Why Britain plans to stop sale of 1.75L bottles of Coca-Cola

Yes, you read that right – if you live in Britain, you might want to stock up on 1.75L bottles of Coca-Cola, as starting in March, you’ll be forced to buy only 1.5L bottles.
And yet there’s no outcry from the beverage industry.
You’d think there would be. After all, back when nanny Bloomberg tried to pass his cup size ban – the one that would have forced you to buy two 500ml cups if you wanted to drink the volume of a human stomach (1L) worth of soda at once, the beverage industry bought a full page advertisement in the New York Times to complain about it (that’s it up above).
But what about Brits’ rights to buy 1.75L bottles of liquid candy? Why no screaming about Britain’s fun and freedom stealing nanny?
Because Britain’s nanny is the beverage industry. You see Coca-Cola, consequent to Britain’s new soda tax, wants to ensure people keep buying plenty of product, and to help ease the tax’ sting, they’re going to stop selling 1.75L bottles (which incur more tax) altogether.
So the next time you’re tempted to shout about the nanny state when someone like Bloomberg proposes a new policy designed to encourage decreased consumption of junk food, remember, you already live in a nanny state.
The food industry is your nanny.
Last month the Liquor Control Board of Ontario banned the sale of Dr. Feelgood IPA on the basis that the snake encircling the hops paddle, coupled with the prescriptive looking ℞ in the D℞., would implicitly lead consumers to believe that the beer was a health food.
Yet Vitamin Water’s liquid candy sales are just dandy (including of course in stores frequented by children). And so too are the hundreds, if not thousands, of packaged foods that explicitly purport to confer health benefits, not to mention an entire industry of supplements that promise health miracles.
It is so disappointing that Canada continues to allow the food industry to dupe consumers with impunity.
(And for the record, and not just because I enjoy IPAs, I think the LCBO is overreaching here, while Health Canada and the CFIA don’t bother lifting any fingers at all).