Judge strikes down NYC's big soda ban

[RealSNR]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...929974394.html

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning the sale of large sugary drinks at New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.

The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday.

The regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote. "The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."

Under the first-of-its-kind prohibition approved by the city Board of Health last year, establishments from restaurants to mobile food carts would have been prohibited from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. After a three-month grace period, the city would have started fining violators $200 per sale.

The city rules, set to take effect on March 12, didn't include convenience stores, such as 7-Elevens, and supermarkets, both of which are regulated by the state government.

In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

The board may supervise and regulate the city's food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

"That has not been demonstrated," he wrote.

Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body "and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here."

City health officials, Judge Tingling wrote, aren't assigned the "sweeping and unbridled authority to define, create, authorize, mandate and enforce" the health code.

Across New York City, restaurants, bars and movie theaters had already started bracing for the change.

Brother Jimmy's BBQ, a chain with five locations in the city, had already ordered 1,000 new glasses for soft drinks at their five New York City locations. The restaurants serve soda in 24-oz. glasses, CEO Josh Lebowitz said earler this month—8 oz. more than city's new rules.

The anti-obesity effort to limit sales of sugary drinks was one of a number of ambitious public-health initiatives Mr. Bloomberg has launched since taking office in 2002.

He first prohibited smoking in bars, which proved to be one of his most popular achievements despite initial resistance. By 2008, the city stopped restaurants from using all but trace amounts of transfats, and Mr. Bloomberg recently won some success in convincing global food companies to lower the amount of sodium in prepackaged products.

Limiting the size of sugary drinks, however, wasn't proving as popular with voters. "He always tells us what to do. It's not just about soda," said Dante Nero, who was drinking a large cola while having lunch with a friend Monday at Dallas BBQ in the East Village of Manhattan.

"It ridiculous to put this kind of money and legislation into something that people are going to find a way to bypass," said Mr. Nero, 46 years old, of Brooklyn.

When city health officials voted to approve the large-drink ban in the fall, they routinely pointed to statistics showing that 58% adults citywide are overweight or obese, and nearly 40% of public-school students in eighth grade or below were obese or overweight.

In the debate over the controversial rules, Bloomberg administration officials acknowledged many underlying causes of weight gain. But they defended limits targeting sugary drinks—with an eye toward soda—as a sensible step because the beverages can so readily can contribute to obesity, have little nutritional value and don't offer a feeling of fullness when consumed.

Critics, however, have said the ban may punish the poor, who might try to save money by buying a larger drink to share—at the movies, for example.

[chiefzilla1501]

The cdc projects that 1/3 of Americans will have diabetes by 2050 if we don't change our habits.

I've said before I don't support the soda ban. But getting tired of people who don't believe diabetes is a disease or who are so pissy about people telling them how to take better care of themselves. There is another thread talking about health care costs spiraling out of control, yet a stubbirnness on our end to acknowledge that our shitty health habits are contributing to that.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The cdc projects that 1/3 of Americans will have diabetes by 2050 if we don't change our habits.

I've said before I don't support the soda ban. But getting tired of people who don't believe diabetes is a disease or who are so pissy about people telling them how to take better care of themselves. There is another thread talking about health care costs spiraling out of control, yet a stubbirnness on our end to acknowledge that our shitty health habits are contributing to that.

pinko

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL...Bloomloser.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The cdc projects that 1/3 of Americans will have diabetes by 2050 if we don't change our habits.

This is about that. It's not the state's job to monitor such behavior.

I've said before I don't support the soda ban. But getting tired of people who don't believe diabetes is a disease or who are so pissy about people telling them how to take better care of themselves. There is another thread talking about health care costs spiraling out of control, yet a stubbirnness on our end to acknowledge that our shitty health habits are contributing to that.[/QUOTE]

Who are the people who think this isn't an issue for getting diabetes? It's just that it's supposed to be a personal responsibility not govt responsibility to babysit them to do it.

[Frazod]

Wonderful. Eat shit, you lowlife nanny state one who sucks the penis.

[petegz28]

Hey Bloomberg...have an extra-large Coke and a smile and

[Munson]

[mlyonsd]

Go Big Soda.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by frazod

Wonderful. Eat shit, you lowlife nanny state one who sucks the penis.

People in NY should all go out and celebrate by pouring a bunch of these to each other and heading out to the streets to celebrate.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This is about that. It's not the state's job to monitor such behavior.

Who are the people who think this isn't an issue for getting diabetes? It's just that it's supposed to be a personal responsibility not govt responsibility to babysit them to do it.

Diabetes awareness or the idea that unhealthy eating habits contributes to diabetes has way less awareness than it should. Which is a shame because type 2 diabetes is often preventable.

People have proven they can't take care of themselves on their own, and it is driving up massive health care costs. The idea that people will magically stop eating their way into diabetes without a significant push is beyond naive. Add in that in many cases, people aren't personally responsible because poor labeling makes it almost impossoble to understand what we are putting in our bodies, and poor education has people who literally believe that the are eating healthy because they ordered a salad at McDonald's.

This is one of those head scratchers to me. In many cases, a government solution doesn't violate personal freedoms and could potentially eliminate a shitload of money by promoting preventative measures that will reduce health care costs. If the government spends money that leads to significant control of health care costs, why wouldn't we consider it? And again, I am talking about controlling behavior, not monitoring it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Diabetes awareness or the idea that unhealthy eating habits contributes to diabetes has way less awareness than it should. Which is a shame because type 2 diabetes is often preventable.

People have proven they can't take care of themselves on their own, and it is driving up massive health care costs. The idea that people will magically stop eating their way into diabetes without a significant push is beyond naive. Add in that in many cases, people aren't personally responsible because poor labeling makes it almost impossoble to understand what we are putting in our bodies, and poor education has people who literally believe that the are eating healthy because they ordered a salad at McDonald's.

No the more govt we have the less responsible people become. You could define govt as the aggregate irresponsibility of the people.

This is one of those head scratchers to me. In many cases, a government solution doesn't violate personal freedoms and could potentially eliminate a shitload of money by promoting preventative measures that will reduce health care costs. If the government spends money that leads to significant control of health care costs, why wouldn't we consider it? And again, I am talking about controlling behavior, not monitoring it.

I thought you were opposed to the ban?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No the more govt we have the less responsible people become. You could define govt as the aggregate irresponsibility of the people.


I thought you were opposed to the ban?

I am opposed to the ban. I completely disagree that the government can't be part of a solution. Increased education and wellness programs, community gardens, more cooking classes especially for kids. Phys Ed programs. And the biggest one for me, clear labeling standards.

It is naive to believe this problem fixes itself without massive intervention.

[RNR]

Hey government get the **** out of our lives, we do not need to be told by THOSE who work for us what they think we need to own, who we can get married to or what we eat or drink. As long as we obey the laws in place and do not cause others harm the pig****ers in DC can enjoy their life of leisure provided by us~

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by RNR

Hey government get the **** out of our lives, we do not need to be told by THOSE who work for us what they think we need to own, who we can get married to or what we eat or drink. As long as we obey the laws in place and do not cause others harm the pig****ers in DC can enjoy their life of leisure provided by us~

When you eat your way into diabetes, your health care costs skyrocket and it affects everybody's premium. When millions are people are doing it, it sends health care into a death spiral.

So... It doesn't cause other people harm? If we lowered obesity, we'd all have better access to health care with more coverage at a significantly lower premium.