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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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.

Our ideas are not that far off. I believe that the biggest fixes that aren't very hard to do are to increase education for kids on how to cook, more gym classes in schools, and yes... if schools are government run, then make some kind of efforts to improve the quality of food you serve at the schools. The community garden is an idea more for kids, especially at schools, where you can teach them to grow their own plants which gets them a little more excited to eat things outside of McDonalds.

The massive government intervention I'd like to see is better labeling standards. People can eat whatever they want, but let's stop with all the hidden labeling that makes it impossible to realize how unhealthy it is and let's make it simple. I agree that the food pyramid is a joke. I wish the private sector would create a consortium to all align on what these standards should be. For example, every box should have a clear label that says fat, calories, sodium in one quick glance with consistent standards on serving sizes. Or create some kind of a gold standard for what better food should be, then allow private sector companies to promote their foods as gold standard if they meet those requirements.

None of these things threaten our freedoms. They are interventions to educate people to make better decisions. If they still make shitty decisions, fine. It's actually kind of amazing that this is so hard given that the solution really isn't that difficult.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Our ideas are not that far off. I believe that the biggest fixes that aren't very hard to do are to increase education for kids on how to cook, more gym classes in schools, and yes... if schools are government run, then make some kind of efforts to improve the quality of food you serve at the schools. The community garden is an idea more for kids, especially at schools, where you can teach them to grow their own plants which gets them a little more excited to eat things outside of McDonalds.

The massive government intervention I'd like to see is better labeling standards. People can eat whatever they want, but let's stop with all the hidden labeling that makes it impossible to realize how unhealthy it is and let's make it simple. I agree that the food pyramid is a joke. I wish the private sector would create a consortium to all align on what these standards should be. For example, every box should have a clear label that says fat, calories, sodium in one quick glance with consistent standards on serving sizes. Or create some kind of a gold standard for what better food should be, then allow private sector companies to promote their foods as gold standard if they meet those requirements.

None of these things threaten our freedoms. They are interventions to educate people to make better decisions. If they still make shitty decisions, fine. It's actually kind of amazing that this is so hard given that the solution really isn't that difficult.

Well, I don't know if it threatens our freedoms. But we have labels now and how many kids read them when they really want to eat a package of Oreos? Really, this has to start in the home because they eat what they're used to. By that, it has to start very young before school age. Judging from what I saw for lunches at pre-school, some lunches were pretty bad. My former in-laws grew up on farms and they are more than a few who are quite overweight. They drink a ton of soda.

The healthier lunches in the school are being rejected by students as as result of not being used to what they get at home. It takes work to prepare and cook food properly. Mom or some parent needs to be home to do that but they are more often too tired after working all day.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Our ideas are not that far off. I believe that the biggest fixes that aren't very hard to do are to increase education for kids on how to cook, more gym classes in schools, and yes... if schools are government run, then make some kind of efforts to improve the quality of food you serve at the schools. The community garden is an idea more for kids, especially at schools, where you can teach them to grow their own plants which gets them a little more excited to eat things outside of McDonalds.

The massive government intervention I'd like to see is better labeling standards. People can eat whatever they want, but let's stop with all the hidden labeling that makes it impossible to realize how unhealthy it is and let's make it simple. I agree that the food pyramid is a joke. I wish the private sector would create a consortium to all align on what these standards should be. For example, every box should have a clear label that says fat, calories, sodium in one quick glance with consistent standards on serving sizes. Or create some kind of a gold standard for what better food should be, then allow private sector companies to promote their foods as gold standard if they meet those requirements.

None of these things threaten our freedoms. They are interventions to educate people to make better decisions. If they still make shitty decisions, fine. It's actually kind of amazing that this is so hard given that the solution really isn't that difficult.

I have completely broken my kids of the McD's habit. We do eat convenience food from time to time, but we haven't been to or wanted to go to a McD's in a very long time. All I did was refuse to take them there for three months. During that time we ate at other fast food places (Subway was one of their favorites), had other burgers (including home made with grocery store ingredients), and I made a point of cooking dinner at home more in general. At the end of the three months we went back to McD's. They were horrified. They had just gotten used to the shitty taste of McD's burgers without realizing it. My son actually said, "Oh my God. The most flavorful part of my hamburger was the pickle." They hate it.

[BucEyedPea]

I never fed my kid McDs. At age two we fed the sea gulls one of their muffins. Later when other parents stopped there on trips, she didn't like it. She still hates it. Same for Burger King and Chick-fil-A.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I never fed my kid McDs. At age two we fed the sea gulls one of their muffins. Later when other parents stopped there on trips, she didn't like it. She still hates it. Same for Burger King and Chick-fil-A.

Fast food is a convenient crutch when you're a worn out parent (or just being lazy, lol) and it's a bad habit that's easy to get into. I will use it from time to time. I just try to be careful with it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, I don't know if it threatens our freedoms. But we have labels now and how many kids read them when they really want to eat a package of Oreos? Really, this has to start in the home because they eat what they're used to. By that, it has to start very young before school age. Judging from what I saw for lunches at pre-school, some lunches were pretty bad. My former in-laws grew up on farms and they are more than a few who are quite overweight. They drink a ton of soda.

The healthier lunches in the school are being rejected by students as as result of not being used to what they get at home. It takes work to prepare and cook food properly. Mom or some parent needs to be home to do that but they are more often too tired after working all day.

Well, oreos and soda... people know they're bad for you, so it's not as good of an example (even if people still are clueless as to just how bad they are for you). How many people buy Stouffer's lasagna or Panera sandwiches thinking they're healthier alternatives because they just feel healthier than McDonalds? How many people realize how much butter you're eating when you go to a place like Macaroni Grill?

Labeling isn't clear today. You look at a package of Oreos, and you'll see 3 sides of the box with marketing spin, and in teeny tiny print, you'll find sugar content (if you can get past riboflavin and potassium). In many cases, you can be tricked into not realizing that the nutritional value is provided by serving sizes.

I applaud you for being smart and passing that on. That's not the case in most families and the level of stupidity in terms of making good health decisions is sometimes mind-blowing. It's one thing to know the rules and break them. It's another to think you're following the rules, only to be tricked.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Fast food is a convenient crutch when you're a worn out parent (or just being lazy, lol) and it's a bad habit that's easy to get into. I will use it from time to time. I just try to be careful with it.

It's also a crutch for parents who were never taught to cook or a cheaper alternative than making a meal themselves.

The new Generation, Gen X/Y, lots of people I know have NO idea how to cook. Zero. It is absolutely scary.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Fast food is a convenient crutch when you're a worn out parent (or just being lazy, lol) and it's a bad habit that's easy to get into. I will use it from time to time. I just try to be careful with it.

For myself I've used it on occasion such as a rush job and not time for a better meal even in a restaurant just as much as at home. But she always complained and wouldn't partake of it. LOL!

But I get the salads. I recall an article saying these fast food places have done a better job of getting rid of the extra fat etc. than some of the higher end restaurants. Don't know where it is and don't have time to look.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The new Generation, Gen X/Y, lots of people I know have NO idea how to cook. Zero. It is absolutely scary.

That is very true. Just don't let cosmos see your post though because real life experience cannot be mentioned to the thought police ( cosmos ). It doesn't count and is bullshit. It has to be in a govt study or govt sanctioned study. But I have noticed the same and my daughter notices it too.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's also a crutch for parents who were never taught to cook or a cheaper alternative than making a meal themselves.

The new Generation, Gen X/Y, lots of people I know have NO idea how to cook. Zero. It is absolutely scary.

By gosh we need to put monitors in these people's home! We need to control their money! We should only pay them in credits so we can force them to buy what is best! The GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST~

[Comrade Crapski]

I'd like to dedicate this Mike Bloomers.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by RNR

By gosh we need to put monitors in these people's home! We need to control their money! We should only pay them in credits so we can force them to buy what is best! The GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST~

Thanks, Captain "Blanket Statement." Even people who are not fans of government know that's not what I am proposing.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That is very true. Just don't let cosmos see your post though because real life experience cannot be mentioned to the thought police ( cosmos ). It doesn't count and is bullshit. It has to be in a govt study or govt sanctioned study. But I have noticed the same and my daughter notices it too.

Nah, his comments ring true. Yours seldom do, and usually defy all common sense, logic, and often, the known physical laws of the universe.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Thanks, Captain "Blanket Statement." Even people who are not fans of government know that's not what I am proposing.

Wait! It the government could take over healthcare it would only cost us $900 billion...errr....wait....

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by RNR

Wait! It the government could take over healthcare it would only cost us $900 billion...errr....wait....

I also don't support government health care. Keep blanket statementing away.