Unlike Coke, soda ban was not the real thing

Councillors talk bold steps to ban sugar drinks but vote for limits at rec centres

It’s been quite a while since I’ve seen Hamilton councillors invest so much time, passion and rhetoric to such tiny effect.

After an hour-long debate Wednesday night, they voted 9-6 to scale back the sale of sugary drinks and plastic water bottles at city-run arenas, rec centres and vending machines in the name of promoting healthier choices to the public.

The move is part of a three-year public health strategy to “change the food environment” at city facilities.

Though city staff took pains to describe the push against sugars and plastics as a reduction not a ban, Coun. Aidan Johnson arguably came closer to the mark by referring to it as — take your pick — a “partial ban” or “qualified ban” or a “gradual phasing out.”

Any of the three descriptions work unless you’re unimpressed by tenuous steps.

The reality is, despite all the highflown words about protecting people’s health, fighting plastic pollution and raising public awareness, volunteer-run concessions at city facilities will still be allowed to peddle sugarlaced drinks to willing purchasers and the city will still supply volunteers at community events with plastic water bottles in bulk.

That makes this so-called action plan at best an angelic gesture that will cost the city an estimated $64,000 in lost revenue.

At worst, it’s an empty token that will still cost the city $64,000.

Oh, but what an Olympian debate councillors had.

Soap boxes were mounted. Studies were cited. Science, future generations, even McDonald’s French fries were invoked in a struggle reminiscent of proverbial bald men fighting over a comb.

Johnson, who delivered an epic 10-minute endorsement of the initiative, unleashed statistics about the global impact of plastic pollution, the dangers of micro-plastics in water bottles, and the negative health impacts that over consumption of sugar has on our “sacred human body parts.”

No doubt he is correct. The oceans and shores are literally awash with discarded plastics and, Lord knows, Hamiltonians are on average fatter and more prone to diabetes than the rest of Ontario.

But reducing the reliance on and prominence of bottled water and sugary drinks at city rec centres is such a timid response it borders on a charade.

For his part, Coun. Tom Jackson worried the plan is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to an outright ban.

Presumably he’s concerned that food and beverage contracts will now be reassessed once the existing ones expire. Consumer “choice” is always Jackson’s preference.

“McDonald’s has not gotten rid of all their French fries,” he noted.

“They’re now promoting salads, much healthier choices. But I don’t see them eliminating or reducing or throwing out French fries off their menu.”

Entering the deep fryer, Mayor Fred Eisenberger compared limiting access to sugared drinks and water bottles to educating people about the harmful effects of smoking. “We need to see this in the same light.”

For my (tax) money, Couns. Matthew Green and Sam Merulla best summed up the minuscule step from duelling perspectives.

Speaking fervently in support of the ban-that-isn’t-a-ban, Green said, “This motion, in a very modest way, at a very low level as a municipality, provides a little bit of leadership.”

Not the kind of ringing slogan you plaster on an election sign, but, to be fair, Green did state he personally would prefer a wholesale ban.

Mind you, he also expressed hope future generations will look back to this moment and say Hamilton did the right thing.

I suspect if anyone ever looks back to this moment they’re more likely to figure there was a lot of chopping going on but few chips flying.

Merulla, who voted against the plan, concluded the focus is so narrow it will have zero impact.

“This is simply window dressing and I’m here to actually make a difference not to pretend to make a difference.”

In other words, it may sound good; it may look good; but it doesn’t mean a darn thing.