Public hearing set on proposed NY sugary drink ban
 

what about burgers and colon cancer??? :helpme


NEW YORK (AP) ? Whether they think the mayor is combating obesity or infringing on their rights, New Yorkers are scheduled to have their say on a proposed ban on large sugary drinks served at restaurants, movie theaters and other eateries.

The proposal requires only the approval of the Board of Health ? appointed by the mayor ? to take effect. But opponents could still sue to block the ban, or they could convince legislators to step in and block the proposal.



A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, and the board is scheduled to vote on the measure Sept. 13. "Sugary drink consumption is a key driver of the obesity epidemic," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday alongside community leaders who gathered to voice their support for the measure. "This year an estimated 5,800 New Yorkers will die because they are obese or overweight."

A few miles away and about an hour later, more than 100 people gathered on the steps of City Hall to protest the proposed ban ? many wearing t-shirts that read, "I picked out my beverage all by myself."

Since Bloomberg proposed the ban in May, opponents including members of the restaurant and soft drink industries as well as libertarians have accused him of attempting to institute a "nanny state" with far-reaching government controls that infringe on individual choice. City officials, meanwhile, argue they are trying to save lives in the face of an epidemic that is killing New Yorkers and costing $4 billion a year.

At Monday's rally, protesters called on the administration to target obesity by improving access to physical education for the city's students and better educating the public. The proposed rules, they argued, will do little to curb weight gain and instead will hurt some small business owners while helping others.

A corner deli could be banned from selling 20-ounce soda bottles even while a neighboring 7-Eleven is allowed to sell giant Slurpees, because the city's proposal would only apply to food carts and to establishments regulated by the city Health Department, including restaurants, sports arenas and movie theaters. Grocery stores, drug stores and some convenience stores are regulated by the state and would be unaffected.

The rule would apply to sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. Drinks that are more than half milk or 70 percent juice would be exempt, as would diet sodas. In a letter released Monday by The New England Journal of Medicine, New York University researchers said the ban could affect nearly two-thirds of drinks bought at the city's fast-food restaurants, according to a survey of more than 1,600 receipts. On average, sugary-drink buyers could consume 74 calories less per fast-food outing, the letter said.

Bloomberg acknowledged that it's not only sugary drinks such as soda that are to blame for the nation's weight gain, but he said the sweet liquids are especially bad because they contain "empty calories that flood our bodies with sugar without making us feel full."

"When you consume empty calories, you consume them, they add to your waistline, but it does not give you the feeling of being filled up, so you go out and continue to eat," he said. One protester, real estate broker Danny Panzella, said he doesn't drink soda because of health concerns. But, he said, the idea of government inserting itself into that decision is an affront to his libertarian values.

Panzella, who carried a sign that read, "My Body, My Choice," said he had no financial stake in the issue. Some other protesters said they worked for Coca-Cola Co., while others represented the restaurant industry.

"I want to have a freedom of choice in a free country," Panzella said. "It's certainly not the role of the government to police what people are putting into their bodies." City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley argued that such concerns fade in the face of obesity's New York City death toll.

"If a virus were killing 5,800 people this year, people would be clamoring for government action to stop it," he said.

full article...

from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledb...-consequences/

Seth Goldman, the founder of Honest Tea, has an op-ed in the WSJ today describing how the regulation, which bans drinks over 25 calories per 8 ounce serving from being served in containers larger than 16 ounces, would be costly and damaging to his business:
In addition to losing the several hundred thousand dollars in machinery they invested, they won?t switch to 16 ounces because, as Seth puts it ?what if next year, Cambridge, Mass., comes up with a ban on 15.5-ounce containers??

Not sure this will do anything but hurt businesses. If I am in NYC and want to stuff my face with 48 ounces of Coke, I'll just buy 3 16ounces Coke. It's like the 3 ounces limit for liquids at the airport security, how does that protect us? It just take a couple of people with a lot of 3 ounces containers to get whatever they were trying to get through.

I think rather than restrict, government should educate, but unfortunately, most people don't care and will do what they want anyways.

perfect example! their not worried about your health. It's to gain revenue 3 16 ounces would cost more. more tax!

And that's their choice. Their body, their choice. If they want to cover their body in ink, get 500 piercings, drink coca-cola all day long and eat nothing but hamburgers, that's their choice.

What a stupid proposal.

Sugar - NO WAY!

Cigarettes, poison in the food and water, tons of pharmaceuticals with nasty side effects, and fast food... NO PROBLEM!

I agree, I know fast food is bad for you but I just can't help it with it comes to a Wendy's double deluxe, especially now that they changed they beef patties :)

Sugar Dad?
:)

"It's certainly not the role of the government to police what people are putting into their bodies."

Yes it is, mister protester.
Heroine. You're not allowed to put it into your body.

Coca cola. You can put as much of it into your body as you want until you literally die and the only law you broke was the ban on suicide.

Man, people are seriously lacking in brain function sometimes.

There is no proposed ban on sugary drinks. There's a proposed ban on cup sizes larger than 16 ounces containing non-diet sugary drinks served from "establishments regulated by the city Health Department". So you know what you do when you walk into that corner Deli where you get your pastrami on rye? You ask for two 16 ounce cokes or go to the 7-11 and buy yourself a bucket of coke.

Wah, the nanny state is trying to tell me what I can't put in my body because I'm sold on the opinion that it's trying to invade my body!

Talk about Darwin awards..

You also can't buy beer in church, how dare they try to tell you what you can and can't put into your body!? Outrageous.

:helpme

diet drinks have sugar substitute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_s...#Health_issues that shit is worse than drinking the regular drink :2 cents:

I quit drinking soda a year ago. Now it's water only. It's a great way to live really.

I think his huge mistake is deciding that "diet" drinks are somehow more safe.

Banning cigarettes, banning cell phones, banning sugary drinks.... why not fine people for having offensive body odor? I'm more offended by a fat sack of crap that smells like shit... jus' saying. Government regulated hygiene program doesn't seem too far fetched in the future.

well young people want soda. you off the red meat? :helpme

The government does not have the right to tell people that they can't use heroine, or pot, or anything else they want to put in their body. The don't have the right to tell you that you can't kill yourself, if that's your choice.

As for buying a beer in church, that's up to the church, as a private institution, as to whether or not they want to allow that. It has nothing to do with government. If you want to come to my place, and I want to sell you a barrell full of coka cola, and you want to buy it from me, there is no reason at all why the government should be involved in that exchange.

I bet if NYC (or Canada, or any country), decided that they would not allow porn to be sold, due to psycho studies that showed it was bad for people, you would be singing a different tune. Or for that matter, damaging movies of any kind, or books or music, or ANY product. It should be between a free adult and another free adult. Governments should stay the hell out of it. Just because YOU don't want to buy a large size soda, doesn't give you the right to make the decision for everyone else.

That's how I see it. This is one group of people imposing their choices on everyone else. That's not freedom in my book, sorry.



.,:2 cents:

Who benefits? Those who sell the toxic artificial sweeteners, no doubt there's been backhanders to make this happen.

They're not trying to protect people, this is to increase somebody's profits.

The real contradiction: Big sodas are illegal unless they contain aspartame

"The real hilarity in these soda bans becomes apparent when you realize the bans don't apply to diet soda! So as long as your 16 oz. soda contains the brain-damaging chemical known as aspartame, the state allows you to drink as much as you want!

So it's not really a ban on all the harmful ingredients sodas contain such as phosphoric acid, a highly acidic substance that causes kidney stones and bone mineral depletion. Pepsi's lawyers recently admitted this acid is so powerful it can dissolve a mouse and turn it into a gel-like substance. This acid is present both in regular sodas and diet sodas.

The soda ban, it seems, is really just a ban on sodas made with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has suddenly become the enemy of choice in an irrational world of nutritionally illiterate bureaucrats. Sure, HFCS is bad for your health and promotes diabetes and obesity, but aspartame promotes seizures and blindness, and it remains perfectly acceptable to Mayor Bloomberg. After all, what would New York City be without a few seizure cases on the sidewalk?

What's really extraordinary is what Bloomberg did not ban. There is no ban on cancer-causing sodium nitrite in hot dogs, sausages, bacon and beef jerky. So you can eat your way to pancreatic cancer with the full approval of the Mayor, but if you dare sip a drink of some corn syrup, then all of a sudden you're a bad person.

There was no ban on MSG, either. So you can eat your way to obesity, diabetes and hormone disorders, wolfing down MSG snack chips and jerky treats, and the Mayor is fine with all that.

So it's not about protecting the health of the people, you see. If that were true, he would ban the far more dangerous foods and snacks sold throughout New York City. It's really about scoring political points by appearing to be the "protector" of the citizens.

And this, my friends, is the most dangerous role of government: Be on red alert any time you hear, "We're from the government, and we're here to protect you from yourself."

http://www.naturalnews.com/036222_so...overnment.html

nice straw man. A church (the building) is the property of the Church (could be the Catholic Church, could be some other church community). By entering that building, you agree to abide by their rules. If they say: no beverages allowed (except for the wine used during mas), that's their choice, their right. No one forces you to enter that building.

When a store owner voluntarily offers beverages for sale in a certain type or size of container, there's nothing wrong with that. It's his property, his right, his decision. When a client enters that store and voluntarily buys the product that store owner is voluntarily offering for sale, what's wrong with that? Nothing. Two individuals voluntarily exchanging property without harming a 3rd party, who could be against that?

q f t :thumbsup

drugs have nothing to do with this :1orglaugh

If it's to stop obesity, why not compromise and have scales at each register that determines your max drink size?.. :upsidedow

Then can the public make the choice to stop paying for their healthcare when they drink what I like to call "silos" of soda from Circle K and develop diabetes II?

People don't want the government in their lives yet they won't take any responsibility either. I have really started to look at how fat people are, it's pretty bad. And when I see kids so overweight, it breaks my heart. Parents are killing their children with their choices in food. How one cannot see that a girl 75 lbs. overweight needs to drop a few pounds is beyond me.

And diet soda is equally if not worse for you than regular soda, I'd like to see that on the ban list as well.

I would rather just see smaller cups offered, no one needs 100 oz. of soda, no one. However, I'd like to see normal portions with everything. In Vegas, I ordered chicken parm from a nice Italian restaurant. The portion size they gave me was close to two pounds of chicken, a normal portion is 1/8 of that, and that's exactly what I ate of it.

Sorry for the rant, food education means a lot to me.

BTW, I did switch to diet 2 years ago and went from 250 to 180 now..

You should have had your teeth checked before you switched and now.

The acid in diet soda can cause damage to your teeth.

My teeth are perfect with no cavities and I go to the dentist 4x/year, but thanks for the concern :winkwink:

i refuse to google how much an ounce is... but if someone drinks tons of coke, sprite or whatever he/she shouldnt be surprised when they get fat

No one is forcing people to buy large cups. The people who buy them, voluntarily agreed to buy them. Personally, I'd never buy those extremely larges cups, but the fact that they continue to be able to sell them shows that there are people who do prefer those large cups.

One can try to convince those buyers that the product is not healthy. One can offer alternatives or show people there are alternatives. One can spread information about obesity and the dangers of excessive food consumption etc. But the second you prevent two people from making a peaceful, voluntary transaction because you don't think that transaction is in their best interest, you violate their property rights and are by definition committing an act of aggression. Any act of aggression is immoral and unethical, no matter how good your intentions may have been.

Every time something bad happens like for example the shooting in the theater last week, people start posting things like "what's wrong with people? what's wrong with this country? what's the world coming to?". One big problem we face these days is that fewer and fewer people respect their fellow men as the individuals their are. They no longer respect their neighbor's physical integrity. They no longer respect boundaries. And those boundaries are actually pretty clear: property rights, private property rights.

Every human is allowed to do whatever he wants with his own body and his property as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human or that human's property.

That is real tolerance. Do-gooders talk about 'tolerance' as if we all should be friends and hug. Real tolerance is about recognizing that all people are different. We are all individuals. We all have our goals, dreams, hopes, fears and preferences. You may not like the choices your neighbor makes, but those are his choices to make. You may think the tattoo your colleague just got is ugly and she would be better off if someone had stopped her from getting that tattoo, but it's her body, her choice. You may think it's dangerous and irresponsible for your friend to go hiking in the Amazon, but it's his body, his life, his choice.

OH yes ok sorry my bad example using a Church. Lets pretend instead it's 3am in NY state and I want to buy beer. BZZT sorry.. It's illegal. Is the argument again going to be that it's not public land? Of course not, it's a law. There goes the government again "telling me what I can and can't put in my body" except people will argue now that it's "different" somehow. Well it's not different so just get over it. It's a cup size, not a ban on how much you can drink. It's not even illegal to buy it in a big size, there's just going to be a regulation on some establishments. They'll get over it like they did the ban on trans fats.

Like in Nazi Germany where the law said Jews and homosexuals were inferior? Like in Saudi Arabia where you get stoned for producing porn? Like in Nazi Germany where the government regulated how Jews had to dress?

I'm going to just coin a new phrase right here and now.

Sometimes reality shaped pegs won't fit in utopia shaped holes.


That's why governments have a duty to regulate.

No, like the law in NY state that says it's illegal to sell alcohol after 2am.

You might be amazed that in some entire counties it's illegal to buy or sell alcohol any time, any day. They're referred to as "dry" counties.

Sunday night I drank a 48 oz blue rasberry icee at batman. My wife and I pretty much stay away from sugar and dont drink pop. I will say I have not had an icee in at least 10 years. I drank the whole fucking thing by myself and it was awesome. Fuck anybody who says I can't have an icee every 5-10 years.

It is the utopian who refuses to see that his much revered government regulation does not fix anything.

And that makes it right? Someone else is already doing it so it is right? So you have no problem if a man beats his wife and does not allow his sick daughter to see a doctor because in some parts of the world that is how things are done?

Back when a lot of us were kids, Soda was a treat, as were candy, McDonalds, and snack foods, such as chips. Now when a lot of kids are thirsty, they grab a coke, instead of water, or milk. Wan't some chips, fuck the handfull, how about a personal 150 gram bag. (no idea what that is in the US) I object to the government stepping in and telling people what they can or can't do, but limiting the size of a cup is really not considered being a nanny state. If people want their 48 oz "silo" of soda, they can get up off their asses and refill the 16 oz cup 2 more times. Just a shame they didn't include the diet shit, as its worse for you than the real thing.

but keep serving Alcohol. i heard it's pretty harmless. good thing we're concentrating on something important in these fucked up times .... sugary drinks ...

Unless you have a problem, why do you go to the dentist 4x a year when dentists recommend only twice?

There's enough acid in orange juice to fuck your teeth but I doubt they will ban that.

If they were honestly "regulating" for the safety of the people, I would agree. However, this is about someone's profits. The US government doesn't give a squirt of piss about the health of anyone, or they would start the crack down at either McDonalds or Pfizer. Not soda pop.

Considering aspartame sweetened cola will still be allowed, that says everything you need to know about their intentions, and it has nothing to do with our health.

One tooth has a problem, but that was caused by a door and not sugar.. :upsidedow

fucking idiots

I doubt any American drinks the amount of OJ that they do soda.

I agree. No one should be forced to pay for someone elses choices.

See how freedom of choice works? You didn't have to eat all of the food on the plate, and you don't have to go back to that restaurant again.

AND you don't have the right to tell other people how much THEY decide to eat, and how big THEIR cups are going to be.


You guys really don't see how this same logic of what people making decisions for "other peoples own good" will eventually catch up to porn? Really???


Here is one of my favorite fellow libertarians on the subject:

Oddly enough when I was younger and worked in a hotel, when we had mainly American corporate guests, it was requested that we have Coke on the breakfast buffets. So you had OJ, Milk, Grapefruit Juice, and apple juice, sitting beside cans of Coke. I always thought it was strange, but it seemed to sum up the American love affair with their carbonated sugary beverages.

:2 cents: :2 cents: it scares me how many people want big brother to save them from their own gluttony. kind of reminds me of the attempted ban on fast food in some city in california. :1orglaugh

There is SOME logic to this move but legislating a solution is too much. Why? Where do you want the government to stop? Talk about a nanny state. Public awareness is probably the farthest extent they should go.