Judge strikes down NYC's big soda ban

[SNR]

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.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

I'm eating a Toblerone bar right now while I read this.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

More government is not the answer. That cluster **** is big enough~

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RNR

More government is not the answer. That cluster **** is big enough~

Yeah. The way it should be handle is to allow private insurance to raise premiums for such reasons and give discounts to those that eat healthier. Let premiums soar for sugar addicts.

[CoMoChief]

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.

Diabetes isn't a disease it's a nutritional defeniency (sp?)

If you eat healthy and exercise regularly...you're not going to be diabetic. If you eat lots of grease and fat and lay around like a fatass...you're gonna eventually have problems.

[mikey23545]

"OBEY!" SAYS CHIEFZILLA...

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Diabetes isn't a disease it's a nutritional defeniency (sp?)

If you eat healthy and exercise regularly...you're not going to be diabetic. If you eat lots of grease and fat and lay around like a fatass...you're gonna eventually have problems.

"Type 1 diabetes is partly inherited, and then triggered by certain infections, with some evidence pointing at Coxsackie B4 virus. A genetic element in individual susceptibility to some of these triggers has been traced to particular HLA genotypes (i.e., the genetic "self" identifiers relied upon by the immune system). However, even in those who have inherited the susceptibility, type 1 DM seems to require an environmental trigger. The onset of type 1 diabetes is unrelated to lifestyle."

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Diabetes isn't a disease it's a nutritional defeniency (sp?)

If you eat healthy and exercise regularly...you're not going to be diabetic. If you eat lots of grease and fat and lay around like a fatass...you're gonna eventually have problems.

"Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Ignoramus is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

If you have a collectivist health system, which we shouldn't in a free country.

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.

Only in a collectivist system. Such people should pay more individually. Or be but off for some payments.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

"Type 1 diabetes is partly inherited, and then triggered by certain infections, with some evidence pointing at Coxsackie B4 virus. A genetic element in individual susceptibility to some of these triggers has been traced to particular HLA genotypes (i.e., the genetic "self" identifiers relied upon by the immune system). However, even in those who have inherited the susceptibility, type 1 DM seems to require an environmental trigger. The onset of type 1 diabetes is unrelated to lifestyle."




"Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Ignoramus is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant."

Type 2 diabetes is the ballooning problem. And it is absolutely driven primarily by lifestyle.

[listopencil]

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.

Nice. That is absolutely sig worthy. I'm not going to do it because I like mine, but that's just a nicely turned couple of phrases right there.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Nice. That is absolutely sig worthy. I'm not going to do it because I like mine, but that's just a nicely turned couple of phrases right there.

Well, I heard someone else say it but don't remember who. Immediately I loved it though. It's a pithy truth.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

they should send the court fee to bloomberg. ****ing waste of money.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah. The way it should be handle is to allow private insurance to raise premiums for such reasons and give discounts to those that eat healthier. Let premiums soar for sugar addicts.

That is crazy talk! The liberals think every person should have a personal agent or at least a system that monitors our every move. Don't you understand it is for our own good! It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen~

[BigRedChief]

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.

Sure its our shitty habits making us unhealthy. But, they are our decisions to make.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

Massive intervention will be resisted. People resent this type of control. Only thing I can see is wellness programs in school for education. Not the community garden thing. Even the cooking. But geez, the govt promotes false information about health and diet. Their food pyramid is nonsense. All those carbs turn to sugar and make people fat too.

Anyhow, you know what is ironic about your ideas. My daughter was taught nutrition, cooking and how to read labels in middle school and more in HS at her private school. Her school banned sugary foods on campus except for special events such as parties held after 3 PM. She got more in Brownies and Scouts, plus a culinary arts course when I homeschooled her. This covered cooking healthy to preserve nutrients.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Sure its our shitty habits making us unhealthy. But, they are our decisions to make.

It isn't when we are so poorly educated on what a good decision is. Again, I do not support the government banning this or that. I support educating consumers to make smarter decisions. That is going to be very difficult to do without intervention because people aren't self-motivated to learn these things. The biggest place to start is in the schools, where we can teach the next generation to cook and to be active. The fact that gym and home ec classes are disappearing is unbelievably concerning.