New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

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.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?pagewanted=all

---

Defending the public health is noble but not at the cost of consumer freedom (I know that corporate lobbyist Rick Berman uses that phrase but still). Why not also ban alcoholic beverage sales at sporting events too to prevent drunken driving or fan violence?

In the comment section, the most popular "reader pick" comment: "If the Mayor really cared about health and obesity, he'd make sure there was funding for phys. ed in public schools, decent parks and recreation in poor neighborhoods, etc."

The second-most popular comment: "If our federal government ended corn subsidies, drinks loaded with high fructose corn syrup would decline. Lets just do that."

[PDJane]

1. I am with both of those solutions.....

banning large drinks is a start, but it's not going to help if exercise doesn't go along with it, and that means parks, bike lanes, physical education......

[cstanleytech]

3. You might be with them but the question is are the courts?

And I suspect the soft drink industry will be fighting then and if I was going to bet I would place my money on them prevailing against the ban.

[PDJane]

52. Obviously, I didn't express myself clearly enough.

I don't give a damn if the soft drink industry manages to get around the ban. It's a bare start to dispose of those super sized drinks.

Cutting out the subsidies for high fructose corn syrup is an excellent start. Getting the damn stuff out of everything would be even better; corn products are made mostly from GM corn, and there are lots of people who are sensitive to the stuff, and it does make the diabetes rate go skyrocketing. Exercise is good, and the earlier the habit starts, the better.

[freshwest]

57. OMG! I agree with all that, but think of the JOBS lost by doing so...

We have to keep on scraping around the edges of the problem and never get to the solution or all those industries will be out of work!

Oh, the humanity!!!

[jumptheshadow]

97. Bike lanes and free physical fitness options have increased in NYC

And there is a plan currently under implementation that will install bike rentals at various points in the city.

Additionally, the city has opened more walking and pedestrian areas.

[MrSlayer]

2. I hate to use the term nanny state.

Ah fuck it, no I don't. This is nanny state horseshit. If I want to buy a fifty-five gallon drum of Jolt and there is someone that wants to sell it, the transaction should be legal. I don't like this sort of thing.

[evirus]

19. Right, what happens when the public confuses correlation with causation

or confusing natural with healthy? this can't be good for businesses if they have to worry about public perception leading to their products sales becoming illegal regardless of what the facts actually are.

[jumptheshadow]

107. Buy your Jolt in New Jersey...

or for that matter, order a truckload of it on the Internet. You'll probably get a better price, and if you shop around, you can somebody schlep it to your door.

I am not referring to you, because I don't recognize you, but it's amazing that all the holier-than-thou folks who jump into the obesity threads wagging their fingers at chubby people aren't reading up on NY's health initiatives and offering support in this thread.

[sofa king]

111. It's because we refuse to pay for health education.

A real health care system would include a large component of consumer health education, which in turn would better inform consumers about the detrimental effects of their habits and encourage them to make wiser choices.

Unfortunately, we can't afford that because we can't possibly allow the wealthy to become second-vacation-home-less.

Keeping people ignorant and pursuing unhealthy lifestyles also has the beneficial (to a select few) multiplier of killing off workers before they can retire, shifting those costs to the health care industry so that there is even less likelihood of health education funding.

So, I assume these legislators have concluded, the only inexpensive way to interrupt the problem (or at least draw temporary attention to it) is to fight it with the blunt instrument of stupid legislation.

Because we can't afford scalpels anymore.

[pmorlan1]

116. Craziness

I agree with you. Good god what makes these people think they have a right to tell other people what size drink they can have? Smokers saw this one coming. They took away our rights now they have moved on to someone else. These people are no different from the religious nuts that want to push their religion onto you. These people are the health nuts. Keep it to yourself. If you don't want a big drink, don't order one. Stop trying to make other people fit into your narrow definition of living. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[Ninjaneer]

4. You're not going to stop obesity by baby sitting people,

you've got to educate them. And if they still don't want to do anything about it, well then that's their damn right.

[Safetykitten]

5. Is it really about helping people? Seriously?

Could it possibly be that standardizing the drinks into a smaller group of sizes will do more for the bottom line of the sugar peddlers and the manufacturers of the cups? Will the price decrease? Who will be the arbiter of this new small, medium, large(ish) standard? Why the drink companies of course. Mom and pop stores will have to buy new equipment for dispensing these new sizes and who do they pay?

Not buying the "help" the people gig.

[Riftaxe]

6. The label Control Freak

has never been more apropos...

[BattyDem]

7. So ... what's to stop people from buying TWO 16oz bottles of soda?

What's to stop a business from offering two 16oz sodas for the price of one? You can't tell people how much they can purchase and consume! Soda is not healthy ... but it's certainly not the only cause of obesity. Fruit juices made from concentrate are loaded with sugar, milk shakes have sugar and fat and there are plenty of empty calories in alcohol.

Any person can go into a restaurant and order the potato skins stuffed with cheese, bacon and sour cream, followed by the bacon double cheeseburger and chili cheese fries and then end their meal with the triple chocolate layer cake with caramel sauce ... but they can only have a 16 oz soda because THAT causes obesity?!?

I know soda is a problem. I stopped drinking it several years ago and I lost 15 pounds in a month! I didn't change anything else in my diet or lifestyle. I just ditched the soda and I lost the weight ... but 15 pounds is not the difference between "healthy" and "obese". Over the years, I've known several people who were morbidly obese - and they all drank diet soda, so obviously the problem goes beyond soda. People are going to eat and drink what they want, but if we could find a way to make healthier foods cheaper and more convenient, perhaps people would want them more often.

[may3rd]

17. that would increase the tax income on soft drinks

seems the answer they really need

[BattyDem]

44. So once again ...

it's not about helping people or solving problems - it's about money for the government. I wouldn't even mind that if they used the money to help people and solve problems, but that's probably asking too much.

[may3rd]

98. Pretty much.... the government is here to help

They only want to "help" you

[dipsydoodle]

8. Obesity ?

We're seemingly getting to the point of discouraging even that word in the UK.

See here :

Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?

An MPs' report on body image has advocated the use of "weight-neutral language". So should we stop calling people "overweight"?

There are many people who would agree that using the term "fat" to somebody's face is neither helpful or pleasant.

But there's a growing movement to get doctors and other public health professionals to stop using words such as "overweight" and "obese" as well.

MPs think the terms have a negative impact on body image and self-esteem, and want doctors to promote broader health and lifestyle messages instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18262887

They don't mention "lump of lard".

[harmonicon]

9. In what world is 16 ounces a medium coffee?! That's insane!!

If 16 ounces were a medium coffee, I can't imagine what a large would be, and I would think a small would be larger than most people would ever want. I'm very confused.

[oberliner]

10. At Starbucks a medium is 16 ounces, large is 20 ounces

I think that is pretty standard.

[harmonicon]

12. Since when? (I'm seriously asking)

Whenever I end up going to those sort of places I always get the small, and it's almost always more than I could ever drink before it gets cold. I guess it just didn't occur to me that the sizes were really that large. I cannot fathom how someone could drink that much coffee that quickly (this coming from someone who used to drink 10 cups of coffee a day, easily).

[oberliner]

14. I think its always been 12, 16, 20

I don't recall them changing the sizes at any point.

For the record, I always get the largest size and take it on the go.

[boppers]

92. Starbucks isn't actually coffee.

Hence, the confusion.

[leftynyc]

11. Nanny state nonsense

I don't need the government to tell me what to eat and drink. There does come a point where people need to take care of themselves and the most basic part of that is what you eat and drink. The information about how bad all this sugar is out there for anyone to see - if they still go for the supersize shit, that's their decision. At the same time, NYC also wants to put a law on the books about bike helmets - currently only required by kids - being expanded to include adults. I'm against that also.

[oberliner]

15. Agreed

I am still pissed off that I can't get a donut with trans fat anymore.

If I am going to Dunkin Donuts, I ain't doing it to be healthy.

[leftynyc]

20. LOL - you know what would cure

that particular craving? Working there - which I did when I was in college. The smell of sugar and grease still makes me queasy. Still love the coffee though.

[oberliner]

39. Point taken

Though I worked at Cinnabon for a summer and was still popping those minis like they were crack cocaine.

[CTyankee]

28. I guess you could make a public health argument here. Would you be against banning

certain materials or substances that cause cancer in people? You might work in an industry where asbestos is used or an industry making certain insecticides. If you lost your job due to the "nanny state" banning a product it deems as harmful to the public health, wouldn't that be an intrusion on your personal freedom? Not to mention the argument the capitalist would have on the "over-regulation of industry" harming free enterprise.

I'm not arguing for this particular ban (I'd like to see higher taxes on the product, a la tobacco) but I can't quite take your argument too far...

[randome]

29. I'm not sure that higher taxes on sodas would work.

It only costs pennies for a cup of soda so the taxes would have to be pretty high right from the start to have an impact. Otherwise, restaurants will make a little less per glass of poison.

[CTyankee]

36. All the better. Pretty high is good. More tax revenue for the state and for those of us who

don't drink sugared drinks, we don't pay. In fact, it may overall reduce the cost of health care to discourage through a Pigouvian tax to help mitigate the adverse outcomes of selling the product.

I remember seeing how the price of cigarettes went sky high after draconian taxes of tobacco kicked in high gear. I stopped smoking before I was "priced out" for very different reasons: smokers became social lepers and many of my fellow liberals became real anti-smoking advocates. I distinctly remember reading how Ralph Nader said he wouldn't hire a smoker --- those were the days when Nader was a great hero of liberalism (this was the late 70s, early 80s). Nader considered smoking a kind of moral weakness, which I never shared.

[leftynyc]

35. There are very few things that wont kill

somebody if used too much or incorrectly. Nobody is forcing people to drink this stuff which is much different than (through financial reasons) people are forced to work around things like asbestos. Coal miners know they very likely could get black lung disease - should we ban coal?

[CTyankee]

38. but here's the thing about your argument: it can be argued that we are all forced to pay higher

health care costs because of obesity, even if we personally don't drink sugary drinks. Obesity is very much a public health problem.

And your argument seems a lot like the tobacco companies' argument back in the day: nobody is forcing anyone to smoke and it's a personal right and the government has no business interfering in that right. Everybody's rights didn't go to hell after we got serious about smoking.

I'm going to take a wait and see attitude, however. At the very least, I can see that discouraging a product deemed harmful in high amounts, can lead to having less of that product being consumed.

[leftynyc]

47. It's not like people don't know

that high calorie sugary drinks are bad for them. I also have no patience for smokers who are trying to sue tobacco companies these days (earlier, yes, they hid data that clearly said tobacco was addictive and harmful - I'm talking about now). And I'm a smoker. I wish they took the same attitude about alcohol and taxed the hell out of that also.

[CTyankee]

48. We have very high taxes on alcohol in CT. It doesn't bother me as a wine drinker.

And I certainly won't be driving all the way to MA just to avoid paying a an alcohol tax...

[leftynyc]

50. Just as I wont drive

south for cheap cigarettes. I choose to live in NY - warts and all.

[may3rd]

99. I like the welcome sign

[jumptheshadow]

109. On the bike helmets requirement...

...Have you ever seen a bicyclist go flying because some schmuck has opened their car door into the street without looking? It's pretty scary -- and deadly -- stuff.

Yay for the bicyclists, and yay for the helmets, too.

[Blasphemer]

13. I think requiring smaller sizes (at comparable prices per ounce/ml) is a better way to go

I think there should be a consumer choice and always having the option to affordably buy an 8 oz bottle, can or cup would probably produce the same result without "nanny-ing" the populace. Any place where one can buy soda in a cup (movie theaters, stadiums, etc.) puts so much ice in the cup that you aren't getting anywhere near the amount they claim to be giving you.

[randome]

16. So you ask for less ice. Problem solved.

[Nihil]

18. “Tip if you want to lose weight: don’t eat food that comes in a bucket”

— Billy Connolly

[may3rd]

21. orr is handed to your through your car window

[dmosh42]

22. Sounds like a mean, old Socialist or communist!

[onehandle]

23. Good. nt

[lynne]

24. LOL! Really stupid -

- people will just buy two 16 oz. drinks and end up getting 32 oz's. - more soda than if they bought a large originally.

This would be funny if it wasn't so dumb.

[randome]

25. People will be less likely to buy 2 drinks.

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Overall, this should have an impact on behavior. Granted, it's not always the government's place to regulate behavior but...hell, something needs to be done.

Anyone who drinks soda is nuts, IMO. It's poison. Other than an outright ban, this is probably for the best.

[otohara]

27. Let's Do Nothing Okay?

What's dumb is assuming people will buy two drinks vs. one.

As a parent, I welcome this decision. Every attempt to educate, and lessen the consumption of these toxic sugary drinks should be welcomed and not pooh poohed as a failure before it's even implemented.

[4th law of robotics]

32. We could mandate every unhealthy food item list all the horrible things it may do to you

just like cigarettes. That's how we convinced everyone to give up smoking. . . . oh right.

/"Doing something" and "doing something productive" are not necessarily the same thing.

[randome]

33. The taxes and public service commercials have greatly reduced the incidence of smoking.

All for the good, from my point of view.

Your point on ending subsidies is right on. But I'm guessing New York can't make that decision on its own.

[4th law of robotics]

34. Hollywood turning on it reduced the incidence of smoking

kids, the ones you have to hook to replace dying customers, don't care about cancer. You may as well talk to them about the sun exploding in however many billion years.

They care if it's cool or not.

Once hollywood decided to turn smokers from the cool guys, the heros and the like in to the villians smoking went on the decline.

Europeans are just as aware of the health effects as we are. As are the Japanese. Why are rates so much higher there? It hasn't been vilified in the popular culture.

/btw many european nations put horrific warning pictures on their cigarettes. Hasn't helped.

//

[randome]

42. I think Hollywood simply followed the tide of societal opinion.

But even if not, the taxes and public service commercials help drive the point home that smoking is not good for you.

[lynne]

69. People will buy two just to prove a point -

- as most don't like being told what to do. It's the lousy side of human nature that will occur every time it's given a chance.

Let's go a step further - how will this be implemented and regulated? Soda police? Who pays for that? Many stores have soda's that are self-serve - who will monitor if you have a sugar free item or one with sugar? Will the store have to pay for a soda monitor? Will there be legal repercussions should the clerk allow someone to buy the wrong size sugared drink?

Or will the store have to have their machines retro-fitted with some new-fangled device to only allow 16 ozs. of a sugared drink to be dispensed at a time? Who will pay for the retro-fitting?

And - should they buy two drinks (And they will. I would even if I threw one away) - what does this do to the environment? Two plastic slurpee cups and two straws and two lids now to the landfill instead of one. Not very green, IMO.

No poo-poohing here. It's simply a very poorly thought out ban that borders on stupidity. No consideration was given as to if it would work - how it would be implemented - who would bear the burden of managing the law - how it would impact store employees - how it would impact the environment. And this is all before we even discuss if the government should be having its hand literally down people's throats.

[4th law of robotics]

31. Aha! We've accounted for that

Most Americans are receiving such a poor education that they won't be able to do that simple addition problem.

[CTyankee]

26. I'm really not sure if this is going to work. What I saw work in my lifetime was increasing the

tax on tobacco products. Coupled with a vigorous public health education campaign, we as a society have had great success in lowering our rate of lung cancer due to smoking. Also, smoking became less cool as smokers got a bit older and their teeth yellowed and they realized how bad they smelled.

Like the saying goes, "if you want less of something, tax it more."

[4th law of robotics]

30. Let's hope no one figures out they have two hands

and orders two 16 oz drinks instead of one 32 oz drink.

"The second-most popular comment: "If our federal government ended corn subsidies, drinks loaded with high fructose corn syrup would decline. Lets just do that.""

This, times 100.

[Nihil]

37. It's ok ...

> Let's hope no one figures out they have two hands
> and orders two 16 oz drinks instead of one 32 oz drink.

Most people stupid enough to drink a 32oz drink can't multiply by two.



Still think that ending corn subsidies would be the quickest way to achieve
the same goal but that would require legislation at government level
(rather than city or state) so there's little chance of that happening
from the old "bought & sold"s over in Washington ...

[snooper2]

40. Can they ban those stupid big sunglasses women keep wearing..

They are sooooooooo 2009

Come on NYC, you can do it!

[Quantess]

41. In NYC where there are not very many obese people. Why bother?

Why not Houston, or Memphis?

[jumptheshadow]

96. Half of NYers are overweight or obese, according to the article (nt)

[Quantess]

101. Okay, but NYC residents are relatively slim compared to some places in the US.

No judgments here, but, I find it interesting that legislation like this begins in urban places where there is less of an obesity problem anyway

[jumptheshadow]

103. I think NY's innovations will impact other areas

I hear you.

The soda thing is part of a much larger, integrated plan that focuses on both nutrition and physical fitness.

It doesn't surprise me that NY is in the forefront because you need a lot of administrators and planners to keep this huge international but occasionally vulnerable city running. You need world-class healthcare specialists because the city is crowded and is home to many high risk populations. While quite a bit of their planning is for disaster management, the City has high diabetes rates and many residents suffering from the disease. Diabetes also drains a considerable amount of healthcare funding so intelligent beings are trying to create an environment where prevention is actually an option.

[CTyankee]

106. Very well put, jump! I hadn't teased this thing out like you have brilliantly done here.

I hope you are right about this being part of a coordinated plan. It all goes hand in hand...

[jumptheshadow]

110. Thank you

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's a link to NY's free physical fitness programs.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan_programs_comm.shtml

The programs include free workouts at city gyms, sponsored walks in city parks, "Health Bucks" for usage in farmers' markets and the "Healthy Bodegas" initiative, which encourages the sale of nutritional foods in bodegas, which are often the closest option for food purchases in poorer neighborhoods.

[Pat Riot]

43. Sorry, I am pro choice.

I think it's wrong to tell people what to do with their bodies.

This is analogous to the notion that legal and available contraceptives and uncensored "porn" leads to people turning into prostitutes and sex maniacs, resulting in increased abortion. In both cases, education is the better answer.

[CTyankee]

45. I'm pro-choice but I don't see the analogy...

[Pat Riot]

46. telling people what to do with their bodies

Even if you think what they're doing is wrong/unhealthy. I don't think legislation is the way to go.

[CTyankee]

51. I understand your underlying argument, but excessive sugar is a detriment to public health.

There medical science behind the rationale here, even tho I would prefer heavier taxation to outright banning. Regulating or banning toxic substances is a very different thing.

[jeff47]

55. First, they're not toxic.

Second, there's a million food products that contain far more calories than a large soft drink. If you're actually doing this out of a concern for "public health", then you should ban those first. And your ban should also include things that contain the same empty calories per serving, such as fruit juice.

[CTyankee]

56. I put toxic in a larger context. It is part of an overall problem and that is that overconsumption

of sugar leads to obesity and we are now seeing it earlier and earlier in life. This adds up to a big public health problem. These kids grow up unhealthy and they hit an age where a number of diseases linked to that obesity become chronic illnesses, costing a lot in terms of the health of the people and in costs in the health system (the cost alone is enormous and it is a cost to all of us).

I see Mayor Bloomberg reasoning that somebody, somewhere, somehow has to get the ball rolling on some serious efforts to focus the mind of the public. Sure, limiting fruit juice is a great idea, but we don't see people getting obese on fruit juice. They are getting obese on excessively large and rather cheap servings of sugared drinks. Just throwing up your hands and giving up has been what we always do when we just "wring our hands" as he so aptly put it.

It won't be a cure-all and I don't think the mayor expects it to be. Just a first step by a public official, recognizing the problem and throwing a spotlight on it.

[jeff47]

58. They aren't getting obese on sugared drinks either.

They're getting obese on lack of activity and high-calorie food, which includes sugared drinks. Those same health risks happen even if you're thin, if you have no physical activity.

Yet Bloomberg isn't demanding more PE in schools, which again would be far more effective.

Instead, he's saying problems will be magically solved if we just cut one food. He sounds just like a late-night diet infomercial. And if his plan is enacted, it will inevitably fail. Which will then cause people to say "fuck it, I'll just eat whatever". Just like when fad diets fail.

Now you've got the same, or worse, public health issue, and you've weakened political will to do anything about it.

"Doing something" for the sake of doing something is moronic. If you're going to do something, make it effective.

[CTyankee]

62. If we didn't have such a corrupt political system, unwilling to do what should be done, I would

agree with you. Hell, I agree it's not the best plan. I agree with what you suggest is wrong and a big part of the problem.

But I really don't agree that the Mayor is saying his solution will "magically solve" this problem. He's too smart to think that or to try to tell New Yorkers that his is the magic solution.

I, too, would like to see the Mayor demand more PE in schools. That he isn't doing so makes me wonder if this is a budget issue that a fiat by the Mayor will not solve. Don't you think that if he COULD do such a thing, he would? I do.

However, I am reserving judgment as to what the actual results will be. That mayor strikes me as a tough old bird...

[jeff47]

63. No, actually he is saying this plan will fix it.

Here, let's quote him from the article above.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

He's saying that this plan will fix obesity.

I, too, would like to see the Mayor demand more PE in schools. That he isn't doing so makes me wonder if this is a budget issue that a fiat by the Mayor will not solve. Don't you think that if he COULD do such a thing, he would?

He can. Making a speech is very, very easy. Changing next year's school budget is not hard either.

This is a "we're doing something for the sake of doing something" plan. It will fail. Badly. And then, the mayor will move on to the next magic food item to ban.

[CTyankee]

64. I don't see that quote as you do. "doing something" is not solving, magically or otherwise.

As to the public schools, it hurts my head even THINKING about the wrangling a mayor has to do with all the players in the NYC school system. These guys are tough customers. New York is a tough town. I lived there and worked there...

[jeff47]

65. So you're saying he's not qualified to be mayor, then? (nt)

[CTyankee]

66. Well, Jeff, I'm just sayin' that IMHO this guy is a really smart, tough guy and he's made

a determination about what is, and is not, doable. I'm saying I cannot even imagine doing the job of mayor of NYC. It is beyond me.

Let's see this play out. I don't hold out any great expectations but it might have a few good reverberations. We'll see, won't we? Somebody has to "go first"...

[jeff47]

73. We've already played this out before

There's been lots of magic bullets enforced by law. When they failed, it took longer to try to enact real reforms.

So....The vicious school board is an insurmountable obstacle for your really smart, tough mayor?

[CTyankee]

87. Hey, Jeff you are welcome to try to work with all the parties involved in the NYC schools!

Go for it...

and no, as I've said before, this is no magic bullet. There is no magic bullet. It takes lots of approaches and lots of reforms and lots public information campaigns. This is one shot in the war. It'll be fun to see what will happen, tho...stay tuned...

[Pat Riot]

76. You DO see people getting obese on fruit juice.

I just saw on the "Weight of the Nation" doc on the obesity epidemic. Coke and Pepsi own Minute Made (sp?) and Dole, so were happy to take the soda machines out of schools and replace with juice vending machines. 12 teaspoons of sugar in the same size serving of juice as of pop (as we say in Pittsburgh.) You do realize fructose is the F in HFCS, right.

Also, one could "throw a spotlight" on the issue by educational ads, etc., without legislating. IMO it's just not the way to go.

[HockeyMom]

79. I've worked in public schools

They have those "healthy" lunches and pyramids that the kids have to eat. The kids were required to drink either milk or fruit juice. Some of the kids didn't want either, just a glass of water. Nope, not allowed. Their drink has to be "nutritional" and from the pyramid.

Hello? What is wrong with WATER? Most of the time I only have water with my meals. Besides which, this was in South Florida and the kids went outside after lunch for recess in 90+ degrees. They were going to need a lot of HYDRATION in the sun and heat. No water? Many times when they would get red in the face and panting, I would march them off to the water fountain to DRINK.

What is wrong with plain, old, water? The human body needs it, and it adds zero calories. Sorry, for my rant.

[randome]

80. Um, yeah, that's fucked up.

If anything should be promoted, it should be water -without sugary glop added to it.

[HockeyMom]

84. I've gotten into arguments over this

If a child is eating a piece of cheese and eating fresh fruit, their nutritional needs have been met. They don't need to DRINK dairy or fruit in addition. That is just adding more calories. Water is fine for them to drink, and it should be encouraged.

[4th law of robotics]

59. +1

People ought to have the right to kill themselves, in whatever manner they choose.

[Stuart G]

49. Bloomberg is a fool...Won't help a bit..

Places will offer unlimited refills on "smaller sized drinks" ..

At least someone would have to get up and walk to get a refill......oops...
at a restaruant or else where, your server could come and give you a refill..


THESE TWO COMMENTS IN OP, ARE ACUTALLY MORE IMPORTANT..


"In the comment section, the most popular "reader pick" comment: "If the Mayor really cared about health and obesity, he'd make sure there was funding for phys. ed in public schools, decent parks and recreation in poor neighborhoods, etc."

The second-most popular comment: "If our federal government ended corn subsidies, drinks loaded with high fructose corn syrup would decline. Lets just do that"

[Scout]

53. useless, stupid law...

i also know that in the more than 30 years since i worked at McDonald's, what used to be a large size drink is now a medium size, and the large is just absolutely ginormous. and at Burger King, a medium drink is the same size as the large at McDonald's.

i like to drink pop, but ffs, i don't want or need a freaking quart of the stuff for one serving!

[RitchieRich]

54. Slippery Slope

To me, the most scary bit of this could be defined by my own first reaction- a hearty Hells Yeah! Fortunately, my lizard brain sat back down and allowed higher thought to occur. Many losses of freedom spring from things that are easy to agree upon. (Lets just kill THOSE people without Due Process) Sadly I don't believe a majority of Americans care half as much about freedom as they do hate. Disliking the obese, they would gladly accept this as punishment. Really, I could care less about 48 ounce sodas. They are one of my favorite talking points about what is wrong with this county. The problem lies in establishing a precedent where far more meaningful solutions to "helping" us follow.

In 1991, I worked at McDonalds. I watched the Medium fries become small, then become so small it was only available in kids meals. I watched the meal system get introduced and was disgusted to observe the power of suggestion at work as 99% of customers seemed incapable of ordering anything else ever again. It seems that a far more appropriate response would be to tax the shit out of any form of garbage type food and shelter the income to help educate and feed kids. Tobacco helped build this nation and we have no qualms making them pay up.

[4th law of robotics]

60. Just one more law and we'll finally be free!

Free from fear that someone else is doing something wrong.

Free from having to make decisions.

Free from having to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Just one more law and we'll finally be freed from the ultimate tyranny: having to think.

[HockeyMom]

67. Bloomberg should learn from the Prohibition Laws

That you cannot legislate morality, or health, based on human behavior. Bad laws are meant to broken. Just like those alcohol bans, people who want to drink a lot of soda will find a way to do so. How about buying 2 SMALLER sodas which will equal the same amount as that 16 oz. soda. Duh?

I rarely eat at fast food places, but once in a while I do, and order a Big Mac, and a soda. Bad every 6 months? I weigh only 100 lbs. and have for over 40 years. I think I deserve a few "vices" once in a while. Should I be "policed" too?

[4th law of robotics]

71. I have no doubt in a year or so once this has been shown to be a failure

they will implement a ban on buying multiple drinks at once to further save people from their own stupidity.

[Psephos]

83. perfectly said n/t

[CBGLuthier]

61. You can have as many ounces of sugar free cancer causing chemical concoctions you like

Hooray for artificial food.

[SpartanDem]

68. Merely being bad for you is not a high enough bar for banning something

there is nothing about big size suguary drinks that makes them bad enough that they be banned. This is nanny state BS.

[Wabbajack_]

70. Sorry Bloomberg this is not consitutional

neither is LA banning plastic bags.

[wordpix]

72. I went to McD's for some students & asked for a small ice tea for myself ---it came quart size

and so sugary, I couldn't drink it, not even when the ice melted. When I took it home and added plenty of water, it was OK. But if people are downing this watery sugar all day, no wonder they're obese.

[randome]

74. Some of the posts on this thread are eerily familiar.

They sound too much like luddites hating change of any sort that might encourage them to buy LED bulbs instead of 'normal' bulbs.

"Don't DARE take away my God-given right to purchase large drinking cups!"

Of all the things in the world to take a stand against, this should not even make it on anyone's radar.

[alp227]

75. Light bulbs and junk food are NOT comparable.

If an adult wants to pig out on super size drinks, that is the adult's choice. My alternative to this law would be to educate the public that it is risky to drink large sodas. In fact, tobacco is even WORSE than soda yet is still legal, and governments already DISCOURAGE smoking through educational efforts and restrictions on smoking in public places so that no one blows smoke in your face.

[randome]

77. In theory, I agree that educational efforts would be a good idea.

But what would a public service commercial consist of? Showing images of overweight people and how difficult their health care issues are?

I think the public would feel insulted and like that even less than banning super-sized drinks.

And besides, no one is saying soda is bad for you (it is, IMO, but that's just ME saying that). It's knowing when too much is too much. Again, I'm not sure how well that would translate into a public service commercial.

[JNelson6563]

78. People will just buy more of the smaller ones.

They'll consume as much as they want no matter how things are packaged.

Julie

[HockeyMom]

81. Unlimited Re-Fills

or all you can eat buffets. Bloomberg's head will explode! They banned too? How can he know how much a person is drinking, or eating?

[randome]

82. I don't think the proposal would be expected to get everyone to do the same thing every day.

But SOME people would be likely to think twice before buying that super-extra-added-giganto-bucket-of-glop they call soda.

Then again, perhaps an advertising firm with some creative people at the helm could come up with public service announcements that would encourage people to do the same thing without also insulting them.

[jumptheshadow]

108. No, unlimited refills aren't banned

And you can still buy two 16 ounce sodas if you want. So you have personal choice. What this will help do is eliminate the 20-ounce bottle as the default drink size for people who buy sandwiches. Most people purchase it without thinking, even while they are ordering turkey or chicken to keep down on the calories. (Believe me, I know NY offices.)

[HockeyMom]

115. That is why I ask for a Kiddie Size Drink,

or more soften, just a cup so I can get water.

[harun]

85. I'd be for warning labels. But I don't think we should be infringing on personal liberties.

That and it wouldn't cover diet soda's which are arguably more dangerous to people than corn or cane sugar drinks.

[HockeyMom]

86. I agree there

It's probaby more healthy to be eating real sugar and real butter, in moderation, than any of the artificial subs.

[CTyankee]

88. The artificial sweeteners are awful and a real problem as they get people used to super sweet

drinks and food. IMHO, he shudda banned them too...

[christx30]

89. Let's just ban

everything that might be bad for you. Red meat, smoking, skydiving, alcohol (cause that worked out so well the last time we tried it), profanity, driving more than 2MPH over the speed limit, skiing, use of a vacuum cleaner without wearing ear plugs, touching money without wearing rubber gloves, reading in low light, ect. There are a million of them.
Repeat after me: That which is not mandatory is now forbidden. It's for your own good. You might be an adult, but we are going to treat you like a child because we know how best to run your life.

[CTyankee]

90. You are right. Banning sugary drinks will destroy civil liberties!

It all started when they banned DDT! I loved DDT! It got rid of bugs faster and better than anything else. Now my personal choice in insecticide is GONE!

[christx30]

91. But where does it end?

You want the world to be like Demolition Man? Sure it's just drinks now. But how many things are they going to ban for our own good? If you don't like the drinks, then don't drink them. But allow me to make that decision for myself. If you try to do it for me, I'll tell you where you can shove it. There are ways of getting around or outright ignoring every ban. Unless it's something that you are willing to kill or die to prevent, then lay off it.

[CTyankee]

93. Oh, dear, I am sorry christx30! I was being facetious and trying to lighten up, that's all.

Please don't take this as a personal insult to you. It is not meant in that way....

[christx30]

104. I didn't take it as a personal insult.

Don't worry about it.
I just don't like what is happening to the country. Between Bush torturing people and busybodies like Bloomberg pulling crap like this, the concept of freedom is losing its place. So I ask how bad does it get before they cross your personal line? I don't know your personal likes or dislikes, so I have to speculate. "We are going to ban sushi because of a slim possibility mercury poisoning."
You might not like soda. You might not think anyone should drink it ever. I respectfully disagree. I enjoy it and I don't think it should be banned. I hate smoking. I don't do it, and I don't think anyone should do it ever. But I am totally against blanket bans. But if we keep letting them ban things for our own good, this is going to be a pretty boring place to be after a while.
Not even King Arthur's court would be enjoyable.

[CTyankee]

105. well, Bloomberg is really just banning the oversized servings of soda. You will still be able to

get the smaller ones. So what he is doing is putting the spotlight on huge consumption. A way of saying "Look, too much of this is awful." I know that is moralizing but so was anti smoking compaigns...I myself was shamed out of continuing to smoke...

So you see if you live in New York you won't be slapped with a ban on what you like to drink after all. So what is the fuss about again?

[Ter]

94. Not only is it unconstitutional...

...but it'll sadly make the Tea Party grow.

[may3rd]

100. You must obey the law . They will be watching...

[jumptheshadow]

95. I like what Bloomberg is doing in this area...

...and, yes, some of his administration's innovations, such as required calorie counts, do have an impact.

I see a sign in one restaurant that says French fries will contain 650 to 850 calories (the number is approximate), and, no, I don't spring for the fries. It's good consumer information, rendered at the perfect moment.

[Nevernose]

102. Fruit juices should be banned, too.

They have roughly the same caloric and nutritional value that soda does. I appreciate the effort, but a tax on sugary drinks would be more productive, I think. Just another sin tax, which in general I think are good ideas.

[ti66er8pooh]

112. Ummm....

I don't know why...but this just keeps coming to mind

Brawndo...It's got electrolytes!!

It's sad...but we the sheeple will soon be eating, drinking, watching, listening, etc...everything big brother tells us to...and what's worse? We are actually asking for it!

[progressoid]

120. The Thirst Mutilator!

[and-justice-for-all]

113. A Large, should not equal a gallon...

I remember when the current sizes, were half as big. Reducing the sizes in conjunction with "... he'd make sure there was funding for phys. ed in public schools, decent parks and recreation in poor neighborhoods, etc." would be a great idea.

Everything in moderation is OK, some people just do not know how to moderate.

[Greybnk48]

114. Diet soda's too?

How can you ban the sugar-free Big Buddy or Slug-a-Mug or whatever they are called? My husband has gotten one of those (diet) everyday since the late 80's. He would crumble if they banned them (he hates coffee).

[Incitatus]

117. Genious!

Now force the sale of cigarettes in packs of 10 and stop lung cancer.

[southerncrone]

118. Another useless, crazy distraction.

TAX the heck out of these drinks (any size) & that will curtail the consumption. Plus bring in revenue. Educate the public on the health risks of consuming all this sugar & substitutes.

It worked w/smokes, it'll work w/this......just takes time.

[mikeytherat]

119. "The ban would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores."

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

So, I can buy my 12-pounds-of-pastrami sandwich, and go next door to a bodega and buy a 2-liter bottle of Coke?

mikey_the_rat