Food Ban Food Should Be Banned From

Food Ban

Food should be banned from the New York City subway system. There are a few reasons why the food ban should be enacted, chief among them are the health concerns cited by state senators. Proponents of eating food on the subway system generally have weak arguments based around their own personal desire to eat food on the subway, rather than any coherent responses to the central sanitation and public nuisance argument.

According to the text of the bill (S6312), the purpose of the bill is to "mitigate the growing rat infestation in the NYC subway system." The bill would establish fines and other punishments for eating food on the subway system. There are a number of problems with the rat issue in the subway system. In general, people experience a sense of revulsion at the sight of rats, in particular the large, greasy variety found in the subway system. This alone is a good case for action taken to reduce the rat population in the New York City subway system.

However, there are sound medical reasons for eliminating eating on the subway. Subway passengers often spill food, on the trains which creates a mess, but also on the platforms. This spilled food provides nourishment for the rats that live in the subway system. The rats, however, pose a health threat to humans. Rats carry parasites, such as fleas, worms and mites, and these spread disease. Such parasitic insects, such as ticks, can carry disease like Lyme disease that can be spread to humans.

Worse are the communicable diseases that can be carried by rats. These include leptospirosis, a disease that affects the kidney and liver, damaging those vital organs. Rats are also carriers of meningitis, and can carry illnesses that cause respiratory damage. In addition, rats are known carriers of bubonic plague. The subway system is a densely packed area, with a highly transient population by its very nature. As such, it is a major risk factor for the spread of communicable disease. An outbreak in the city would be horrific, and could easily be spread very quickly via the subway system. It is worth considering that the current rat population poses significant risks.

The legislation also outlines that food is one of the major causes of the rat population explosion. Also cited was a perceived poor job of pest control by the MTA. Controlling rat populations, however, can be difficult. Rats are prolific breeders, and hard to capture. With their current population, it will be difficult for the transit authority to eliminate the rats entirely. Thus, additional measures need to be taken.

There is significant opposition to the bill. Prendergast and Buiso (2012) note that for many people, the subway is where they have the opportunity to eat meals. New Yorkers are often busy, and forced to eat meals on the go. Therefore, banning eating on the subway would be a terrible inconvenience for people. There were also concerns that banning food was impractical and unenforceable. Arguably, transit police have better things to do with their time as well, as food is not something that is usually a danger to security in the subway.

The convenience argument abuts against counterarguments based on the same line of reasoning -- personal preference. Prendergast and Buiso (2012) note that some people find eating on the go to be distasteful and not representative of civilized society. Such views are a little harsh, perhaps, but they reflect that the issue is one of personal choice and not everybody agrees. Subway passengers may, for example, have food spilled on them by careless co-passengers. In addition, food aromas could be offensive to some. If a cigarette is so noxious as to be banned, surely a Big Mac or Whopper is just as noxious, although for the purposes of the law defining such objects as "food" could be tricky.

For its part, the MTA opposes the bill. MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota has argued that the problem is overstated, and the contribution that food makes to the problem is also overstated (AP, 2012). In a sense, the move in the state Senate could be seen as overstepping the authority of the MTA, which is charged with dealing with the rat problem. While the state has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to public transport, the bill's sponsors have admitted that they perceive the MTA to have failed to address the rat problem, and that has instigated them striking out on their own with this bill.

The strongest argument in this case lies with the bill's proponents. They have public health concerns to guide their motives. The rats spread disease, and they are unsightly. There is little reason to undertake actions that promote the growth of the rat population in the New York City subway system. Actions taken to reduce the rat population, however, are favorable to public health. Some of the other arguments put forth, such as the uncivilized nature of eating on the go, are nowhere near strong enough to justify legislative interference in this issue, but the health argument is sufficiently strong, especially in light of the fact that the rat problem has not been effectively dealt with through other means.

The inconvenience of passengers who wish to eat on the subway system is worth taking into account, especially as it ties into arguments relating to personal freedoms. However, freedoms of indulgence are low on the scale of freedoms that need protecting, and there is little protection historically for freedoms of indulgence on private property. The MTA occupies a zone somewhere in between public lands and private property, by nature of its taxpayer-funded status. A ban on, say, public protest on the system would need to be held to much more scrutiny as it would invoke constitutional rights. The right to eat, however, is not in any constitution. Thus, the state Senate does have the ability to infringe on this right where greater public health considerations are afoot.