New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
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.

“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.”

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.

The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”

But others said consumers should be free to choose.

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

“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.”
...
“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

biccat wrote:

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

This is silly. Bloomberg wants to "fight obesity," so he "does something" by banning sodas. Then he says "we're [not] taking things away" and sees no effect on local businesses.

Which is it? Are you doing something to fight obesity (and taking things away), or are you not taking things away and this doesn't actually do anything to help the "obesity problem"?

biccat wrote:

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

I suspect zero-calorie Vitamin Waters, unsweetened iced teas, and diet soda manufacturers are wholly supporting this restriction.

“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.”
...
“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

This is silly. Bloomberg wants to "fight obesity," so he "does something" by banning sodas. Then he says "we're [not] taking things away" and sees no effect on local businesses.

Which is it? Are you doing something to fight obesity (and taking things away), or are you not taking things away and this doesn't actually do anything to help the "obesity problem"?

biccat wrote:

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

I suspect zero-calorie Vitamin Waters, unsweetened iced teas, and diet soda manufacturers are wholly supporting this restriction.

Chowderhead wrote:This is arguably the most hilarious thing you've ever said.

The bill was backed by the companies who make diet sodas, which are the same companies who make the non-diet soda!

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:This is arguably the most hilarious thing you've ever said.

The bill was backed by the companies who make diet sodas, which are the same companies who make the non-diet soda!

Actually there are companies whose business model is making low-calorie drinks.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:This is arguably the most hilarious thing you've ever said.

The bill was backed by the companies who make diet sodas, which are the same companies who make the non-diet soda!

Actually there are companies whose business model is making low-calorie drinks.

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:This is arguably the most hilarious thing you've ever said.

The bill was backed by the companies who make diet sodas, which are the same companies who make the non-diet soda!

Actually there are companies whose business model is making low-calorie drinks.

Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Me and Chongara are posting the same things right after eachother.

Creepy.

AustonT wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:This is arguably the most hilarious thing you've ever said.

The bill was backed by the companies who make diet sodas, which are the same companies who make the non-diet soda!

Actually there are companies whose business model is making low-calorie drinks.

Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Me and Chongara are posting the same things right after eachother.

Creepy.

Chongara and I...

Chowderhead wrote:Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.

They aren't always owned by larger companies. And lobbying a local government, even NYC, is a lot cheaper than lobbying in D.C.

Chowderhead wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:
Me and Chongara are posting the same things right after eachother.

Creepy.

Chongara and I...

Stop. Bad dog! Bad! Shoo! Shoo!

*Whacks Austin with a newspaper*

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.

They aren't always owned by larger companies. And lobbying a local government, even NYC, is a lot cheaper than lobbying in D.C.

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Alright, fair point. IMHO, those companies would be owned by the larger companies who would be affected by this ban, or would be to small to lobby, but I could be wrong.

They aren't always owned by larger companies. And lobbying a local government, even NYC, is a lot cheaper than lobbying in D.C.

So... Uh...

I'm not Ouze.

treadhead1944 wrote:Nanny Nation steps in again. And the biggest culprit isn't effected, the corner store/gas station pops. The original Coke bottle was 7 ounces. Not the average is 20 ounces. The original McDonald's ADULT meal is now sold to kids with a toy. I remember as a kid going to McD's and wishing I was big enough to get a large Coke. That large from my childhood is now a small.

Ouze wrote:I agree that sizes have grown substantially. Unfortunately I can't make up my mind on this because I think both sides of the argument have very strong, compelling, and reasonable points going for them.

A.) Obviously sizes are going up because people want giant sodas. This is a free market and it has spoken. The government has no role in protecting citizens from themselves and they are free to partake in whatever legal activities they desire no matter how foolish or dangerous to themselves.

B.) Obesity has become a epidemic in this country that directly affects not only our global success as it weighs on our healthcare system, but it also damages our national security, as the armed forces now have a difficult time finding physically fit recruits.


How are you supposed to pick between one of those? In my mind they're both right.

Ouze wrote: If everyone saw the 46 ouze soda and thought ew, that's too much, give me the 16oz instead...

treadhead1944 wrote:Nanny Nation steps in again. And the biggest culprit isn't effected, the corner store/gas station pops. The original Coke bottle was 7 ounces. Not the average is 20 ounces. The original McDonald's ADULT meal is now sold to kids with a toy. I remember as a kid going to McD's and wishing I was big enough to get a large Coke. That large from my childhood is now a small.