... they go after the peripheral issue, which is that sugar-based foods are cheap (not to mention they last longer so vendors can store them for sale much easier than fruits or vegetables).
Point is though if you REALLY wanted a healthier society you'd subsidize farmers who produce fruits and vegetables. Supplement that with nutritional education in the schools and you've done pretty much all you can do short of banning sugar products.
What's silly about this whole issue is that everyone already wants to be healthier. People want to be skinny and look good and be healthy. So why are so many American's obese?
Back to my original point, they hardly eat any fresh produce.
Anyone who has ever dieted will tell you that the basic formula is lots of vegetables and lean meats and drink lots of water. Which, ironically, are the most expensive things to buy in the grocery store (compared to potato chips, cookies and chocolate bars).
Those who take dieting seriously though learn how to combine inexpensive foods (ie. pasta, rice, potatoes) with superfoods such as vegetables to create fairly cheap meals that are super healthy, filling and contain a reasonable amount of calories.
But is Bloomberg ever going to address people's access to and the affordability of good healthy foods? No way. Instead he goes after the size of the cup people are drinking soda from.
Kudos to Starbucks for not cow-towing to a politician's superficial attempt at looking like he truly cares about the obesity problem in America. If Bloomberg really wants to fix the problem he'd do something to make healthy foods more available to Americans and then spend money convincing them how important it is to eat those foods to stay healthy.
It's never the best PR strategy to get in people's business telling them what they can and cannot do, especially when what your proposing amounts to nothing more than an inconvenience for folks and does not come close to fixing the problem you are supposedly attempting to fix.
You can read more about it here.
Or watch Bloomberg's response below
I've never been a huge fan of Starbucks, nothing against them mind you, just never understood the obsession with them. That said, I love that they stood up for what they believe in.
The reason why this is a huge PR win for Starbucks is that, in general, people don't much appreciate a politician acting like their parent and telling them what they can or cannot eat or drink.
I'm not sure why Bloomberg decided to do this in the first place to be honest. I understand the logic behind eating healthier but what I don't understand is FORCING people to eat the way YOU say they should.
I always find it funny the way (most) politicians address health issues as well. Instead of addressing the real issue.. which is that fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive (hence people end up eating cheap, high calorie, low nutrient junk food)... they go after the peripheral issue, which is that sugar-based foods are cheap (not to mention they last longer so vendors can store them for sale much easier than fruits or vegetables).
What's silly about this whole issue is that everyone already wants to be healthier. People want to be skinny and look good and be healthy. So why are so many American's obese?
Back to my original point, they hardly eat any fresh produce.
Anyone who has ever dieted will tell you that the basic formula is lots of vegetables and lean meats and drink lots of water. Which, ironically, are the most expensive things to buy in the grocery store (compared to potato chips, cookies and chocolate bars).
Those who take dieting seriously though learn how to combine inexpensive foods (ie. pasta, rice, potatoes) with superfoods such as vegetables to create fairly cheap meals that are super healthy, filling and contain a reasonable amount of calories.
But is Bloomberg ever going to address people's access to and the affordability of good healthy foods? No way. Instead he goes after the size of the cup people are drinking soda from.
Kudos to Starbucks for not cow-towing to a politician's superficial attempt at looking like he truly cares about the obesity problem in America. If Bloomberg really wants to fix the problem he'd do something to make healthy foods more available to Americans and then spend money convincing them how important it is to eat those foods to stay healthy.
It's never the best PR strategy to get in people's business telling them what they can and cannot do, especially when what your proposing amounts to nothing more than an inconvenience for folks and does not come close to fixing the problem you are supposedly attempting to fix.
Comments
Post a Comment