The mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg, has asked the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for permission to add sodas and other sugary soft drinks to the list of items that cannot be purchased with food stamps. The USDA finances the federal food stamp program and also sets the rules in terms of benefits and entitlements. Cigarettes, alcohol as well as certain restaurant foods and snacks are already excluded. A decision is pending.

Bloomberg is well known for his keen interest in public health issues. Since he took office, he successfully pushed through several far-reaching legislative measures, like the expansion of non-smoking laws to most public places, including outdoor plazas, parks and beaches. More recently, New York became the first major city to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants and to require public postings of calorie counts for fast food chains and other outlets.

The mayor’s latest campaign to reduce soda consumption wants to be seen as part of a comprehensive anti-obesity program the city is currently conducting. The excessive use of sodas is considered a significant culprit in the ever-growing obesity epidemic that affects many parts of the population, but especially the poor and the young. As reported by The New York Times (Oct.7, 2010), recently released statistics have shown “that nearly 40 percent of public school children…[living in New York City] were overweight or obese, and that obesity rates were substantially higher in poor neighborhoods.”

New York’s health commissioner was quick to assure that the proposed soda ban would not take away anybody’s right to buy whatever he or she desires – just not at the expense of tax payers. This way, he added, there would be extra food stamps left for healthier and more nutritious items. At least, that’s the theory.

Whether New York’s anti-soda crusade can politically succeed is still uncertain. Past attempts by other states to eliminate fast food from food stamp programs have failed. All attempts to curtail soda consumption by imposing higher taxes have been vehemently opposed by the beverage industry. Congress has debated some of these issues but so far has passed no binding laws. Chances are that even the Big Apple may not pull this one off.

Advocates for welfare recipients are also critical of the proposed measures and see them as too heavy-handed. They say that many public aid beneficiaries feel already stigmatized because they must depend on outside help to feed themselves. Putting additional restrictions on their choices only adds to the humiliation.

Others suggest it is unlikely that people will make better lifestyle choices because they receive public aid for certain items but not for others. Healthy foods, like fresh produce and whole grains, are way too expensive and remain out of reach for those who must survive on a tight budget. Many low-income neighborhoods don’t even have quality food outlets. They are known as “food deserts.”

Lack of education and access to information is another pressing matter. Even the general public remains largely ignorant about the basic facts of nutrition – let alone the poor and less educated.

Moreover, people who depend on public aid typically can’t afford regular health care either. To improve their health status, it is not enough to provide care on an emergency basis only (if that). Preventive measures and counseling would be helpful, but these are generally non-existent.

The same applies – and even more so – to children. Too many school lunches lack sufficient nutritional quality. Too much junk food and sodas are sold to minors through vending machines on and nearby campus. Public schools don’t offer health education in any form, and even traditional physical education (PE) is hard to come by in low-income districts.

I wish Bloomberg well with his latest endeavor. But I would like to see his policies address the issues at hand more systematically and on a larger scale. Going after society’s weakest and most vulnerable, simply because it makes his administration look tough and because the political repercussions are minimal, is not the best way to achieve such important changes.

If the mayor wants to wage war against the threats to our public health and, more importantly, to the future of our children, he has better tools at his disposal. So, if I were to give my two cents worth of advice, it would go like this:

Treat the sale of sodas the way you treated tobacco or trans fats. Impose a ban wherever you can – most importantly in schools – and add heavy taxes where the selling continues.

Then take the extra revenues and spend them on public health education. Give incentives to quality food outlets to set up shop in poor neighborhoods and punish those who refuse. Support and facilitate urban farms and farmers markets throughout the city and make it easy for vendors to accept food stamps. Last but not least, find ways to provide free preventive health care and nutrition counseling for those who need it the most. It is the best investment in public health you can make.

All this is feasible, especially in New York. What better place to start than here? After all, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere – right? Good luck Mr. Bloomberg.

Timi Gustafson is the author of “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun.”