NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

marathon64

What do you think about this as a tool to combat obesity?

http://news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-bloomberg-propose-ban-sale-large-sugary-035357237--sector.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to propose a far-reaching municipal ban on sales of large-size sugary beverages by restaurants, mobile food carts, movie theaters and delis, his administration said on Wednesday.
A document outlining the proposal said it was aimed at fighting an epidemic of obesity, citing public health statistics showing that 58 percent of New York City adults and nearly 40 percent of city public school students are obese or overweight.
The proposal defines sugary drinks as beverages that are "sweetened with sugar or another caloric sweetener that contain more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces and contains less than 51 percent milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient."
It would impact drinks sold in containers larger than 16 ounces, but would not impact the sale of diet soda or dairy-based drinks.
Americans consume 200 to 300 more calories every day than they did 30 years ago, according to the Bloomberg administration's analysis.
Bloomberg has used the power of the city government to promote other health measures, including a campaign to cut down on salt and a ban on trans fats in restaurant food, as well as a requirement that chain restaurants display calorie counts.
In 2003, the city banned smoking in bars and restaurants, generating howls of protest at the time from smokers and non-smokers who saw it as a case of government creeping into private lives, but the law has since become widely accepted.
Bloomberg, a political independent, is in the middle of his third four-year term as New York City mayor.
The response to Bloomberg's public health initiatives have been mixed. Earlier this month, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 45 percent of New York voters thought the government should discourage unhealthy eating and drinking habits, while 48 percent said the government shouldn't get involved.
Still, many of those initiatives, including the smoking ban, have become models for other cities.
The proposed ban on sugary drinks requires the approval of the city's Board of Health. It will be submitted to the board on June 12.
In a statement, a spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association challenged Bloomberg's assertion that the consumption of soda was driving obesity rates.
"It's time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity," said spokesman Stefan Friedman. "These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front."
(Reporting by Edith Honan and Steve Gorman; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Beech)

Julieelliott12

I like the idea myself, but I don't drink much soda. My husband on the other hand would be devastated..

MooMooooo

I think it's a great idea. Kinda - it's a step in the right direction but it's a drop in the ocean.

They need to also ban the constant bombardment of ads on tv and billboards advertising junk food. You just can't get away.

steadk

This says it wouldn't affect diet soda, but most diet sodas aren't made with stevia yet, and people drink more diet soda because its "diet". I think that diet soda should be affected. This is a good start and a good initiative, however, I think there are a few kinks to be worked out. Also, milk products that are flavored have a TON of sugar in them, and this is where many public and private school kids get sugar!! This needs to be addressed!!

Linbo93

I agree with the idea behind it 100%, people need to be healthier and generally speaking, they aren't making good decisions for themselves. But the joy of being American is we make our own decisions. If someone wants to buy a big sugary drink, that's their choice and their money. They suffer the consequences. I don't think governent should have control over whether or not they can buy it.

All that said, I prefer all my drinks unsweetened, because sweet drinks make me thirsty, so I don't personally care, lol. I don't think this will take off.

glennstoudt

Although there is nothing to disagree with that excessive consumption of sugar, whether that be in drinks or processed foods is not healthy, prohibition is ineffective and easily defeated by business and consumers alike. Think "free refills" for example. The sentiment described in the article about the nanny state is real and palpable. Public education works in a limited way. So called "bans" mostly don't. Interesting that sugary milk shakes can still be served in quart single serving containers. I suppose the dairy lobby is stronger than the soda lobby.

biged335

I think it's another bull**** step by government... People must choose for themselves wether or not to be healthy... They'll just by smaller soda's and drink more of them... What's next, King Mike makes everybody exercise?

chattyKathi

ITA with you! government is getting involved way too much in our lives. Its not like people don't realize that drinking that 64 oz full sugar soda isn't a healthy choice. its way to intrusive if you ask me.

marathon64

I read that by 2030 42% of Americans are projected to be obese. Something needs to change for certain!

Leanne3552000

I think it is fantastic that the government is steping in. Something has to be done about the obesity rates and I think government policies one of the many strategies that will work. While I agree that it is an individuals responsibility to stay healthy, the increasing obesity rates are out of control and have a huge impact on society, not just the individuals.

Sox90716

Just what we need. More government control. Welcome to the nanny state!

shivaslives

While I applaud the efforts of government trying to help get people healthier, this is not the way to do it and it wouldn't be effective. Health education and putting other pressures on the companies that produce and sell the products (like higher taxes) is probably the only effective means of reducing consumption.

<a href="http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"><img border="0" src="http://tickers.myfitnesspal.com/ticker/show/911/4468/9114468.png&quot; /></a><p style="text-align:center;width:420px;"><small>

Advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

bathsheba_c

Why do people keep referring to it (there was another thread on this) as a prohibition? No one is prohibited from selling anything. It's just a restriction in maximum individual serving size. Need your 22 oz soda? Get two 12 oz cups and don't fill them the entire way!

I think this could be effective for one simple reason. Establishments always price items to encourage consumers to buy a larger size. That's why, for example, a $6 tub of popcorn at the movie theater is four times the size of a $4 container; the consumer is convinced the larger size is a better deal because it costs less per unit popcorn, and the movie theater makes more profits. Restricting the maximum size breaks the cycle.

marathon64

can't seem to view the ticker

While I applaud the efforts of government trying to help get people healthier, this is not the way to do it and it wouldn't be effective. Health education and putting other pressures on the companies that produce and sell the products (like higher taxes) is probably the only effective means of reducing consumption.

<a href="http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"><img border="0" src="http://tickers.myfitnesspal.com/ticker/show/911/4468/9114468.png&quot; /></a><p style="text-align:center;width:420px;"><small>

Advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

714rah714

Bloomberg is an a$$h?le

atsteele

This is possibly one of the dumbest pieces of proposed legislation that I ever heard of. Like we need more laws governing the people. And what will it accomplish? Nothing. Restrictions on what people eat? Really?!!

Here's a thought: How about instead of reducing the time for recess at schools to 15 min (Yes, that's all the recess my kids get.) how about increasing it to an hour? How about giving incentives for kids who are involved in sports? How about incentives for kids who make healthy choices? I don't know. Maybe that's just crazy talk. *rolling eyes*

lforner46

LET'S SEE - they raised the price of cigarettes to $5-7.00 per pack and it didn't stop the smokers. People need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OBESITY. Its not Coca-Cola's fault !!!

marm1962

It doesn't matter what they propose. So you can't buy a 20 oz soda, big deal. There is no proposed law stating that you can't buy 2 16 oz sodas, so what is the purpose of the law? There is also no way of knowing if a person is buying a 16 oz from one place and a 16 oz from another.........it's just idiotic.

momof3and3

What ever happened to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!

It is NOT the governments job to regulate what and how much we eat! If I want to overeat, having a ban on x-large soda is not going to stop me...nor will it stop anyone else.

Get the governement out of my life...if I wanted the governement to control it, I will just go live in a communist country!

What is next? ...x-large bags of candy, big macs, whoppers, large pizza with toppings,etc....????

hallie_b

Honestly, it won't make a huge difference in the city (I work there) but, it is nice to see them TRY to point out our bad habits are killing us(though they could do it differently, not try to force it on people). We already have an extra tax on soda. People complained, it happened anyway, people stopped complaining. Plus, SOOO many restaurants here give free refills.
They keep identifying soda and surgary drinks but, does this ban also effect Starbucks drinks? Since there is a Starbucks on almost every corner here I wonder if you will still be able to get a large sugary coffee drink. I didn't read the proposal because it doesn't really effect me.

tripitena

Large sugary drinks.
Alcohol
Tanning salons
Tobacco products
Motorcycle riding
Trans fats
Meat
Corn syrup
Sun exposure at the beach & pool


The list goes on. Ban all of these things because they are all, in someones study or educated opinion, a risk to our health. How far should we go to avoid taking responsiblity for ourselves? How much freedom of choice are we willing to give up? Or are some health endangering choices protected and others not?
If we're really talking about bans for public health then theres a heck of a lot of banning to be done.