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.

[banyon]

This guy on Joe Scarborough made me laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpfuaGhzuvI

[petegz28]

JFC, FFS you people make this whole nutrition thing out to be way more complicated than it is.....

you are taught in Kiddy-garden....."you are what you eat"

Yeah, it's that ****ing simple

All you ****tards counting calories, worrying about these carbs and those fats and what not make me laugh...

you are what you ****ing eat....

if you're stufingf a double-cheese down your throat with a large coke and fries and playing Halo 4 all night, chances are you are fat and out of shape

[notorious]

Originally Posted by petegz28

JFC, FFS you people make this whole nutrition thing out to be way more complicated than it is.....

you are taught in Kiddy-garden....."you are what you eat"

Yeah, it's that ****ing simple

All you ****tards counting calories, worrying about these carbs and those fats and what not make me laugh...

you are what you ****ing eat....

if you're stufingf a double-cheese down your throat with a large coke and fries and playing Halo 4 all night, chances are you are fat and out of shape

You give people too much credit.

You wouldn't believe how many people think that sour cream, ranch, etc. are good for you.


"I eat right but I just can't lose my fat ass!!!!" (as they pour a gallon of ranch on their taco salad)

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by notorious

You give people too much credit.

You wouldn't believe how many people think that sour cream, ranch, etc. are good for you.


"I eat right but I just can't lose my fat ass!!!!" (as they pour a gallon of ranch on their taco salad)

This is somebodies definition of huge

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Seems like I remember Michelle Obama suggested to kids that they should eat a vegetable once in a while and the nation's dipshit right wing erupted with a fury maybe only surpassed by the outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Overstatement of reaction underscores the tenuousness of the point.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Either that or a language they don't want to learn because they know how difficult it will be to utilize that language.

Question for ya':

Do you think it's easier for people to change their politics or their eating habits?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by petegz28

JFC, FFS you people make this whole nutrition thing out to be way more complicated than it is.....

you are taught in Kiddy-garden....."you are what you eat"

Yeah, it's that ****ing simple

All you ****tards counting calories, worrying about these carbs and those fats and what not make me laugh...

you are what you ****ing eat....

if you're stufingf a double-cheese down your throat with a large coke and fries and playing Halo 4 all night, chances are you are fat and out of shape

I used to hear that but how about " You are what you don't eat." Or "You are what you read."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Overstatement of reaction underscores the tenuousness of the point.

Hmmm, I like that.

[BucEyedPea]

I eat lots of fruit—coffee and chocolate.

[Cephalic Trauma]

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 II Diabetes, characterized by Insulin resistance (or pre-diabetic state) and eventual pancreatic beta-cell burnout is a disease.

Your and idiot.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Fast food restaurants came out with a larger drink in 1988 (along with value menus), and coincidentally, Type II Diabetes soared. Anyone who is arguing for "freedom" is completely missing the point.

In 2012, the cost of Diabetes was >245 billion dollars(up41% from 2007), which is greater than 20% of health care expenditures.

It's a ****ing epidemic, and the citizens of this country collectively have shown that they are unable to restrain themselves. And yet we still have people arguing against such startling numbers.

Wow.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Fast food restaurants came out with a larger drink in 1988 (along with value menus), and coincidentally, Type II Diabetes soared. Anyone who is arguing for "freedom" is completely missing the point.

No anyone thinking this is the proper role of govt is missing the point. In a free country one is allowed to do stupid things to themselves.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No anyone thinking this is the proper role of govt is missing the point. In a free country one is allowed to do stupid things to themselves.

245 ****ing billion dollars. Did you miss that part?

The second part of my post (which you conveniently left out) says otherwise. We simply can't continue down the path we are on and expect the healthcare system to be fixed.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Overstatement of reaction underscores the tenuousness of the point.

And what is the tenuous point?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

245 ****ing billion dollars. Did you miss that part?

No I didn't miss it. It's just not relevant to my position because I don't believe in a collectivist approach. ( aggregate sums of money included )

The second part of my post (which you conveniently left out) says otherwise.

So.
Since when do I have to address all parts of your post? I choose what I want to comment on.

We simply can't continue down the path we are on and expect the healthcare system to be fixed.

We, we, we! The group, the collective! Sorry, not my viewpoint.

Free-market healthcare has less moral hazard than our current patchwork socialist system with perverse incentives. Let private insurers charge high premiums to those who live such lifestyles.

I eat organic and lean paleo....'cept when I want my chocolate (fruit) ( but I make my own bars with stevia sometimes)