Bloomberg Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

[NickTheCage]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/ny...inks.html?_r=1

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March

[loveisnoise]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/ny...inks.html?_r=1

I wouldn't be surprised if stadiums and theaters would be exempted by the time this becomes law.

[loveisnoise]

That or places will just start selling 2 for 1/s.

[DCnPhilly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/ny...inks.html?_r=1

The Nanny strikes again. There's a good rant about this in the Inquirer. The man already extended his own term limit. Soda's not great for you, but neither are a lot of vices. What gives him the right to sell assign himself the city's health czar? And how does he quantify 12oz? Legally regulating portion sizes just opens the floodgates for every bitter health nut to impose their own restrictions on everything from buffets to bars. It's not the government's job, or right, to say "you've had enough."

[mixiboi]

It's not the government's job, or right, to say "you've had enough."

Unless its alcohol or tobacco/weed.... That was the slippery slope that started it all...

[OffenseTaken]

I see no abstract right for fatties to be as fat as they want, any more than the rest of us have a right not to smell them, wait for five minutes while they heave themselves onto city buses, subsidize their weight on commercial flights and their dialysis when they can't pay for it themselves.

It's hard to imagine that this is all that likely to result in a less-unhealthy population—there are all kinds of other, perhaps worse, outcomes—but it's justified if it does.

There's a good rant about this in the Inquirer.

Then it HAS to be a good idea!

[Gladys]

Nick this one's for you.

Drink Different - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/31/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Lin this one's for you.

Drink Different - Pick Your Poison - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/31/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[luchobucho]

while I tend to agree with the sentiments of DC and Mixboi......I will point out htat there is no limit on how many bottles you can buy.....rather just a limit on the size. Nobody is restricting your right to consume XXX fl.oz of whatever sugary beverage. They are simply requiring single serving sized bottles rather than the double serving size bottles. I must say, it is kinda funny how the soda bottle grew to be 20 oz.

I know people will argue that it is the duty of the consumer to know what they're drinking but it does seem rather disingenous to me to sell something that it is 2 or 2.5 servings, masked as a "signle" serving object.

I would love to see some regulatory driver to get bottle sizes down to an actual single serving.

[Gladys]

Honestly i just think they and philly should just tax the **** out of pop sugary and artificially sweetened soda (which is just as bad). They both contribute to all kinds of medical issues.

Alcohol and cigarettes are taxes. To me it's the same thing.

[OffenseTaken]

Honestly i just think they and philly should just tax the **** out of pop sugary and artificially sweetened soda (which is just as bad). They both contribute to all kinds of medical issues.

Alcohol and cigarettes are taxes. To me it's the same thing.

That would be a more appealing idea, but collecting a sin tax on fountain soda would pose some unique difficulties: city inspectors would have to do an inventory of all the tanks of carbonated water, boxes of flavor syrup, and drinking vessels that go through every eating or drinking establishment in the five boroughs. Not that this plan wouldn't be impossible to enforce as well: do they really think they can stop something as cheap and plentiful as plastic cups from being sold on the black market?

I admire the intentions, even if it is sort of impracticable.

[raider.adam]

while I tend to agree with the sentiments of DC and Mixboi......I will point out htat there is no limit on how many bottles you can buy.....rather just a limit on the size. Nobody is restricting your right to consume XXX fl.oz of whatever sugary beverage. They are simply requiring single serving sized bottles rather than the double serving size bottles. I must say, it is kinda funny how the soda bottle grew to be 20 oz.

I know people will argue that it is the duty of the consumer to know what they're drinking but it does seem rather disingenous to me to sell something that it is 2 or 2.5 servings, masked as a "signle" serving object.

I would love to see some regulatory driver to get bottle sizes down to an actual single serving.

Do you think we would end alcoholism if we cut the serving sizes in half?

Honestly i just think they and philly should just tax the **** out of pop sugary and artificially sweetened soda (which is just as bad). They both contribute to all kinds of medical issues.

And as a friend of mine mentioned elsewhere, this whole battle takes place while the federal government subsidizes high fructose corn syrup.

[hkp]

You'll never see him trying to ban one liter jugs of anal lube, I bet.

[loveisnoise]

In my 23 years of experience, it's safe for me to say that skinny people smell bad as well. Size has nothing to do with stench.

Less dialysis patients are overweight than the general population.

There is no subsidizing on airlines for overweight flyers.

I see no abstract right for fatties to be as fat as they want, any more than the rest of us have a right not to smell them, wait for five minutes while they heave themselves onto city buses, subsidize their weight on commercial flights and their dialysis when they can't pay for it themselves.

It's hard to imagine that this is all that likely to result in a less-unhealthy population—there are all kinds of other, perhaps worse, outcomes—but it's justified if it does.



Then it HAS to be a good idea!

[Politburo]

Do you think we would end alcoholism if we cut the serving sizes in half?

They are two very different problems. I've never quite understood this form of argument where a person proposes solution X to problem Y, and then the response is "but that won't work for problem Z!"

That said, I don't support the plan for several reasons.. it goes too far in the 'nanny' direction, and too many loopholes to b effective (imo), to name a few.

[raider.adam]

They are two very different problems. I've never quite understood this form of argument where a person proposes solution X to problem Y, and then the response is "but that won't work for problem Z!"

Can you elaborate? Bloomberg's position seems to be if you limit the size, you limit consumption.

[Politburo]

Can you elaborate? Bloomberg's position seems to be if you limit the size, you limit consumption.

In the context of soda, yes. It's not correct, imo, to ignore that context and argue against the strawman of using such a policy to combat alcoholism.

It's not much different from the "government will make you eat broccoli" arguments against the mandate. No one is proposing that. The mandate is for health insurance, argue against it in that context.

[OffenseTaken]

Can you elaborate? Bloomberg's position seems to be if you limit the size, you limit consumption.

In theory it would be a drag on demand: a customer would have to pay, say, two-thirds more for two mediums than he would have for one X-Large.

New York and several other states have talked about a "soda tax" in the past few years, and the industry has fought it tooth and nail; this is a kind of back-door tax that Bloomberg can impose without going to the state legislature. (All local taxes have to go through Albany; an outright ban only needs the approval of the city's Board of Health.)

What's baffling is that the ban would not apply to supermarkets, and would count convenience stores (including 7-Eleven and filling stations) as supermarkets. If you're a hardcore HFCS user at a pizzeria, all you have to do is run into the bodega across the street. You probably wouldn't even need to do that: there would still be no restrictions on diet drinks, or any drink that has 25 calories or less per 8 ounces, so the size options and big cups would still be there.

Considering how easy it would still be to drink buckets of sugar water, it seems like the ban would be more symbolic than anything: if nothing else, it gives drinking buckets of sugar water the stigma that it deserves.

[loveisnoise]

And meanwhile aspartame gets a free ride, when it has more complaints registered at the FDA than any other product ever sold.

In theory it would be a drag on demand: a customer would have to pay, say, two-thirds more for two mediums than he would have for one X-Large.

New York and several other states have talked about a "soda tax" in the past few years, and the industry has fought it tooth and nail; this is a kind of back-door tax that Bloomberg can impose without going to the state legislature. (All local taxes have to go through Albany; an outright ban only needs the approval of the city's Board of Health.)

What's baffling is that the ban would not apply to supermarkets, and would count convenience stores (including 7-Eleven and filling stations) as supermarkets. If you're a hardcore HFCS user at a pizzeria, all you have to do is run into the bodega across the street. You probably wouldn't even need to do that: there would still be no restrictions on diet drinks, or any drink that has 25 calories or less per 8 ounces, so the size options and big cups would still be there.

Considering how easy it would still be to drink buckets of sugar water, it seems like the ban would be more symbolic than anything: if nothing else, it gives drinking buckets of sugar water the stigma that it deserves.

[Politburo]

Free ride doesn't sound like an accurate term, considering that it's been studied for 40 years. I can't figure out the correlation between the number of complaints and provable physical effects of a substance, maybe you have some insight there.

It's been studied to death. 600 studies were recently publicly released as part of the on-going European reauthorization. Some 'free ride'.

[OffenseTaken]

And meanwhile aspartame gets a free ride, when it has more complaints registered at the FDA than any other product ever sold.

That wasn't Olestra during the anal-leakage scare? Aspartame might give you a migraine, but at least you can wear light-colored pants after you eat it.