It's morning again in America, as jack-booted totalitarianism slowly recedes into dark memories

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Well, morning in New York, anyway.

City Loses Final Appeal on Limiting Sales of Large Sodas

The Bloomberg big-soda ban is officially dead.

The state’s highest court on Thursday refused to reinstate New York City’s controversial limits on sales of jumbo sugary drinks, exhausting the city’s final appeal and handing a major victory to the American soft-drink industry, which bitterly opposed the plan.

In a 20-page opinion, Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. of the New York State Court of Appeals wrote that the city’s Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” in enacting the proposal, which was championed by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

Two lower courts had already ruled against the city, saying it overreached in attempting to prohibit the purchase of sugared drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, about the size of a medium coffee cup. By a 4-to-2 vote, the justices Thursday upheld the earlier rulings.

The decision most likely will be seen as a significant defeat for public health advocates who have urged state and local governments to actively discourage the consumption of high-calorie beverages, saying the drinks are prime drivers of a nationwide epidemic of obesity.

And it could also have long-term implications for the powers of the city’s Board of Health, the agency that has been the primary engine behind high-profile health initiatives like banning trans fats in restaurants and posting calorie counts on menus.

In a blistering dissent of the opinion, Judge Susan P. Read wrote that the ruling ignored decades of precedent in which the Board of Health was given broad purview to address public health matters, such as regulating the city’s water supply and banning the use of lead paint in homes.

The opinion, Judge Read wrote, “misapprehends, mischaracterizes and thereby curtails the powers of the New York City Board of Health to address the public health threats of the early 21st century.”

One justice in the majority, Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, seemed to share those concerns, writing in a separate concurrence that “no one should read today’s decision too broadly.”

Dr. Mary T. Bassett, the city’s health commissioner, said in a statement issued later Thursday that the ruling “does not change the fact that sugary-drink consumption is a key driver of the obesity epidemic.”

“We will continue to look for ways to stem the twin epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes by seeking to limit the pernicious effects of aggressive and predatory marketing of sugary drinks and unhealthy foods,” she wrote.

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal, which polls showed was opposed by a majority of New Yorkers, ignited a global debate over soda consumption. It also prompted panic among powerful beverage companies, who feared that their products could be widely branded as a threat to public health.

But questions about the workability of the city’s plan were raised from the start. Because of jurisdictional quirks, only some eating establishments would have been affected, like fast-food franchises, delis and movie theaters; convenience stores and grocery markets would have been exempt. And while the limits would have applied to a broad menu of popular drinks, the number of exceptions was dizzying: Sports drinks and sweetened teas were included, but milkshakes, fruit juices and alcoholic beverages were not.

The soft-drink industry, through lobbying and aggressive public-relations campaigns, has helped defeat soda taxes and other regulatory measures in states and municipalities around the country. After Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan in May 2012, the industry poured millions of dollars into an ad campaign that framed the proposal as infringing on consumer freedom. The industry later retained the law firm of Latham & Watkins to challenge the limits in court.

The American Beverage Association, the industry’s trade group, said in a statement on Thursday it was “pleased” with the ruling, saying the proposal “would have created an uneven playing field for thousands of small businesses in the city and limited New Yorkers’ freedom of choice.”

source

So many fascinating court decisions this week, right?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

So many fascinating court decisions this week, right?

Monday will be the for sure fireworks... the Hobby Lobby case and Union Dues case.

Oh: Drink up ya'll!

**-Shrike-**

I get that it might pose a public health concern... but isn't limiting the size of drinks a bit of a silly way to go about it? Attacking the marketing seems more likely to succeed.

On a side note, is Bloomberg also the nutcase who wants to take your guns?

**whembly**

-Shrike- wrote:
I get that it might pose a public health concern... but isn't limiting the size of drinks a bit of a silly way to go about it? Attacking the marketing seems more likely to succeed.

On a side note, is Bloomberg also the nutcase who wants to take your guns?

That's the guy...

I wouldn't label him as a nutcase. Just a very progressive New York politician.

**Kanluwen**

-Shrike- wrote:
I get that it might pose a public health concern... but isn't limiting the size of drinks a bit of a silly way to go about it? Attacking the marketing seems more likely to succeed.

There's not really any "marketing" about it. Things like Big Gulps are what amount to last minute purchases that someone would make when they are at the cash register or "Value Sizing" a meal. You don't necessarily think "Oh I'm going to go to a gas station/convenience store to get a Big Gulp drink", you might happen to go in and decide you are thirsty. When you look at the prices--voila, the Big Gulps are usually priced in such a way that they are the more attractive option.

At least that's my experience.

**d-usa**

You could say the same thing about almost all pizza though. Priced per square inch pizza gets a lot cheaper when you buy the bigger sizes.

**MrDwhitey**

And I like that.

This Mayor Bloomer seems like a feth.

**-Shrike-**

Kanluwen wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
I get that it might pose a public health concern... but isn't limiting the size of drinks a bit of a silly way to go about it? Attacking the marketing seems more likely to succeed.

There's not really any "marketing" about it. Things like Big Gulps are what amount to last minute purchases that someone would make when they are at the cash register or "Value Sizing" a meal. You don't necessarily think "Oh I'm going to go to a gas station/convenience store to get a Big Gulp drink", you might happen to go in and decide you are thirsty. When you look at the prices--voila, the Big Gulps are usually priced in such a way that they are the more attractive option.

At least that's my experience.

But if value for money is treated as a problem, enticing a customer into buying the largest possible portion, every multipack of vaguely unhealthy food would also have regulated in the same way, and that's never going anywhere. (this isn't directed at you necessarily, I'm just putting it out here)

I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

**Palindrome**

whembly wrote:

Oh: Drink up ya'll!

...for a considerably shortened life span and a crappy final couple of decades. This was a stupid piece of grandstanding but the underlying issue is of incredible importance yet it is being largely ignored by all governments who appear to think that token gestures are all that is required. The existence of this law should certainly not be applauded, it was after all little more than an attention grabbing smoke screen, but its defeat should not be celebrated either.

There was someone on the news this morning who was actually proud that the largest of soft drinks manufacturers in the UK have signed up to a 5% voluntary decrease in sugar content. We have now reached an obesity crisis point in the developed world and if it isn't tackled soon it will absolutely cripple the next generation, literally and figuratively.

**MrDwhitey**

I had heard that whilst good, what you eat is a massive (perhaps more than the exercise) contributor of your shape.

Educating people more is the best way (promoting healthier eating and exercise) in my eyes. You don't force them to change, you let them have the options in front of them, but you try to ensure they know the consequences.

**Palindrome**

-Shrike- wrote:

I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

It just doesn't work. That has been the strategy for at least the last couple of decades and yet we are getting fatter and fatter and fatter.

Exercise is vitally important but is simply too much effort for the man in the street for it to be genuinely effective. Diet is an easier sell but even so its something that has found little traction, after all near enough everyone knows what a healthy diet is but most people just don't bother.

**Kanluwen**

d-usa wrote:You could say the same thing about almost all pizza though. Priced per square inch pizza gets a lot cheaper when you buy the bigger sizes.

Certainly true, but drinks aren't really thought of in the same way as food. People might stop and say "I just ate a whole huge pizza by myself. I don't think that might be healthy", while someone might not have the same reaction when it comes to sodas.

Doesn't help as well that with some chains that do Big Gulp styled drinks, you can get free refills for the day of the sale...

-Shrike- wrote:
But if value for money is treated as a problem, enticing a customer into buying the largest possible portion, every multipack of vaguely unhealthy food would also have regulated in the same way, and that's never going anywhere. (this isn't directed at you necessarily, I'm just putting it out here)

"Value for money" isn't the problem though. The "value" here is that places generally price fountain drinks cheaper than bottled ones. Once you start getting into these larger sized drinks though, that's when the real problem occurs.

I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

It has nothing to do with what people eat. It has everything to do with the fact that it's a stupidly big soda.

**Jihadin**

I'm a cheap bastage. 24oz Coffee please

**d-usa**

Kanluwen wrote:
d-usa wrote:You could say the same thing about almost all pizza though. Priced per square inch pizza gets a lot cheaper when you buy the bigger sizes.

Certainly true, but drinks aren't really thought of in the same way as food. People might stop and say "I just ate a whole huge pizza by myself. I don't think that might be healthy", while someone might not have the same reaction when it comes to sodas.

Doesn't help as well that with some chains that do Big Gulp styled drinks, you can get free refills for the day of the sale...

-Shrike- wrote:
But if value for money is treated as a problem, enticing a customer into buying the largest possible portion, every multipack of vaguely unhealthy food would also have regulated in the same way, and that's never going anywhere. (this isn't directed at you necessarily, I'm just putting it out here)

"Value for money" isn't the problem though. The "value" here is that places generally price fountain drinks cheaper than bottled ones. Once you start getting into these larger sized drinks though, that's when the real problem occurs.

I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

It has nothing to do with what people eat. It has everything to do with the fact that it's a stupidly big soda.

Well, fountain drinks are going to be cheaper than bottled soda any day:

1) They cost way less to transport. You only transport syrup instead of transporting bottled soda. And you can transport more cups in less space than bottles, since they are empty and can stack.
2) Material costs: A cup has less plastic than a bottle, so it will cost less. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the screw cap on the bottle costs more than a plastic cup for a fountain drink.
3) Scaling of materials: Even for a fountain drink the most expensive part is going to be the cup. Once you have the initial cost of making that cup, there is not much difference between a 16 oz cup and a 32 oz cup. The difference is going to be pennies. Same for filling it with soda. The cost difference for everything that is needed for a 16 oz cup and a 32 oz cup is really just pennies. And only charging 10 cents more is probably still increasing their profit margin with the bigger drink.

The reason they are priced cheaper is because they ARE cheaper. Cheaper to make, cheaper to transport, cheaper to store.

That doesn't mean that anybody needs a 32 oz soda either though.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Monday will be the for sure fireworks... the Hobby Lobby case and Union Dues case.

Im not familiar with either case...

@d-usa, I wish they'd let me buy beer the same way... I want a "Big Gulp" cup, with a dispenser (we'll call it a tap system, but it wouldn't really be) 44oz. beer, for cheaper than bottled? hell yeah, sign me up

**Grey Templar**

whembly wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
I get that it might pose a public health concern... but isn't limiting the size of drinks a bit of a silly way to go about it? Attacking the marketing seems more likely to succeed.

On a side note, is Bloomberg also the nutcase who wants to take your guns?

That's the guy...

I wouldn't label him as a nutcase. Just a very progressive New York politician.

that's still nutcase

**Frankenberry**

I don't get it, why do politicians care how big my soda is?

**Grey Templar**

Frankenberry wrote:
I don't get it, why do politicians care how big my soda is?

Because you can both rail against big corporations, micromanage healthcare, AND say "Won't somebody think of the children!" at the same time.

**LordofHats**

Frankenberry wrote:
I don't get it, why do politicians care how big my soda is?

It's big city politics. They're usually quite bizarre.

Mostly driven in NYC's case by pretentious rich people who can't stand the idea that those less well off than them eating lots of junk food and making their city look fat.

**Grey Templar**

Or pretentious rich diet freaks who can't just stand themselves being miserable, so they want to make everyone else miserable too!

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
Or pretentious rich diet freaks who can't just stand themselves being miserable, so they want to make everyone else miserable too!

That as well!

**Frankenberry**

This sort of gak is why we can't have nice things, seriously.

**LordofHats**

Frankenberry wrote:
This sort of gak is why we can't have nice things, seriously.

Please. This is just NYC. Don't even get started on D.C. or San Fran.

**Lordhat**

Kanluwen wrote:
You don't necessarily think "Oh I'm going to go to a gas station/convenience store to get a Big Gulp drink", you might happen to go in and decide you are thirsty. When you look at the prices--voila, the Big Gulps are usually priced in such a way that they are the more attractive option.

At least that's my experience.

I disagree. Going to the store to get drinks (half my group gets soda, the other half, Iced tea) is the primary purpose for most of our convenience store/ gas station excursions.

**Bullockist**

Palindrome wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

It just doesn't work. That has been the strategy for at least the last couple of decades and yet we are getting fatter and fatter and fatter.

Exercise is vitally important but is simply too much effort for the man in the street for it to be genuinely effective. Diet is an easier sell but even so its something that has found little traction, after all near enough everyone knows what a healthy diet is but most people just don't bother.

This, in a modern lifestyle many people cannot find the time to exercize enough to lose weight. The figure I last heard was an hour and a half EVERY day. Eating less calories is the way to go, however uninspiring the food may be. I'll be going on my food twice a day diet when summer hits to lose the 2 kg I've gained recently through eating fast food for lunch. My theory is that 3 meals a day is fine when people were living on gruel or porridge but in todays' meat filled calorie rich environmant is too much. Sure you feel hungry, but as a human you are supposed to feel hungry. When I do this diet with exercize ( walking for 1 hour a day - occasionally moving 2 tonnes of stuff in a day - I eat 3 times a day when I do that

) I find that after about a month - a month and a half I've lost about 2-3 kgs . Note this diet relies on filling the hole of your stomach with unsweetened unmilked tea.

caffine + hunger + exercize FTW!

**sebster**

It seems the right ruling to me. It was an odd and kind of arbitrary approach to the issue. Why not tackle large food orders? Why is it bad if a stupidly large drink comes in a cup, but okay if it comes in a 2L bottle?

Kanluwen wrote:
When you look at the prices--voila, the Big Gulps are usually priced in such a way that they are the more attractive option.

And that's the game - by offering much bigger sizes at slightly greater price increases people get tricked in to thinking it's a better deal. It was first figured out in the 70s with movie popcorn, and then flowed through to McDonalds and then the other fast food chains, and in to the rest of the food industry. The trick is that for the store, most of their costs are fixed in terms of labour and rent, the actual price of popcorn kernels (or potato in fries, or syrup in soft drinks etc) is inconsequential - if you can increase the amount of money you make per customer, it doesn't matter how much extra food you're giving them.

The upshot of that is we're all now spending more money on food we don't eat, and when we also know that the more food you have in front of you the more of it you will eat... well then hey presto obesity epidemic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Shrike- wrote:
I still maintain that promoting exercise is more likely to decrease obesity levels than trying to regulate what people eat.

Research has shown kids today are about as active as they were in past decades. The only link is that once kids become obese they tend to exercise less.

What is driving kids to be fatter is the normalisation of higher food sizes, high sugar foods, and snacking through the day.

**Lordhat**

d-usa wrote:

That doesn't mean that anybody needs a 32 oz soda either though.

I sure don't. Not when I have my 52 oz. insulated mug that I can buy $.79 refills for!

**d-usa**

I want to say that today's McDonalds Kids Meal used to be the standard adult serving when they first opened.

But that could also be liberal propaganda, so I don't know for certain if that is a fact.

**Bullockist**

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
When you look at the prices--voila, the Big Gulps are usually priced in such a way that they are the more attractive option.

And that's the game - by offering much bigger sizes at slightly greater price increases people get tricked in to thinking it's a better deal. It was first figured out in the 70s with movie popcorn, and then flowed through to McDonalds and then the other fast food chains, and in to the rest of the food industry. The trick is that for the store, most of their costs are fixed in terms of labour and rent, the actual price of popcorn kernels (or potato in fries, or syrup in soft drinks etc) is inconsequential - if you can increase the amount of money you make per customer, it doesn't matter how much extra food you're giving them.

The upshot of that is we're all now spending more money on food we don't eat, and when we also know that the more food you have in front of you the more of it you will eat... well then hey presto obesity epidemic.

Tapping into the whole "more food is better" part of human psychology is very powerful. The amount of food that western nations waste every week is proof of this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
I want to say that today's McDonalds Kids Meal used to be the standard adult serving when they first opened.

But that could also be liberal propaganda, so I don't know for certain if that is a fact.

It's not true here, the bastard big mac is bastard half the bastard size now. bastards.!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:
d-usa wrote:

That doesn't mean that anybody needs a 32 oz soda either though.

I sure don't. Not when I have my 52 oz. insulated mug that I can buy $.79 refills for!

A cup that holds 1.5 litres? holy crap that's cheaper than just buying the equivalent sugar

**Lordhat**

Bullockist wrote:

A cup that holds 1.5 litres? holy crap that's cheaper than just buying the equivalent sugar

An economic byproduct of gov't. subsidized corn.