New York City to ban sale of large soda
A large soda, that would be banned if the mayor gets his way, at a store in New York City. Photograph: Justin Lane/EPA

We asked for your take on New York City Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg's soda ban and you responded in droves. The debate over how to best address the alarming rate of obesity in America is far from over. Here's our first selection of Guardian reader responses – with more to come. Click here to participate.

It's my right to choose what I drink and eat – Bob Davis, USA @bobdavis

avatar blue

It's nanny statism. As an adult, I choose what I eat and drink. It's my right to do so. Our love affair with processed food and grains is the problem, not cups with a capacity over 16oz. You're picking a symbol, not a problem. I feed my kids healthy food. I work hard to provide fresh, whole foods that are not processed. They get sugar from the foods they eat, not from added sources (especially not high fructose corn syrup!).

If this is 'Nanny-ism' then bring on the Nannys – Jenniver Ward, New Zealand

avatar environment green

I think it's more than appropriate. I think it's long overdue. Sugar and HFCS contribute in a large part to increasing obesity in the western world. Anything that helps reduce the proliferation of these empty calories has to be a good. It is a simple solution to a MUCH bigger problem but it is definitely worth doing. There is no one magic bullet but many incremental steps towards change. I do not believe soda is an appropriate drink choice for children. I also do not believe that free choice should override child protection. If this is 'Nanny-ism' then bring on the Nannys I say! Someone needs to stand up to the giant corporates who mine their money from the health of the people.

The government should tackle the corn lobby – Drew Bayless, USA

avatar comment blue

No, it is not effective, but is something that politicians are willing to do instead of tackle the real source of the problem, big agribusiness, processed foods. If the government was really serious they would tackle the corn lobby and ask why is it that you can hardly buy any processed food that doesn't have high fructose corn syrup added to it? Why is that?

Doing something is better than doing nothing – Sarah Campbell, Australia

avatar money purple

Completely appropriate and long overdue. Given that so many of us seem to be unable to regulate our intake of food and drink that we know is bad for us, imposing food bans is by no means over the top. The problem is certainly bigger than soft drink alone, but hey – it's a start. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and it's certainly a step in the right direction. Hats off to Michael Bloomberg and his attempts to improve the health of New Yorkers. If only our politicians would show the same courage to take on the food industry. Public health has to come before profits.

We must reconnect to the food we eat – Jennifer Mo, USA @noteasy2begreen

avatar purple

Instead of bans, I support more subversive measures that reward good behavior and make it easier to choose well and punish bad behavior and make it inconvenient or expensive to choose poorly. And education. The bigger problem is lack of nutritional education and exercise, and an increasing disconnect with food. We don't live in a culture where we cook most of our food. It's easier and cheaper to eat out, and fast food has much higher levels of fat, sodium, and sugar than we would cook with at home. I don't think legislation is the answer so much as re-prioritization of appreciating real food, knowing how to cook it, and having the time to do both.

Proper habits not prohibition – Chuck Kallenbach, USA @chuckkallenback

avatar red

Ridiculous. If I can't buy a 32oz soda, I'll get two 16s. Which will result in two cups, lids, and straws to be thrown away. Not at all. Obesity is a much more complicated problem than sugared drinks. It's a lifestyle issue. If we focused on teaching proper habits rather than prohibition, the result would be much better in the long run. I control how much sugar my kids get by teaching them how to do the right thing. Which includes the idea that a 42oz sugared soft drink is bad for you. Parents are perfectly fine at policing this issue, we don't need city government helping out.

It's like trying to stop water pouring out of a colander by covering one hole – Patricia Owens, USA

avatar yellow

The soda ban is a paternalistic, over the top move by Michael Bloomberg in his neverending misuse of public office to regulate private behaviour. Yes, there is a problem in the US with obesity, but this latest grandstand approach is superficial, since it doesn't address the root cause of obesity, only one of the behaviours. Bloomberg can't legislate people into changing their eating habits, he can only initiate bills like this which are more for public showboating than anything else. This piece of legislation is like trying to stop water pouring out of a colander by covering one hole.

There is no harm in limiting the size – Brigitte Clements, Switzerland

avatar blue

It is a step in the right direction. It is a simple solution but one that can do no harm. I do what I can at home but the biggest concern is what they have when they are out of the home with their friends. For me, yes of course I am happy that size is regulated. Giving a 5-year-old the option of one, two, three or six scoops of ice cream, the child will often take the maximum, even if they can only finish one scoop. There is no harm in limiting the size. I want to thank Bloomberg for his foresight.

I can't help but feel it's a lost cause – Claire Bonnet, England @ClareBonnet

avatar environment green

It's an idea that won't work to curb obesity. So it is neither over the top or appropriate, just ridiculous. I can't help but feel it's a lost cause. My generation, and the one growing up are constantly surrounded by fast food outlets, advertisements, and supermarkets that sell all sorts of junk food. How about limiting the amount of fast food restaurants and supermarkets that can be built in one square mile?

Every process must have a beginning – Keith Aitken, USA

avatar money purple

An appropriate step which other cities will follow. "Nanny-state" charges may hold some truth but people generally need protection. Traffic lights were probably considered to be intrusive and OTT a hundred years ago, but are now part of life. Every process must have a beginning. History will show this decision to be a wise one. Alone, it will not cure obesity but it may jumpstart a debate. We restricted the childhood sugar-intake of our progeny (who are now in their 30s). Neither of them has ever had more than one or two cavities, but my daughter attributes a current affinity for chocolate chip cookies to her low-sugar childhood :-)