NY mayor blasts sugar ban critics: "That's a lot of soda"

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

NY mayor blasts sugar ban critics: "That's a lot of soda"

By Chris Francescani

NEW YORK | Fri Jun 1, 2012 1:03pm EDT

(Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a full-throated defense of his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas on Friday, calling criticism of the proposal "ridiculous" and saying his city is again leading the way in taking on critical health issues.

"I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody's willing to do something about it," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.

"I would criticize the federal government for not doing anything," the health-conscious Bloomberg added on WOR radio's John Gambling show. "I would criticize the state governments for not doing anything, but in the end, it's the cities that do things."

On Wednesday, Bloomberg proposed a far-reaching ban on sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces (about half a liter) in most restaurants, theaters, delis and vending carts throughout the city. It could take effect as early as next March, city officials have said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-usa-sugarban-newyork-idUSBRE85012N20120601

[YellowRubberDuckie]

1. Last I saw Mayor Bloomberg isn't a skinny man.

He's not morbidly obese or anything, but STFU, dude. Some shit just isn't any of your business, asshat.

[Schema Thing]

3. uh, yeah, it is his business.

[RZM]

8. The soda consumption of adults is his business?

He's made it his business, but it sure as hell shouldn't be.

Children I kinda-sorta understand. But adults?

[MH1]

38. If society pays for basic health care ** at all ** , then the argument can be made,

that it's society's business when something is so directly causative of high health care costs.

For "society", read "government".

I am pro-single payer health care, pro- subsidized health care for the poor, and pro- any policy that significantly improves general health with minimal intrusion into peoples' lives. Limiting the size in which a poison can be sold is perfectly fine with me. I'd much rather they regulate stuff in this way, then ban things outright like the did with marijuana and might have done with pseudoephedrine if an alternative inconvenience hadn't been applied instead.

[SGMRTDARMY]

12. Uh, no, its none of his business

what we want to eat or drink is none of blooming idiots business.

[Schema Thing]

19. Not sure what you're missing, but it absolutely is his business.

[WinkyDink]

27. Not sure what YOU'RE missing, but since when does a mayor regulate food purchases and sizes?

[SGMRTDARMY]

37. Not sure what you're missing

but how is it his business what or how much I eat or drink or what size soda I buy. Answer, none of his fucking business.

[WinkyDink]

26. Are you KIDDING?! Maybe he should start with his fancy restaurants and their liberal use of butter.

[morningfog]

2. I had been ignoring this story. But, now seeing the details, it isn't really a ban of soda at all.

Only selling more than 16 ounces at a time.

[WinkyDink]

28. Making the edict both busy-body AND ineffectual.

[BeyondGeography]

4. He's taking one for the team

Americans are often ridiculously fat and sugar consumption has a lot to with it. The more we stumble toward something resembling a potential remedy, the better.

[randome]

9. It's not the sugar. At least not the 'normal' sugar. It's corn fructose.

The federal government needs to stop supporting it with subsidies. Until they do, something has to give.

[paulk]

30. exactly

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/farm-bill_b_1553955.html

[MH1]

36. It's the sugar. HFCS might be worse, but any sugar in such large quantities is bad. nt.

[WinkyDink]

29. START WITH BUTTER.

[Johnny Rico]

39. There already *is* a remedy. It's called personal responsibility.

And it's none of The State's business.

[SGMRTDARMY]

45. Thank You

I can't believe some people think this is a good thing. Its none of Blooming Idiot's business what or how much I eat or drink.
Fuck Him and his authoritarian laws.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Yeah, that's working great

Might as well face it, the relentless assault of advertising, large portions with higher price points and profits attached to them and Americans' apparent difficulty to resist has created a health crisis.

Corporate America loves your approach.

[Johnny Rico]

54. For those who actually implement it in their lives, it certainly does.

Might as well face it, the relentless assault of advertising,

Oh, I'm helpless...as is everyone else...in the grip of this relentless assault! Puh-leeze.

How should manufacturers inform consumers of the wares? Word of mouth? Signal drums?

large portions with higher price points

Last I checked, no one was forcing me to eat everything off my plate. Don't like large portions? Either share or simply don't eat them. Unless, of course, relentless advertising assaults your senses and forces you to do so.

and profits attached to them

The last time I checked, profit was a good thing. It's sad that some here disagree.

and Americans' apparent difficulty to resist

Y'know, just because someone makes a choice you don't like doesn't mean that they failed to "resist".

Corporate America loves your approach.

Aieee! You said the "C" word! That invalidates everything I said!

[BeyondGeography]

55. You're right, let'em swill away

Meantime, put a few bucks into the diabetes industry. Lily, Merck and Novo Nordisk are making a killing. Sanofi, too.

Might as well make a few bucks off the fat purveyors while you're standing up for them.

Or maybe you're sitting down.

[Johnny Rico]

56. If they choose to do so? Absolutely. Who are you to tell someone they can't order a Big Gulp?

Last time I checked, choice was a good thing.

[whistler162]

48. What the team of blithering ifiots!

[Mojo Electro]

5. I'm not sure if he has thought this through....

What about places which offer free refills on soda? Will inspectors go into the restaurants and inspect the cups? Will there be "sting operations" so they can then give out fines?

This is government over-reach run amok.

I share the sentiment, struggling with a few extra pounds around the midsection myself and my biggest weakness is sugary soda.

I went to the movies last night and this story came to mind, the medium is huge trough that must be at least 33 ounces. "Would you like to upgrade that to a 55-gallon drum for just 50 cent more?" NO! Why would I want to carry around a half gallon of soda? Cinemark's smallest soda is in fact a 16 ounce, by the way. $4.00. The kiddie pool size medium is like 5.50 we just got one to share.

They get away with it because people buy it. I definitely see where he is coming from. Still, this approach is all wrong. I do not think that the government was meant to have the authority to do this. Utter nonsense.

[ChazII]

20. Excellent points, Mojo Electro.

My weakness is the popcorn. Now I get a small buttered popcorn to share and water when I go to the movies. Your observation in the last 2 sentences is a good one, imho.

[tabbycat31]

52. Actually movie theaters require their employees to "upsell"

I worked at one in high school and every weekend we had corporate spies, err mystery shoppers grade the concession stand attendants on upselling.

We were given a $50 bonus if we had a successful shop, and written up if we did not.

[brendan120678]

6. You know, with the amount of ice that most places add....

to their cups, I'd be surprised if a 32 oz. cup of soda even contained 16 oz of beverage.

Lots of fast food restaurants use smaller-sized ice cubes, which fill more volume of the cup, therefore allowing less actual liquid to be put in.

[johnnie]

50. I was going to post the same thing

I thought about that the other day, you are right. I think this whole thing is somehow about money rather than a politician really caring about people.

[TalkingDog]

7. Just tax them the way you do cigarettes. Essentially a health impact tax.

When 16 oz sodas cost 20 bucks fewer people will buy them.

[Riftaxe]

25. You mean fewer of the poor people will buy them I assume

since that would be the net result.

That is the usual desire of proponents of Regressive taxation, and those same people are astonished that others can see right through them.

[MH1]

44. Assuming your presumption of other unknown persons' motives is correct,

you think it's bad that someone would want poor people to consume LESS poison (thus having better health) and would not give a s*** what the rich people do?

I'm having trouble as seeing that as a bad motive, although the way you phrased it, you seem to be trying to make it bad.

[Skink]

10. This should be a debate question.

[Trillo]

11. Should we call him Dr. Bloomberg, MD ND, etc. (?)

perhaps with a sub-specialty practice in Obesity?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. So, now the kids will buy 2 regular sized sodas. Brilliant marketing.

[hughee99]

14. Things must be going really well in NYC if the mayor has the time to spend on this. n/t

[Go Vols]

15. lol

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. how about fucking educating people

and not just banning every little thing that might be bad for us? nanny-state bullshit run amok...

sP

[paulk]

31. in a way this is educating them

threatening to pass a law could make people pay some attention to how bad the crap is for you...

at least it becomes part of the public discourse

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. threatening is one thing...

doing is another and threats become hollow if not followed through. just take the time to teach them about the choices they are going to have to make and i bet things would get better. abstinence only education doesn't work in the sex ed world and prohibitions rarely work...

just talk...

sP

[paulk]

51. OTOH

http://www.upworthy.com/video-why-is-30-of-the-us-being-planted-with-corn?c=cd1

the real problem, as others have pointed out in the thread, is high fructose corn syrup, which our government is paid off to subsidize...

I doubt our government is interested in educating the public about the dangers of this, as they are way too invested in pushing the stuff.

I'd be all for a Federal law capping the amount of HFCS that can be put in any product, and I believe that law could be justified by the health risks associated with the stuff, which we all pay for through the burden it puts on our healthcare system.

I also don't see this happening as our political system is corrupted beyond repair by the money pouring into it - as pointed out in another link I posted upthread. The only real solution is to educate yourself and anyone else willing to listen - then make your own choices about what you consume. Oh wait a minute on that - agribusiness has pretty much prevented us from knowing what's in our food (read: gm crops) through their ownership of our aforementioned corrupt government.

[SGMRTDARMY]

40. That would be my solution

educate and then let the people decide for themselves. Your right, this nanny state bullshit has got to stop.

[SOS]

17. Soda industry will pay off, defeat ban

Fear not, 64 oz. fans.

The history in New York is clear.
Industries that can pay off always win.

(Since crooked politicians no longer accept graft from tobacco companies, cigarettes are the exception to the rule. A pack in NYC is $14.)

But for corporations that can still send the bag man, there should be no concern
that anything will be done.



"The soda industry has deep connections to political leaders in New York. Beverage trade groups and companies are responsible for more than $1.26 million in political contributions to New York state legislators and political parties over the past three years

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/nyregion/soda-industry-maps-campaign-to-defeat-bloomberg-plan.html

“Their lobbyists were in my office last week,” Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, a Democrat who represents the Bronx and Westchester County

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/nyregion/soda-industry-maps-campaign-to-defeat-bloomberg-plan.html

“The beverage industry takes the position that you can’t allow this to happen anywhere at any time” said Michael A. Nutter, Philadelphia’s mayor. “They’re successful the old-fashioned way. They pay for it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03sodatax.html

Edit to correct quote

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

18. I admire him for speaking out on the issue and showig leadership

but I don't think a law is the right approach. Adults should have the freedom to kill themselves if it comes to that. What I expect from government is education as to the harm caused by obesity such as type ii diabetes and very vocal warnings. But in the end, people should be free to ruin their own health if they insist, after they have been fully informed.

[hfojvt]

22. but nobody is being stopped

they are only being slowed down. You can still get 64 ounces of pop, if you want it, you just have to buy four 16 ounce cups.

But, as a practical matter, this is likely to lead to less soda consumption, and that's a good thing. (Something I say as a guy who drinks lots and lots of soda). If you don't buy 32 ounces in one purchase, then you are likely to drink less than 32 ounces. It also means that consumers will likely spend less money on soda. Which is another (socially) good thing.

Plus, I know from experience that people throw away lots of soda in the form of cups which still have lots of liquid in them. So often people buy 32 ounces, or even 16 and drink less than that, leaving the rest to be spilled or discarded into a leaky trash bag. So smaller cups are likely to mean less waste. Another good thing.

I am not seeing very many downsides, except for the firestorm, but even that can be a good thing if it gets people thinking about obesity and soda/food consumption.

[Nikia]

24. Except 32 oz is usually a lot less expensive than 2 16 oz sodas

So if you want more than 16 oz, you will spend more on soda.
I have always been a thirsty person, whether the drink has sweetner or not, so this seems a bit repressive to me personally. Having gone to a theme park last weekend when it was over 90 degrees, it would have seemed cruel and a big money maker for them.

[paulk]

32. soda doesn't quench thirst, in fact it does the opposite

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100308040113AAUMfSM

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

33. Excessive thirst is one of the warning signs of diabetes

Drinking highly sweetened drinks could cause a vicious circle, only causing someone to want to drink more, as their average A1C blood sugar levels continue to rise, causing their bladder to dump sugar through excessive urination, making them want to drink even more. It happened to me and I had no idea I had type II diabetes, but I went from overweight to vastly underweight (down to 120 lbs. and I'm an average-sized male) as my body tried to get rid of excessive blood sugar through frequent urination, making me thirsty all the time. Now I keep my weight down, exercise, and mostly drink water.

[Nikia]

34. Except that I've had that problem since I was a child

And did not have diabetes then or now. I urinate much more when I plain water than soda or other sugary drinks. I know that sugary drinks don't quench first as much of water although I assumed that it was just because it was part solid. I tend not to drink caffeinated beverages since they make me jittery.
That said, I do know that for some, excessive thirst and/or urination is a sign of diabetes that clues people in to get checked.

[hfojvt]

47. okay that is a minor downside

and it's why I never buy half gallons of milk (although I used to buy pints of chocolate milk when I was on bivycle trips), but the people who spend more will probably be more than balanced by the people who spend less. I am just about a chain drinker myself, but I know that it is a good idea to slow me down, to put limits on myself. Also, from my cheapo perspective neither the 16 ounce nor the 32 ounce is a very good deal. Usually you pay more for 32 ounces that is half ice than you would for a two liter bottle. Going to a theme park should mean that you have already accepted some high prices. So an extra dollar for that 2nd cup is not a huge hardship.

[RedCappedBandit]

21. If people are to lose weight,

they have to want to make the appropriate lifestyle changes. It is not something that can be forced upon them.

Similarly, you can't force sobriety on an alcoholic.

Not sure what's so difficult to grasp here.

[lame54]

23. When the people do stand up to do something...

like fight the crooks on wall street

Bloomberg sends his thugs to shut 'em down

[KamaAina]

35. You know how winning football coaches get Gatorade showers?

Time to pour a few dozen Big Gulps on the "tiny fascist".

[Tumbulu]

41. Good idea and next plastic bags

Sorry folks, I think this is a fine idea.

If people cannot control themselves, then it is fine for a city to try to help by limiting portion size of containers. After all the city is stuck with trash collection of these huge containers.

[Generic Brad]

42. Sounds like he has a vested interest in beverage containers

Or he is rewarding a donor who manufactures plastic cups and paper glasses. I have a hard time believing he is a benevolent billionaire who is actually concerned about people's health.

[Robb]

46. I'm glad Bloomberg is tackling this important issue

...,Obviously he knows what he's doing. His brilliant ideas have already eliminated poverty and crime in New York. On to perfect health!

[paulk]

53. well, it is a public health issue

your snark aside

I can't say that I agree with his solution, but the excessive consumption of sugary soda in this country is a major health concern that effects all of us through the burden it places on our health care system.

It's a conversation that needs to happen.

[Robb]

57. I agree. But it's a declining market already.

Reuters:

Soda sales in the United States grew about 3 percent annually throughout most of the 1990s but began to slow in 1999. Sales have been in decline since 2005 as increasingly health-conscious consumers turn to options they see as healthier, such as bottled water, juice and tea.

Americans on average drank 714 eight-ounce servings of carbonated soft drinks last year, down from 728 in 2010, Beverage Digest said, noting that consumption was the lowest since 1987.

Consider McDonald's is doubling industry growth projections and serving 28 million meals per day, and rising.

So yeah, it's a public health issue. So are falling pianos, but surely we can prioritize a little better.