March 11, 2013

Bloomberg's ban on big sodas is "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."

"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."

Says the state court judge.

85 comments:

Sorun said...

Some lawyers are making money, so it's not all bad.

Nonapod said...

Apparently New Yorkers enjoy being told how much soda they can drink. Perhaps there should be a law for scheduled nap times too.

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the law?

rehajm said...

A nanny without authority is no nanny..

bpm4532 said...

I'm sure he'll blame the state court for "costing lives".

Alex said...

Explain the health benefits of consuming 46g of sugar in a sitting. That's the amount in a typical soda can. Now a 32oz big gulp soda probably has closer to 100g of sugar.

Sorun said...

"Explain the health benefits of consuming 46g of sugar in a sitting."

Everything you're allowed to purchase must have health benefits.

rhhardin said...

Arbitrary and capacious consequences.

Alex said...

Sorun - if everyone had to pay the for the consequences of their behavior then I'd say yes. But when the consequences are socialized, then I say we socialize the food as well.

Rob said...

The news story says the injunction was issued by Judge Tingling. I thought it was Chris Matthews' leg that was tingling. So his leg can now issue injunctions? I'm so confused.

edutcher said...

Looks like the stopped clock was consulted at the right time.

Clyde said...

Don't forget to socialize your exercise as well, Alex. Soon we'd all be standing in front of our telescreens doing our calisthenics, with Big Brother watching to make sure that we all touch our toes properly, if people like you had their way.

No fucking thank you!

Alex said...

Clyde - if it takes the state to ensure our healthiness and well being so be it. I would have no problem with having state mandated exercise with testing. But def not the home telescreen. That's too totalitarian for my taste.

Sorun said...

I'd rather the government did something about the 5 major food groups acquired with food stamps: Oreos, Doritos, Breyers, Pepsi, and Twizzlers. Try that first.

Alex said...

Sorun - but that would be discriminating against poor urban people!

Old RPM Daddy said...

Alex, I'll assume you're joshing us a little with the hyperbole. Otherwise:

"Clyde - if it takes the state to ensure YOU'RE DOING WHAT I THINK YOU OUGHT TO BE DOING so be it."

There, as they say, FIFY.

ScottD said...

Explain the health benefits of sexual activity outside of a mongamous marriage.

We've socialized the costs, so we are now just limiting "portion size" to control the damage.

Alex said...

I love playing the devil's advocate on this blog. People who have been here for a long time know this.

Tim said...

" "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote."

Yeah, sure, but isn't that exactly why people vote Democrat?

If intended consequences was the measuring stick, no one would rationally vote Democrat except those on public subsidies.

Otherwise, stay tuned for more changes "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," once the ACA takes full effect, I write.

Alex said...

Scott - if it feels good do it. that's the liberal mantra when it comes to sexual activity.

AustinRoth said...

Alex - your reasoning is an affront to free will, and paves the road to serfdom.

I assume you are equally OK with government forcing conservative-oriented choices on the population 'for their own good and the good of society', such as no gay marriage, no abortions, etc.?

The point is be careful about giving plenary powers to the government over lifestyle choices - the winds of change eventually will blow into power a group that doesn't match up with your values.

That is why freedom of choice is more important.

Old RPM Daddy said...

"I love playing the devil's advocate on this blog. People who have been here for a long time know this."

Erm, I guess I should have been paying closer attention...

Alex said...

Think of it like this, I'm sharpening your debating skills.

Nonapod said...

Alex said...

Clyde - if it takes the state to ensure our healthiness and well being so be it. I would have no problem with having state mandated exercise with testing. But def not the home telescreen. That's too totalitarian for my taste.


But how would The State confirm you're fulfilling your mandated daily exercise regime? Clearly we need health monitors and biometric readers to ensure we all get our daily exercise as well as consume our allotted caloric intake in nutrition pellets. We also require monitors for recreation periods.

bagoh20 said...

Of all the things a mayor could do to help the people of his city, this is what he came up with? Heck of a job Bloomy.

Jay said...

If the Mayor of NYC has the power to ban soda's, why wouldn't have the power to ban alcohol?

Further, is there anything he then can not do?

ed said...

@ Alex

"Explain the health benefits of consuming 46g of sugar in a sitting. That's the amount in a typical soda can. Now a 32oz big gulp soda probably has closer to 100g of sugar."

It's called F-R-E-E-D-O-M.

Why don't you explain the benefits of not permanently removing your access to the internet and forcing you to express yourself by shouting at strangers on street corners.

m11_9 said...

Title sounds like Jackie Chiles, the lawyer from Seinfeld.

m11_9 said...

Title sounds like Jackie Chiles, the lawyer from Seinfeld.

Humperdink said...

Alex, the same people (the state)who have been in charge of the health of the US's finances, have not done a stellar job. $16 trillion in debt and counting. The best and brightest .... at least in your eyes.

Now you wish to put he same gang in charge of the country's physical health.

Two points:
1)The state is comprised of idiots just like you.
2) Does the word FREEDOM mean anything to you?

Jay said...

Alex said...

Sorun - if everyone had to pay the for the consequences of their behavior then I'd say yes. But when the consequences are socialized, then I say we socialize the food as well


Ok, well since I get to pay for free HIV cocktails for gay men, I guess we get to ban bathhouses, and gay male sex too.

ed said...

@ Nonapod

"But how would The State confirm you're fulfilling your mandated daily exercise regime? Clearly we need health monitors and biometric readers to ensure we all get our daily exercise as well as consume our allotted caloric intake in nutrition pellets. We also require monitors for recreation periods."

All easily done. Just modify the Kinect to include biometric sensors and schedule regular sessions in front of the tv. And since there is a theraputic benefit to releasing anger and frustration that could be schedule as well. Maybe in short increments?

Let's call them "Two Minutes Hate".

Sounds catchy doesn't it?

Ambrose said...

I hate dumb laws as much as the next person, but I do not like judges doing things like this. Let the people's elected repesentatives pass the laws and than hash it out in elections.

bpm4532 said...

Alex, I think the "if it feels good" aspect of liberal socialism left the barn quite some time ago. Now, "if it feels good" seems to be the target and has been replace with "if it sounds good".

bpm4532 said...

Now "Big Gulp" stands for the public's reaction whenever Bloomberg comes up with a new idea to better mankind.

Clyde said...

Ambrose, as the story notes, it was NOT the people's elected representatives (the City Council) who initiated this, it was Bloomberg's appointed Health Department. Bloomberg is elected, they aren't. That might be splitting hairs, but it was the judge's given reason for putting it on hold.

garage mahal said...

40 oz to freedom.

Kirk Parker said...

"Think of it like this, I'm sharpening your debating skills."

The self-flattery, it is strong in this one.

Seeing Red said...

Nanny B only banned the purchase thru some avenues, not all.

lemondog said...

If the Mayor of NYC has the power to ban soda's, why wouldn't have the power to ban alcohol?

Further, is there anything he then can not do?



Tsk....tsk... you people are soooooo negative! CS Lewis recognized the efficacy of a moral imperative.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Ooops...... wrong quote.

Lem said...

The loopholes are guinea pig friendly.

cubanbob said...

If Nanny B only spent this much time and effort fixing potholes....

What is not so funny is that a number of business have had to spend money to comply with his fascist nonsense. Nanny B should be required to pay for their reimbursement personally.

virgil xenophon said...

@ed/Nonapod..

I can see it now. Time? 0600. Loudspeaker? "All you rich people out for vollyball practice!" Compliments of Dear Mayor.


I've said it here before, but bears worth repeating: Lefties won't be satisfied until we've all been marched to virtue at bayonet-point..

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:

Explain the health benefits of consuming 46g of sugar in a sitting. That's the amount in a typical soda can. Now a 32oz big gulp soda probably has closer to 100g of sugar.

the law exempted diet soda. I will certainly grant that excess sugar isn't good
For you. What's the effect of excess Nutra Sweet or saccharine?

Lem said...

The law should go into effect, prompting a lawsuit from Warren Buffet (beverage stock owner extraordinaire) for the sequester of emotional-supportive earnings.

Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

@ambrose
The judge is doing EXACTLY what a judge is supposed to do - keep the other branches of government in check. Do you really want elected officials to enact any law they choose - unilaterally?

Lem said...

Do you really want elected officials to enact any law they choose - unilaterally?

"It is not the courts job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Chief Justice Roberts.

chrisnavin.com said...

I guess you can't sip a big gulp while you're chilling in your new Via Verde green housing project, after hitting up White Castle.

Bloomberg's like Robert Moses, but greener, and more Leftist.

***I rather like the 200 sq foot Bloomberg eco-box I was nudged into with a single mom named Julia. Apparently she got double-Fluked, no birth control pills and laid off from the Progressive Progress Creativity Center.

However, she makes a mean locally sourced kale pasta while whispering green and red sweet nothings into her rebozo slung baby Rigoberta's smiling face.

EDH said...

What about he ice in the cup? Is that displacement counted or not?

Lem said...

Bloomberg is the Sugar Pie Guy.

Is not just conversation.
To say that you're the best thing for me,
'Cause you're my inspiration.

Don't you see that I'm the man,
Who will stand,
Always by your side.

I'll always lend a hand,
If I can,
If I'm holding tight.

Alex said...

We don't' know the long term effects of sugar substitutes either. I've read a lot of literature that indicates diet colas cause cancer. So you are trading one bad thing for another. Better to drink regular coffee with cream(no sugar), water and tea!

tim in vermont said...

"I'm sure he'll blame the state court for 'costing lives'." - pbm4532

That didn't take long...

""This measure is part of the city's multi-pronged effort to combat the growing obesity epidemic, which takes the lives of more than 5,000 New Yorkers every year, and we believe the Board of Health has the legal authority - and responsibility - to tackle its leading causes," said Michael A. Cardozo, the city's corporation counsel."

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/21576028/judge-strikes-down-nyc-sugary-drinks-size-rule

jr565 said...

One problem with this is that the experts have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to health.
Take the food pyramid. It should be inverted. The things they say you should eat the least are probably the things you should eat the most.
If they can't that basic thing right, how are they going to mandate what people drink.

Also, I happened to look at the packaged food I'm eating and the serving sizes. The Raisin Nut party mix I picked up today says that there are 3 servings per container. I polish off one of those in five minutes.

Perhaps then, even the health food should be policed. Like maybe the should force the trail mix makers to only put enough trail mix into a bag for one serving size and ban all trail mix bags that have more than 1 serving per bag (we'll call these supersize)

or, how about this. They put on the bag the serving size and you eat how much you like. If you want to eat the whole bag, you eat the whole bag. If you want to eat 1/3 of the bag now and 2/3 of the bag in the afternoon evening, that's your perogative.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

jr565,

Aspartame is a tripeptide. How nasty could it be? It's a floating protein fragment.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

jr565,

Also, I happened to look at the packaged food I'm eating and the serving sizes. The Raisin Nut party mix I picked up today says that there are 3 servings per container. I polish off one of those in five minutes.

This is the manufacturer's way of telling you that you are a gross, wallowing pig. NTTAWWT.

bpm4532 said...

When you buy a 24 oz cup of soda, how much of that is actually soda? With all the ice they put in, usually more than 1/2 of the volume originally starts out as ice.

Alex said...

When you buy a 24 oz cup of soda, how much of that is actually soda? With all the ice they put in, usually more than 1/2 of the volume originally starts out as ice.

You are still drinking a ton of sugar. Add that up to all the other sodas you consume in a day, along with the cakes, cookies and bread.

jr565 said...

Aspartame is a tripeptide. How nasty could it be? It's a floating protein fragment.



http://aspartame.mercola.com/

Jury's still out on the safety of aspartame. Doesn't it cause anal leakage too? Or is that Olesta?

bpm4532 said...

why is he picking on sugar. It's carbs that matter. He should be reaching out to limit the bread, cheese and noodles in the italian restaurants. Heck, bagels!

Alex said...

Oh and a favorite of body builders is the protein powders. They almost all contain acesulfame potasium(Ace-K). That's also a cancer causing substance.

Alex said...

bpm - ever hear of glycemic load? The worst is drinking sugar water. Bread is after that, then other grains. Not all carbs are equal in their immediate impact on the liver.

jr565 said...

Michelle wrote:
This is the manufacturer's way of telling you that you are a gross, wallowing pig. NTTAWWT.

Not necessarily though. If you eat a bag of nuts and raisins, but that's your lunch for the day then you still haven't that much.

What if you have a big gulp, but taht's the only soda you have all day? Is that ostensibly worse than someone who drinks 5 cups of Tropicana Orange Juice? OJ may have the vitamin C but have you seen the sugar in it?

Alex said...

jr - OJ is not the what nature provided. It's far better to eat a whole citrus fruit with the white bitter bits. Still not too much.

wyo sis said...

Alex you know you want to go get a spoonful of sugar and a rasher of bacon. Just do it. It feels good. You'll like it. We won't tell.

bpm4532 said...

better yet, brown sugar baked apple smoked bacon!

jr565 said...

OJ may be as bad as Coke:
The inconvenient truth, many experts say, is that 100% fruit juice poses the same obesity-related health risks as Coke, Pepsi and other widely vilified beverages.

With so much focus on the outsized role that sugary drinks play in the country's collective weight gain -- and the accompanying rise in conditions including diabetes, heart disease and cancer -- it's time juice lost its wholesome image, these experts say.

"It's pretty much the same as sugar water," said Dr. Charles Billington, an appetite researcher at the University of Minnesota. In the modern diet, "there's no need for any juice at all."

A glass of juice concentrates all the sugar from several pieces of fruit. Ounce per ounce, it contains more calories than soda, though it tends to be consumed in smaller servings. A cup of orange juice has 112 calories, apple juice has 114, and grape juice packs 152, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The same amount of Coke has 97 calories, and Pepsi has 100.

And just like soft drinks, juice is rich in fructose -- the simple sugar that does the most to make food sweet.

UC Davis scientist Kimber Stanhope has found that consuming high levels of fructose increases risk factors for heart disease and Type 2 diabetes because it is converted into fat by the liver more readily than glucose. Her studies suggest that it doesn't matter whether the fructose is from soda or juice.

"Both are going to promote equal weight gain," she said, adding that she's perplexed by the fixation on the evils of sugar-sweetened beverages: "Why are they the only culprit?"



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-juice8-2009nov08,0,5809992,full.story

So why isn't Bloomberg banning half a gallon of Tropicana OJ? or Motts apple juice which has even more sugar than OJ!

Maybe coke will end up being the health food. Fortify it with some vitamin C. Why not?

Alex said...

Brown sugar is just as bad as white sugar, maybe even worse.

bpm4532 said...

Now maybe if they would put some of that fun stuff back in Coca-Cola!

Alex said...

jr - I'm puzzled why Bloomberg isn't banning those large containers of "smoothie" drinks at Whole Foods that contains TONS of sugar. My guess is elitism, not sugar.

Pogo said...

My, how those New York sheep bleat at shearing time!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

jr565,

Jury's still out on the safety of aspartame. Doesn't it cause anal leakage too? Or is that Olesta?

Olestra-with-an-R, I think.

If aspartame in large quantities is lethal, then you're corresponding with a ghost here. I drink a lot of soda, but I've had soda with sugar or HFCS in it maybe three times in twenty years. If aspartame is looking to kill me, it is certainly taking its time.

lemondog said...

I'm puzzled why Bloomberg isn't banning those large containers of "smoothie" drinks at Whole Foods that contains TONS of sugar.

If he is reading this blog, he may take it under consideration.

re: aspartame the dairy industry is petitioning the FDA to allow it in milk as a hidden ingredient.

One wonders what else may be hidden....

Inga said...

Better to stick with Sucralose, which is Splenda. But it should be labeled clearly when added to milk products.

Aridog said...

I'm late on this one, and I admit I haven't read all comments...BUT, am I wrong, that this is about "regulations" a.k.a. "rules" and not legislation per se? Is this not about a derived authority by appointed bureaucrats, beholden to the local executive?

That is about as far removed from legislative clarity and intent as possible to get. As a former "Fed" there's a lot of very non-democratic things I could tell you about "rules & regulations."

Oh, and Alex has done a spectacular job of stirring this pot. Truly Herculean. I am in awe ... :-)

Aridog said...

Lemondog asked ...

One wonders what else may be hidden....

Uhm...you might not want to know. Ever worked around a dairy farm or feed lot? :)

kentuckyliz said...

If it tastes good, drink it.

A Big Gulp of Freedom!

Nomennovum said...

"... [W]hen the consequences are socialized, then I say we socialize the food as well." - Alex

Fair point, but put the people on the public dole on forced diets then.

Of course, with ObamaCare, we all are now .... More government control to look forward to.

Nomennovum said...

Bloomberg is just ahead of the curve on this.

exiledonmainst said...

The Taiwanese animators had a good time making fun of Nanny B. (and not for the first time either):

http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/Nanny-Bloomberg-Taiwanese-animation-satire-viral-YouTube-video.html

Lem said...

Bloomberg is just ahead of the curve on this.

Not bad.

phx said...

Thank God. It was the last thing standing between us and complete fascism.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Well thank GOD for that. I feel so much freer! Freedom for fizzy beverages! Their freedom makes US free!

John Burgess said...

@Ambrose: That's exactly what the judge said. He said the City's Health Dept. exceeded its authority and was stepping on the toes of the legislature -- either NYC's City Council or the State. An executive branch department cannot usurp the role of the legislature.

He further found that the ban was capricious in that it did not apply to all facilities that might sell such drinks nor to all drinks that had high sugar content.

Alex said...

phx - interesting that you joke about totalitarian tendencies.

kcom said...

The most cogent argument against this rule is very simple. It goes like this:

Fuck off, Bloomberg!

Enough said.

There, how sharp are my debate skills now?