Should poor people, the 1.7 million New Yorkers who receive food stamps, be barred from buying heavily sugared soft drinks through the use of coupons provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture?

The answer to that question is at the heart of the latest round in the battle over the negative impact of soda consumption on the health of poor people in the five boroughs and the state as a whole. We think Washington should approve the request by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for federal permission to prevent food stamp recipients from using them to buy the drinks.

Admittedly, there are some valid reasons for the opposition to the idea, just as there are on the other side of the equation. In the end, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. With obesity and diabetes running rampant in the City, giving a clear indication that New Yorkers are losing the battle against the bulge and some of the non-communicable diseases, it seems clear that tough action is needed. In a sense people must be protected against their worst instincts and choices. Even the strongest critics of the proposal placed on the table by Bloomberg, a plan endorsed by Governor David Paterson, concede that the attempt to curb the obesity explosion was a good one. It was the means being used – food stamps – to stigmatize the poor that they are against.

At first glance, the opposition seems solid. Yes, in some ways, the ban focuses attention on the most vulnerable in our City. It's also true, as U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke cogently pointed out, far too many recipients of food stamps live in neighborhoods with too few grocery stores, fruit stands and other facilities that offer nutritious foods at bargain prices. She also made an important and sensible point when she said greater emphasis should be placed on exercise, healthy diets and on the dangers of hypertension and diabetes, for instance.

But what's also a hard fact of life is that the addition of sodas and other beverages with high sugar content wouldn't be as onerous as it's being made out to be. With the number of food stamp recipients skyrocketing by about 35 percent in the fast three years, more lives are at risk.

Another factor is the existing consumer items on the do-not-buy list. As it stands today, they can't use the food stamps to purchase cigarettes, beer, wine, and prepared foods like sandwiches from neighborhood delis. Then there is the enormity of the existing picture of overweight New Yorkers.

An estimated 57 percent of the 8 million people living in the City are overweight. Just as bad is the fact that 40 percent of the students in the nation's largest public school system, almost 500,000, are obese. The figures become even more frightening when one examines the situation in low-income neighborhoods.

For example:

• One in eight City residents now has diabetes.

• In Brooklyn's East New York neighborhood, the diabetes infection rate is four times greater than in the rich community of Gramercy Park in Manhattan.

• Obesity-related illnesses across New York State cost people $8 billion to receive care. That's $770 per household.

• The rise in obesity parallels the increasing consumption of soft drinks. Teenagers now get almost 20 percent of their daily calories from sodas.

• The expenditures of households on heavily sugared drinks using food stamps outstrip by far the money spent to reduce obesity.

On and on goes the evidence why drastic action must be taken.

"The City would bar the use of food stamps to buy beverages that contain more sugar than substance – that is beverages with low nutritional value that contain more than 10 calories per eight-ounce serving," explained Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the City's Health Commissioner, and Dr. Richard Danes, the state's Health Commissioner in Albany.

And with the Department of Agriculture in Washington already labeling sugar-sweetened sodas "foods of minimal nutritional value," the obvious next step is to place them off-limits, at least for a limited a two-year period, while the issue is being studied.

The proposal should be seen as another step in the move towards improving people's health. It would join the ban on smoking in almost every indoor public thoroughfare and, if the Mayor and his health team should get their way, it would be extended to beaches and parks, not to mention plazas as well.

Congresswoman Clarke, State Senator Kevin Parker and Councilmember Jumaane Williams have a valid point when they articulated a desire to see a more aggressive educational campaign, especially in poor communities, which would promote nutritious foods, exercise and healthier living. If the City and the State are really committed to saving lives through a reduction in diabetes, it should find the resources to build more parks and recreational facilities in poor communities in the Bronx, Staten Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens. Its obvious failure to pursue such a strategy has opened up City Hall to the charge that it is stigmatizing poor people with its plan for the soda ban.

It's simply not enough to bar the use of food stamps. Both the City and state must go the extra mile by providing the poor with alternatives.