New York OKs nation's first ban on super-sized sugary drinks

heroyalslimness

I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
-

heroyalslimness

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City passed the first U.S. ban of oversized sugary drinks on Thursday in its latest controversial step to reduce obesity and its deadly complications in a nation with a weight problem.

By an 8-0 vote with one abstention, the mayoral-appointed city health board outlawed sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces nearly everywhere they are sold, except groceries and convenience stores. Violators of the ban, which does not include diet sodas, face a $200 fine.

Opponents, who cast the issue as an infringement on personal freedom and called Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who proposed the ban in May, an overbearing nanny, vowed to continue their fight. They may go to court in the hopes of blocking or overturning the measure before it takes effect in March.

"It's sad that the board wants to limit our choices," Liz Berman, a business owner and chairwoman of New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a beverage industry-sponsored group, said in a statement. "We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink."

On Twitter, Bloomberg heralded the measure's passage as "the single biggest step any gov't has taken to curb #obesity. It will help save lives."
Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said the measure was likely to be copied elsewhere in the nation - and even the world - as were the city's restrictions on trans fats and smoking.

Farley recently said if the law results in "shrinking only one sugary drink per person every two weeks from 20 ounces to 16 ounces, New Yorkers could collectively prevent 2.3 million pounds gained per year. This would slow the obesity epidemic and prevent much needless illness."

WILL OTHER CITIES FOLLOW?
Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said there was "quite a good chance" that other U.S. cities would once again follow New York's lead and replicate the idea that triggered opponents' outrage and doubts about the Bloomberg's leadership.

"It doesn't seem so crazy any more. You need somebody to go first," Brownell told Reuters.

Claiming the ban will hurt small businesses, opponents cited a recent poll by the New York Times, which reported 60 percent of New Yorkers believe the ban is a bad idea.
But the Health Department said on Thursday that most of the extraordinary response it received to the initiative - 32,000 of nearly 39,000 oral and written comments - favored the restriction.

cblevitron

It should include diet sodas. Why does anyone need that much damn soda? They should have never started selling it in such large quantities in the first place.

heroyalslimness

It should include diet sodas. Why does anyone need that much damn soda? They should have never started selling it in such large quantities in the first place.

That's an interesting point. Chemicals in sugar-free are kind of scary.

sweet_lotus

I'm generally not in favor of sin tax/aunt polly type laws - the government should not be in the business of telling people what to do.

The science isn't really there for this either; it's not going to work. The soda "ban" is political posturing, nothing more. It makes the people who don't drink soda feel very righteous, like Something Is Being Done About Obesity! The soda drinkers probably won't care much. They'll just drink it at home. Or they'll eat some of those cupcakes out of the vending machines going up in NYC. (Did you know the ban excludes Big Gulps?)

Obesity is often, but not always, correlated to economic and social factors. Fighting it is going to take multi-disciplined approach at probably the community level.

GoldspursX3

Against.

Let people make their own decisions.

ejohndrow

He's against sugary drinks, yet the mayor was front and center endorsing an eating competition months later; kind of sends a mixed message in my opinion.

139pilotwife

What's next...alcoholic beverages especially all those frozen drinks! Really New York!

AlabasterVerve

Against it in principle, of course. The government has absolutely no business passing any laws about nutrition -- especially without any @#$@ing science to back it up with. But to be honest, even though it's infuriating this kind of thing is allowed to happen I can't get too worked up about it. Sugar consumption is out of control and these types of BS laws raise public awareness.

myofibril

"We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink."

Sky rocketing obesity levels suggest otherwise.

It's amazing that so many people whine about the burden that obesity rates imposes on society, including increased healthcare costs but the moment anyone tries to take a step towards tacking it which is remotely harsh people jump up and down squealing "you are breaching my huuuuuuuuuman rights!" It's a basic human right to have more than 16oz of soda is it? Good grief. Sure I get the principle but fine principles aren't practical solutions to ever expanding waistlines sometimes...

Having said that I oppose this move on the grounds of stupidity. Businesses will simply offer 2-1 on drinks or some other novel measure to get round it. Prohibition rarely works. However it may cause some people to stop, even for a second, and think "do I really need to drink so much soda?"

Soda is incredibly easy to over consume. Restricting it is possibly one of the easiest things you can do you consume less calories.

blackcoffeeandcherrypie

Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

GoldspursX3

Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

Why stop there? Let's force everyone to report to City Hall at 0600 for Physical Fitness Training like we do in the Army. We'll also have Government Dining Facilities as the only place people can eat, no need to cook at home or buy groceries anymore. If the government says its ok, by golly, it must be true.

By the way, I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.

ktsmom430

I agree that sugary drinks contribute to the problem, but more importantly, the additions of sodium, sugars, preservatives, chemicals and, who knows what all, that is added to processed foods should be seriously looked at as well. Why isn't it? My guess the almighty buck, very hypocritical, IMHO.
Education would be a much better route to take than banning anything. We should be able to make our own choices without government interference. And, BTW, the last time I checked, the government isn't paying for the food or drinks I purchase, or my health care insurance, it simply is not their business. In the cases where people are getting their food and health care from government funds, maybe they could possibly restrict purchasing pop, candy, cigarettes, but are they doing that?

BrianSharpe

I am not, in general, in favour of the nanny state and the rules are so full of holes as to be practically useless but if it has the effect of raising awareness it may serve a useful purpose.

Personally I think the first step in addressing the "obesity epidemic" (I hate that term, it makes it sound like obesity is contagious like the flu) is to stop spending billions of dollars subsidizing corn. It's discouraging to walk into a supermarket and see a 2ltr bottle of soda selling for less than the price of a quart of milk. (Maybe we need warning labels on soda like the ones on cigarette packages......:laugh: :laugh: )

MDWilliams1857

This is absolutely ridiculous. We say the government has not right to be in our bedrooms, or no right to a womens uterus, so why do they have a right to our stomachs? This is just another example of how out of control the government is becoming.

myofibril

Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

It's a question of context.

Sugar in itself is not inherently harmful but the profileration of HFCS in food products has made it easier than ever to over consume calories. I can't remember who said it but there is a quote that "obesity is a natural conclusion of the American environment."

I do think the sugar / corn industry do have perhaps too much influence on government policy. I believe their lobbying of Earl Butz in the Nixon era contributed to the spawning of one of the most harmful dieting paradigms of recent times: low fat with fat being replaced by artificially created food products which replaced a high satiety macro nutrient with unnecessary sugar.

BigGuy47

Against this type of legislation.

head_in_rainbows

I am generally against bans as suck but strongly for labeling. Make a big fat label where it clearly states what teh stuff contains and give a REAL information on recomended daily values and I woudl be ok with it.

Newf77

By an 8-0 vote with one abstention, the mayoral-appointed city health board

Yhea, like they are going to go against their boss. I oppose govermental intervention in my life in anyway shape or form. Why the citizens of NewYork are not standing-up to this Dictaor and calling for his office is their issue and makes me thankful not to live in NewYork.

SanyamKaushik

I am basically against the deals on bulk buy or discount on bigger portions...
if 500ml of something cost $2, then 250ml should cost $1 or say $ 1.1 max (including overhead of packaging)

(Having said that, I mean the cost of smaller quantities should be reduced and not to increase the cost of bigger ones)

In the UK, in cinemas, lets say 100g popcorn cost £3, 200g will cost £3.25 and 400g costs £ 3.50 (hypothetical figures). so a person is naturally inclined to buy the bigger portion to get value for money (and end up eating a lot more)

Shame is that even supermarkets do such deals but only for crap foods like crisps etc and never for fruits/veggies or healthy stuff.

Scoochie1

Can you not just buy 2 if you are that into your soda?

cramernh

Against.

Let people make their own decisions.

If people want to wreck their health by drinking soda in large quantities, that is THEIR choice. There should be NO reason for NY to have approved such a law.

Personally I dont drink soda - havent in about 15 years.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit pans out against NY though... been reading that activity like crazy!

ClareRae

I'm against. I would also like to see the scientific studies that support the claims they make about the health benifits of such a law.
I'm curious, too, to see what will happen when it's enforced. Will people buy more than one in protest? Carry them around in specially made drink fanny packs?
I get that obesity is killing people, as a health care worker I see it all the time. I think education is the better way to go, not restrictions that treat people like uncontrolable children.

blackcoffeeandcherrypie

Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

...I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.

My use of the word 'probably' left a great deal of room for a different opinion :-)

However, if it is evidence you're looking for, and not just a rant about nanny state goverments, then I would recommend reading 'Pure, White and Deadly' by John Yudkin.

taunto

While its not the ideal solution, I think something had to be done. Obesity, in not only this country, but world wide is becoming an epidemic. People are consuming high amounts of calories without so much as to realizing it.

The ban does not prevent you from going and grabbing a sugary soda.
It does not stop you from going and grabbing a second serving of a sugary soda.

It does however prevent you from over consuming without paying much attention to the amount of high calorie soda you're drinking. I don't know about you, but I know for me, even if I am full/satisfied I still often drink the pop in the container just because... well I have no idea why but thats what I do.

Like I said, possibly not the ideal solution but something had to be done. CLEARLY letting people make their own informed decision wasn't enough.

To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason

chunkiedunker

I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
-

i think its pointless. people are still going to drink their soda/pop all they will do is drink it out of two or three cups now. the mayor is a bit of an idiot. the very next day after announcing this he was at national donut day where they had a 2 foot diameter donut.

kinda hypocritical dont you think?

ClareRae

Also, I'm waiting for the people with so many 'soda fines' they get arrested. Wouldn't that be interesting? From the pick up, to the jail cell, to the court case... I wish Seinfeld was still on. This would make for a good episode like the Soup Nazi.

GoldspursX3

Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)

...I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.

My use of the word 'probably' left a great deal of room for a different opinion :-)

However, if it is evidence you're looking for, and not just a rant about nanny state goverments, then I would recommend reading 'Pure, White and Deadly' by John Yudkin.

No thanks. I'm well aware that massive amounts of sugar is not healthy for me.

My point was that it is grossly irresponsible to make outrageous claims without knowing what you are talking about. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about by your own admission.

DocCollins_SFA

This ban is ridiculous! I should be able to get a Route 44 Cherry Limeade from Sonic if I darn well want to! Will I? Probably not, but taking that choice away from me is the start to some very bad stuff. What will they ban next?! Large fries? Full fat dressing? Fried chicken over grilled? You can't force people to be healthy! What is this world coming to?! I don't need the government making these choices for me. I say all of this and I'm a registered democrat!

taunto

I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
-

i think its pointless. people are still going to drink their soda/pop all they will do is drink it out of two or three cups now. the mayor is a bit of an idiot. the very next day after announcing this he was at national donut day where they had a 2 foot diameter donut.

kinda hypocritical dont you think?

This is without a doubt a publicity stunt. But most actions done by politicians are. But the argument isn't about the mayor, its about the law and its effect

GoldspursX3

To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason

I'm all for measures that provide awareness and knowledge on what people are consuming. That is not hindering me from living my life as I see fit. Totally different from banning portion sizes.