The restriction on drink sizes for soda in New York City could lead to people buying more soda, a new study has found.

Researchers from University of California, San Diego, also found that businesses could make more money by selling soda in smaller cups than larger ones.

The study included 100 participants, of which 76 were females. Each participant got three food and drink menus to choose from: one menu included 16 oz ($1.59), 24 oz ($1.79) or 32 oz (1.99) size of soda while another included 16 oz drinks, a bundle of two 12 oz drinks (for $1.79), or a bundle of two 16 oz drinks (for $1.99). The third menu was a no-bundles option and offered only 16 oz drinks for $1.59.

Study results showed that participants bought more ounces of soda when given the option of bundles than when they saw the serving sizes. Also, business revenue was higher with the sale of bundles, with average revenue being $1.69 compared with average revenue of $1.02 when businesses sold only 16 oz drinks.

Researchers said that offering bundles of soda when the serving size is restricted makes more sense for the business, and that such a policy will only lead to higher soda consumption.

"Our research shows the New York City ban on large-sized drinks may have unintended consequences that policy makers need to consider. Sugary drinks are a major source of business revenue, and businesses will adjust their menus in order to maximize profits," said Brent M. Wilson from the University of California, San Diego, and one of the study authors.

The study is published in the journal PLOS One.                

Serving size or portion size of foods has been discussed in many studies. Lisa R. Young and colleagues in 2002 reported that many products in the market are sold at a size larger than they were a few years back, and are larger than federal standard portion size. Another study by Tanja Kral and colleagues says that larger portion sizes lead to overconsumption of food.

A New York judge had recently called the proposal to restrict soda size in the city as "arbitrary and capricious", the Los Angeles Times reported.