The Civil Rights movement must be bored.

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.

**Mr. Burning**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21201680

Is New York's supersize soda ban a civil rights issue?

New York City's ban on large-size sodas and other sugary drinks is being challenged by African American and Hispanic groups. How did cola become a civil rights issue?

When Martin Luther King told crowds of idealistic demonstrators he had a dream, it's unlikely that the right to sell soft beverages greater than 16oz (0.5 litre) was part of his vision.

But his heirs in the US minority civil rights movement have taken up opposition to a ban on supersize sodas as their latest crusade.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called for the ban as a way to reduce obesity and its related health problems.

But it is being challenged in court by a coalition of bodies including the New York State wing of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), best known for its battles against segregation and discrimination.

Also supporting the action is the Hispanic Federation, a network of 100 Latino organisations.

Both groups say the ban will disproportionately affect soda sales in bodegas, or independent convenience stores, which tend to be owned and run by minorities.

Supermarkets and many convenience store chains such as 7-Eleven - home of a supersize beverage known as the Big Gulp - are not subject to city health regulations.

Hazel N Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said the movement's stand was about "basic economic fairness".

"As the new rules stand, small mom and pop stores in the city, which are disproportionately owned and operated by people of colour, must comply with the law and suffer the financial consequences," she said.

"Meanwhile, national chains like 7-Eleven, which can handle the financial loss, are exempt. You can't be serious about banning big sodas when you have a loophole for Big Gulps."

The ban, which was passed in September 2012, will apply to sugary beverages larger than 16oz (0.5 litre).

Diet sodas, alcoholic beverages and drinks that are more than 70% juice will not be affected.

Restaurants and others that violate the law face a $200 (£124) fine.

It appears the ban will disproportionately affect minority consumers, too.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Any group seeking to end health disparities should make reducing soda consumption a top priority”

Michael F Jacobson
Center for Science in the Public Interest
A New York Times poll in August suggested that seven in 10 black New Yorkers and around 60% of Hispanics said they usually drank regular non-diet sodas. By contrast, fewer than 40% of whites said the same.

But because of this, supporters of the ban say the NAACP and Hispanic Federation are letting down the communities they are supposed to represent.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, non-Hispanic blacks have the highest rates of obesity in the United States at 44.1%. Mexican Americans have the second-highest with 39.3%.

City officials say New York's obesity rate is rising, having reached 24% of adults, up from 18% in 2002.

Obesity-related illnesses in New York cost more than $4.7bn (£3bn) a year to treat, with government programs picking up around 60% of the cost, according to city Health Commissioner Thomas Farley.

Dukes said she supported tackling obesity by limiting unhealthy food and increasing opportunities for physical activity, but insisted it was wrong to "single out" bodegas which struggle to compete with large corporations.

"No one doubts that obesity, diabetes, and heart disease exert a disproportionate toll on African-Americans, Latinos, and low-income Americans generally," says Michael F Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"Any group seeking to end health disparities should make reducing soda consumption a top priority."

Critics have also attacked the NAACP and Hispanic Federation for accepting funding from the soft drinks industry.

New York resident: "It should be up to the individual and not the mayor"
Jacobson said the NAACP would "regret" its association with "Big Soda" and urged it to rethink its position.

An NAACP health education program, Project HELP, has received funding worth thousands of dollars from Coca Cola and Hispanic Federation ex-president Lillian Rodriguez Lopez now works for the company.

Dukes has rejected the idea that donations have made any impact, telling the Associated Press: "No one buys the NAACP."

Hispanic Federation President Jose Calderon did not respond to the BBC's request for a statement.

The minority advocates opposing the ban appear to have public opinion on their side, however. The New York Times poll suggested that 60% of New Yorkers were against the measure.

But the authorities say they are determined to press ahead. During Bloomberg's 11-year time in charge of New York, chain restaurants have been compelled to post calorie counts on their menus and barred artificial trans fats in French fries and other restaurant food.

Now they must wait for the great soda battle to be decided in the courts.

Is the limiting of serving sizes really something civil rights groups should be targetting?

**djones520**

I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Hey, now. If the government doesn't know what's best for you, who does?

**hotsauceman1**

While im one who agrees on the ban. Why the hell is 711 exempt from the ban?

**Palindrome**

djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Just buy 2

You could of course just allow the status quo to continue and suffer from a cripplingly high level of obesity.

**djones520**

Palindrome wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Just buy 2

You could of course just allow the status quo to continue and suffer from a cripplingly high level of obesity.

If I want to be a fat bastard, then I'll be a fat bastard.

**Palindrome**

djones520 wrote:

If I want to be a fat bastard, then I'll be a fat bastard.

Quite obviously no one is stopping you.

**azazel the cat**

djones520 wrote:I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

They're not. The government is just trying to preserve some of your dignity by preventing you from gulping it down in a freakin' trough.

Smarmy jabs aside, having learned that chains like 7-11 are exempt from the ban, I think this is a valid and noble challenge simply on the grounds that it is essentially a government-legislated advantage being granted to select businesses.

**hotsauceman1**

But wait. Arent most 711s run by minorites?
Around here they are.

**RatBot**

If the ban's in place, it's grossly unfair to exempt 7-11 from it for whatever reason. With that said, it's a stupid ban.

Even as something of a "big-government liberal", I say

you, if I want to chug a gigantic soda, that's my business. It's not the government's responsibility to prevent you from being a fatty fat fat due to poor self control.

Also, maybe most 7-11 franchises are run by minorities, but I bet dollars to doughnuts the CEO and board of directors are all stodgy old white men, and they're the real owners.

**KalashnikovMarine**

azazel the cat wrote:
djones520 wrote:I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

They're not. The government is just trying to preserve some of your dignity by preventing you from gulping it down in a freakin' trough.

Smarmy jabs aside, having learned that chains like 7-11 are exempt from the ban, I think this is a valid and noble challenge simply on the grounds that it is essentially a government-legislated advantage being granted to select businesses.

Both of these are excellent points

and I'd say it's a civil rights issue, as djones said, who is the government to tell me just about anything about my life?

I do however appreciate calorie counts on menus. All the fun of acting like a teenage girl with none of the work!

**d-usa**

Well, technically the government is not telling anybody that they can't drink giant sugar-filled drinks.

**Relapse**

It's silly to target soda of a certain size when there are so many other things out there for consumption that do far greater damage to people.

**DutchKillsRambo**

If 711's are exempt along with grocery stores than what is really being legislated? Does that mean all corporate stores like Duane Reade would be exempt too? If so this law will do literally nothing except go after small delis. And besides what this article would have you believe they're by and far run by Middle Eastern / Indian people, not Blacks or Hispanics.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make kids do mandatory physical exercise or something? Couple that with most people (in Manhattan at least) being already pretty fit I have no idea the point of this is.

**hotsauceman1**

In most schools PE is mandatory. But i mine is was once a week and all we played was kick ball. where most of it was just sitting waiting for our turn.

**DutchKillsRambo**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
In most schools PE is mandatory. But i mine is was once a week and all we played was kick ball. where most of it was just sitting waiting for our turn.

Im not that old I remember. But yeah thats my point, there's no real compulsion to actively participate. I mean we have standardized tests for math and reading why not fitness? It'll make a much bigger dent in the fat of America than banning soft drinks over a certain size. Pretty sure you can buy alcohol over that same size which is also laden with calories.

**Steve steveson**

Guys, relax and read the full thing:

Diet sodas, alcoholic beverages and drinks that are more than 70% juice will not be affected

We can still buy supersize beer, so it's all good.

What I don't understand is why the US government care. I can understand in the UK. it costs us money through the NHS, but in the US, make your own choice and if you can't get medical care you chose that.

**hotsauceman1**

Simple reason.
PArents will complain.

**d-usa**

Politically it is easier to say that a business can't do something than it is making it mandatory for people to do something.

**Kovnik Obama**

djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

People with a gakload more power than you. And apparently more sense too.

**chaos0xomega**

IIRC 7-11 isnt exempt, not uniquely so anyway. The ban is only on soft drinks in places that serve food, which technically should exempt the bodegas that are apparently being effected by this...

**Hordini**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

People with a gakload more power than you. And apparently more sense too.

That doesn't mean it's their place to make decisions on how much an individual can eat or drink.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Hordini wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

People with a gakload more power than you. And apparently more sense too.

That doesn't mean it's their place to make decisions on how much an individual can eat or drink.

Indeed, nor do they theoretically have any more power then they're given by the citizenry.

**Kovnik Obama**

Hordini wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

People with a gakload more power than you. And apparently more sense too.

That doesn't mean it's their place to make decisions on how much an individual can eat or drink.

Well, only because that's a competence that we haven't recognized them having. In a case of scarcity of ressource (which is, relatively, always the case), it would be more than reasonnable for the governing body to put limits on how much food one can consume.

But more importantly, that's not what they are doing, they are forcing certain companies to quit offering certain formats.

**Mannahnin**

Steve steveson wrote:
Diet sodas, alcoholic beverages and drinks that are more than 70% juice will not be affected

We can still buy supersize beer, so it's all good.

What I don't understand is why the US government care. I can understand in the UK. it costs us money through the NHS, but in the US, make your own choice and if you can't get medical care you chose that.

The taxpayers still wind up paying for a lot of obesity-related costs of illness, because we still pay for (among other things) hospitals to give them emergency care if they're uninsured when they wind up having a heart attack.

chaos0xomega wrote:
IIRC 7-11 isnt exempt, not uniquely so anyway. The ban is only on soft drinks in places that serve food, which technically should exempt the bodegas that are apparently being effected by this...

Not uniquely so, as you get exempted if your business derives less than half of its revenue from prepared foods, but yeah, it seems absurd to ban the big drinks but not the Big Gulp.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Who is the government to tell me how much beer I'm allowed to drink before driving a car, riding a bike, or walking in public?

**SilverMK2**

It would make more sense to simply ban drinks with a higher than a certain percentage content of sugar, or above a certain calorific value per litre.

And with food servings limit each portion to 300-500 kCal and shame these fatties who then have to buy 6 servings of nachos instead of a single "coronary size" bucket to get the same amount of food.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Who is the government to tell me how much beer I'm allowed to drink before driving a car, riding a bike, or walking in public?

Exactly. Letting you get fat is exactly the same as letting you get behind the wheel loaded and potentially kill some folks, which is why these half-measures in New York aren't nearly enough. After all, despite the stellar legislation that is the ACA, people are still going to be uninsured, and we as a society eat that cost when they show up in the emergency room needing medical attention. I'm all for higher taxes - as high as they can go, in my book - but feth you if you expect me to let you spend that tax money on keeping someone alive. Personally, I think every individual in this country should be required by law to walk or run five miles a day. The government knows how to run your life better than you do.

**SilverMK2**

Seaward wrote:
The government knows how to run your life better than you do.

Given the number of morbidly obese people around, perhaps they do...

**Surtur**

djones520 wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd say yes. Who the hell is the government to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to drink?

Just buy 2

You could of course just allow the status quo to continue and suffer from a cripplingly high level of obesity.

If I want to be a fat bastard, then I'll be a fat bastard.

Would you like a belly wheel with that?