[AnneLea]

Get ready to say good-bye to even a medium sized cup.

New York ban on sugary drinks goes to public comment stage
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on the sale of large-size sodas and other sugary beverages moved forward Tuesday after the city's Board of Health unanimously voted to open the plan to a three-month public comment process.

The ban would outlaw such drinks larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, food carts and any other establishments that receive letter grades for food service. It would not apply to grocery stores.

"The Board of Health is a group of independent health experts ... they were reviewing this for the first time today, and then this is a public comment process. We think that this is a good process," Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley said in a news conference Tuesday.

"Obviously, me as the health commissioner, I am supportive of this rule, but the board is the one that makes the ultimate decision," Farley said.

The board members, who are appointed by the mayor, will formally vote on the proposal in September, officials said.

"If approved, the city's proposal would take effect six months after Board of Health approval and would be enforced by the city's regular restaurant inspection team," a statement from Bloomberg's office said last month. "Restaurant owners will have nine months from the adoption of the proposal until they face fines."

Fines will then be $200, the statement said.

After Bloomberg announced the initiative last month, critics -- including McDonald's and Coca-Cola, which stand to be hurt by the proposal -- quickly assailed it as "misguided" and "arbitrary."

Speaking by satellite to the All Things D technology event in California last month, Bloomberg said, "This is something we think we have the legal authority to do. We¹re not taking away anybody's right to do something; we're simply making it different for them in how they do it." He said he hoped the move will help lead to different behaviors.

The city spends $4 billion a year on medical care for overweight people, he said.

The statement from his office cited health problems facing the city, including an increase in obesity. "The single largest driver of these alarming increases in obesity is sugary drinks, which have grown in size," the statement said.

It was not immediately clear what that assertion was based on.

While the consumption of sugary drinks contributes to obesity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not name a single largest cause nationally.

Are bans on sugary drinks really government business?
OPINION | TOM KEANE
Cambridge’s proposed ban on sugary soft drinks — thanks for the idea, New York! — is no different from Middleborough’s ban on curse words. They both reflect the notion that — apparently unable to control our own bad urges — we need government to force us to behave.

That’s not a new idea. Despite the near-hysteria that has greeted both proposals — as if they each represent some extraordinary new extension of government power — they are really no different from what has gone on in generations past. Government has always tried to meddle in people’s lives: Prohibition, blue laws, and bans on non-marital sex are obvious examples.

Still, we have slowly been getting rid of those proscriptions, recognizing that people should in general be able to conduct their lives the way they wish. There is, as a result, something quite jarring about the fact that the same folks who would ardently defend a woman’s right to choose an abortion would not let her choose a Coke.

The meddlers believe there are compelling reasons for their new rules. In the case of big drinks, someone’s decision to consume too much sugar leads to obesity, which in turn leads to them becoming sick. One might think that would be it: If you want to make yourself ill, you’re the one who ends up suffering. But, health insurance — and especially mandatory health care coverage — introduces a new wrinkle. Health insurance spreads costs among everyone, which means that someone else’s illness becomes a financial burden on the rest of us. Put bluntly, if I have to pay the medical bills for your obesity, shouldn’t I have some say over whether you should be allowed to get fat?

There’s a similar logic in Middleborough’s bylaw that would fine residents for using bad words. The poor town’s scourge of cussing kids certainly makes the place sound unpleasant. Why should the quality of life of a vast majority of citizens be undermined by a nasty few?

In both cases, the argument is that the interests of the community at large trump individual freedom.

One can easily imagine how far the slippery slope of this logic can go. If shared health care costs are the rationale for limiting sugar in our diets, then that same rationale can be used to regulate every other kind of food we consume (in fact, New York is now also going after large tubs of popcorn). It can be used to justify banning people from participating in all sorts of dangerous activities, from mountain climbing to riding motorcycles. Indeed, almost every decision we make, from food to lifestyle to career decisions, has some influence on our health, meaning that there is no end to the number of things we could prohibit — or even require (mandatory Pilates, anyone?).

(Page 2 of 2)
Similarly, if bruised sensibilities justify issuing a $20 ticket for saying “$#@&,” why not also issue $20 tickets for raising one’s voice in anger? Why not require people to greet each other with a bow and a “sir” or “ma’am”? That would certainly up the level of civility.

Is there a stopping point to any of this?

In the case of Middleborough’s ban, the answer is yes. The state attorney general has put the town’s new bylaw on hold pending a review of its constitutionality. It’s hard to imagine it passing muster. The First Amendment’s prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech” seems pretty clear.

There’s no such constitutional protection for sugary drinks, however. Government routinely regulates the stuff we consume: Raw milk is banned; additives are restricted, warning labels are required. The only real limit on these bans is political — if enough people object, they won’t happen. Last month, for instance, Massachusetts public health officials tried banning cakes and cookies at school bake sales. They got a raft of criticism and eventually Governor Deval Patrick forced them to backpedal. I suspect that New York and Cambridge officials will ultimately backpedal on their much-mocked soda bans as well.

That would be to the good, but it won’t stop there. The meddlers aren’t confined to Cambridge and Middleborough. They’re everywhere, and the urge to tell people what do is a powerful one. The defense of freedom doesn’t only occur on battlefields. Sometimes it’s fought soda can by soda can.

Tom Keane writes regularly for the Globe. He can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com

And on a more local level for myself:

Asheville-area YMCAs get rid of sodas
Action reinforces public health mission
Talesha Gardner, then 17, looks at the selection of soft drinks for sale in the vending machines at a Wisconsin school. / GREGORY SHAVER/AP
ASHEVILLE — Like it or not, YMCA of Western North Carolina members now have no choice but to walk the walk of a healthy lifestyle by drinking the right drinks while they work out.

The YMCA’s five WNC locations have removed all sodas and “unhealthy beverages” from their vending machines, replacing them with water, flavored water and juice.

“We really just decided to practice what we preach here,” said Paul Vest, CEO of the YMCA of Western North Carolina. “We have a vision of a healthy community that we want to help build and we are committed to helping people make better choices, so we figured we should start here.”

Vest said the decision announced by the organization Wednesday was part a 10-year strategic plan, part of which was incorporating healthier vending machine snack options and healthy foods for summer camp and after-school programs beginning in 2010.

The new policy is part of the YMCA’s Pioneering Healthier Communities initiative started in 2008, a project that engages community leaders and organizations to create healthier communities through policy and environmental change.

“Small changes like beverage choices are more likely to help you make lasting positive health and well-being changes,” said Kristen Weaver, community healthy living director for the YMCA.

The decision follows a recent push from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces from New York City eateries, street carts and stadiums.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sugar-sweetened beverages are the largest source of added sugars in the diet of U.S. youths. Boys age 12-19 consume an average of 22 ounces of full-calorie soda drink a day — more than twice their daily intake of milk — and girls consume an average of 14.3 ounces of full-calorie soda and 6.3 ounces of milk a day, according to a CDC report.

“With the childhood obesity epidemic especially, we want to always take a preventative role whenever possible,” Vest said. “We feel an obligation to be at the forefront on efforts like this, so we just hope it makes an impact.”

Salt and sugar are needed in our diets and should be moderated according to the individual's needs, not by the government.

[DiamondSmiles]

I have at, "The Olive Garden", but, it's unsweetened!

Stupid McDonald's stopped carrying unsweetened!

[rob666]

Originally Posted by AnneLea ↗

Get ready to say good-bye to even a medium sized cup.






And on a more local level for myself:


Salt and sugar are needed in our diets and should be moderated according to the individual's needs, not by the government.

I agree to a point, but obesity is becoming an epidemic on the scale of smoking.

[Brometheus]

its a stupid law regardless and lacks logic.. whats stopping you from buying more than one order? wtf..

on a side note.. whats up with the government lately? it seems they want to run every aspect of our lives. from soft drinks to mandatory health care..

[DiamondSmiles]

That health care law is ridiculous! If people could pay for insurance, they'd most likely have it, especially if they have children.

They have to pay a penalty for not making enough money to buy health insurance!

[Brometheus]

oh yea.. im sure gonna miss the medium cups at white castle.. their medium is like a mcdonalds large. i never could finish the whole thing anyway..lol. also, i see nothing in that ban about FREE REFILLS.. silly Bloomberg.

[AnneLea]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I agree to a point, but obesity is becoming an epidemic on the scale of smoking.

Yes, obesity is an epidemic, especially in this area, but nobody cares to look at why.

It's not sugar. It's people's excessive intake of it, as well as medical problems, and laziness.

Such issues can only be cured by individual management, not mass scale attempts.

There are people out there like my husband and I that do require a higher daily intake of sugar, and cutting it back would put us at risk for passing out often, not just when we don't have the time to grab that sweet tea or gatorade.

I believe the whole intent of it is to eventually eliminate refined sugar from our lives... by making the fines for being caught with it too expensive to risk even making it yourself.

Remember, we're also under attack about our salt intake. Think of what happened in 1930:

In 1930 in order to help free India from British control, Mahatma Gandhi proposed a non-violent march protesting the British Salt Tax, continuing Gandhi's pleas for civil disobedience. The Salt Tax essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly. Since salt is necessary in everyone's daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn't really afford.

http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/india/SaltMarch.html

And in my area, even employees of the compliant food-services would be violently verbally attacked. I wouldn't doubt if some upset customers would hit an employee over it.

That's the mass temperament of the overweight people out here. They think it's the world's fault they're fat, and that they are entitled to the very things that got them that way in the first place.

Yet, if you limit someone's intake of anything so severally so quickly, there will be consequences on both sides, not just the desired result.

Prohibition didn't work. It killed more people than alcohol poisoning had.

Salt restrictions back then didn't work, it left people without an important electrolyte.

Taking away our sugar will do similarly.

[AnneLea]

Originally Posted by diamondsmiles ↗

That health care law is ridiculous! If people could pay for insurance, they'd most likely have it, especially if they have children.

They have to pay a penalty for not making enough money to buy health insurance!

Yep... America the ever poorer.

You have to be extra extra poor to receive any government help... and then they make it so easy to stay on that help rather than improve your situation.

My husband only gets about $1000 a month, and they only gave him $28 a month in food-stamps when we weren't officially living together.

I made only $800 a month and didn't qualify for anything because I wasn't in one exact situation: A teen mother shut out by her family and being abused by her boyfriend.

Since I had chosen to be sensible about my life (use protection, work my way through college (that I still can't afford to get back to), and not put myself into a dangerous situation), I wasn't worthy of any financial aid what so ever.

When my husband and I got married, they cut off his medicaid and the food stamps. Why? Because $1800 a month is too much money to qualify for anything, barely low enough to get help from food banks.

Yet the poverty line is at $15,130 a year for a household of 2, and after we got married, I lost my job and couldn't get another due to the rock slide that shut down I-40 access between NC and TN, taking us down to an income of about $12,000 a year for two people.

But we didn't qualify for any aid.

Sweet tea is something cheap we can make at home and will sustain us through the day when need be, but we would no longer have the option to buy it if this goes through.

If they get it to go through in the restaurants, it wouldn't be that great a leap to then make it illegal to make your own sugary beverages and cary them around in gallon jugs the way we do.

Then what?

[Brometheus]

Originally Posted by AnneLea ↗

Yep... America the ever poorer.

You have to be extra extra poor to receive any government help... and then they make it so easy to stay on that help rather than improve your situation.

My husband only gets about $1000 a month, and they only gave him $28 a month in food-stamps when we weren't officially living together.

I made only $800 a month and didn't qualify for anything because I wasn't in one exact situation: A teen mother shut out by her family and being abused by her boyfriend.

Since I had chosen to be sensible about my life (use protection, work my way through college (that I still can't afford to get back to), and not put myself into a dangerous situation), I wasn't worthy of any financial aid what so ever.

When my husband and I got married, they cut off his medicaid and the food stamps. Why? Because $1800 a month is too much money to qualify for anything, barely low enough to get help from food banks.

Yet the poverty line is at $15,130 a year for a household of 2, and after we got married, I lost my job and couldn't get another due to the rock slide that shut down I-40 access between NC and TN, taking us down to an income of about $12,000 a year for two people.

But we didn't qualify for any aid.

Sweet tea is something cheap we can make at home and will sustain us through the day when need be, but we would no longer have the option to buy it if this goes through.

If they get it to go through in the restaurants, it wouldn't be that great a leap to then make it illegal to make your own sugary beverages and cary them around in gallon jugs the way we do.

Then what?

lol calmate AnneLea.. this ban is only for NYC.. just like how the mayor put out a ban on smoking in bars, several years ago, as well as trans-fats(i believe last year?).. also theres nothing stopping us from making our own jugs of sugary drinks. its only fast food places, restaurants, corner stores--but not grocery stores. so you can still buy a 64oz box of juice if you so please. i think this really targets kids, whom its so easy to shop at fast food places. kids love fast food so much and have easy access to it.

[Sharon]

Sugar isn't the only cause on obesity. Seems crazy to me.