Why is important to limit soda for our future generation Today we have a really big problem: what we eat and what we drink. There are so many choices to make. Media and commercials advertised all kind of fast food restaurants rather then eat healthy and prepare food at home. Fast food is so affordable and you can get it everywhere and the question about different size of soda is the most recent example. It became a problem because people began drinking two litters of soda is considered normal. How will this problem effect our future generation? What we should do to prevent this “sickness”? Why is there a desire for bigger sizes? People become more interested in having a discount rather then being healthy. We all definitely have a choice and it is individual, but so many factors affect our choices. Companies that work in the fast food industry are the strongest supporters of this problem. It is in their best sell to us larger cup of soda. Today it is normal to get 32-ounce soda and not bother your self with refill. But if we have only a 16-ounce soda it is possible that we wont stop, and the problem becomes the person who wants more will buy two or more of these 16-ounce cups. So what is the solution? According to the article, “Downsizing Supersize”, by James Surowieski, Michael Bloomberg raised very acute issue of the sizes of sugar-sweetened beverages. “That many of us are used to the idea of large servings”. (Surowieski, 3) There is not much use in criticizing unless you offer an alternative solution. There are many factors that may affect people’s decisions. If you offer people only one choice, most people will go with this singular option. Because there are so many varieties people reacting to this deal, they simply want “more”. “The major reason why people buy larger-sized sodas is that they walk in and they see the price per once,” says David Just, who teaches behavioral economics at Cornell University. “It makes economic sense for them.” Bloomberg’s idea is to design a sixteen once bottle of soda and by providing people with only one size they should start to believe that this is more then enough, and that is “normal”. On the other hand does Mayer Bloomberg have a right to do so? Does a state government have the right to decide for its people what is better for them? Our Founding Fathers wrote a declaration that outlined not only rights as people, but also what state government was able to enforce. Then the government had to interfere. “ The Board of Health does not limit anyone’s consumption, it just requires them to think about whether they really want more then 16 ounces”, Bloomberg said. “Remember that for many years, the standard soda size was 6 ounce, then it became 12 and people thought that was huge.” What government can do it is to offer alternative decisions to resolve this problem. For example, Europe also has soda, but it made from natural ingredients, contains less sugar and flavored with other sweeteners. As research has showed not any of the “healthy” sodas come bottled in cans. Especially those machines that automatically give you a refill because nobody cleans them very well and the soda are going through a sick layer of sugar. Maybe government should think about it before placing soda machines in school? Another example is to tax soda the way we do with alcohol and tobacco. “Some European countries do have such taxes, but the idea has been a political non- started in New York.”(Surowieski, 3) Mark Bittman in his article “Limit Soda for Kids’ Sake” talking about “nanny state”. A “nanny state” is when the government being over protected and limits personal choice. In fact nobody want that government tell you what to eat, to drink, to smoke and etc. But in some cases we need a nanny state. “We want government oversight and regulation when it protects us from what we want to be protected from”. (Dr. Jonny Bowden, web) So or we can be sensitive about