I think that I hate the term "nanny state," but this proposal fits that bill. I further believe that unless the measure affects all establishments selling big tubs of soda (such as convenience stores - not affected by the proposed "ban"), it's unfair and very suspect right from the start. Are 7-11's Big Gulps more healthy than a similar-sized soda at a movie theater
Per the NY Times:
Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.
At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.
Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.
I agree with you that a soda sold by 7-11 is no more healthy than the exact same brand and type soda sold in a movie theatre. It appears that whether a business is affected has to do with the intricacies of NYC laws, and whether a 7-11 gets affected is probably going to be determined as to whether its considered a grocery store or a "food establishment service."
No doubt the soda manufacturers and large chain fast food businesses will be considering whether this difference in treatment will give them a legal reason to sue.
The bottom line is that anyone with even half a brain knows that sugary soda is an unhealthy drink. They also know that drinking more of it worse than drinking a little of it. If, knowing that, they decide to drink 32 ounces of it on a regular basis, that's their business and not that of the Mayor of New York or even the Department of Health. They can force businesses to use warning labels on large cups (I'm very cool with this), they can probably levy extra "sin" taxes on them (I can't think of a reason to be against this, though I do drink soda), but banning them seems way out of line to me.
I agree. It appears that Bloomberg is only taking this approach because his first two attempts failed:
Thwarted twice in his efforts to cut sugary drink consumption (the mayor supported, unsuccessfully, a New York state tax on sugary drinks and a New York City proposal to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sugary beverages),
<snip>
In 2010, the American Beverage Association spent close to $13 million in New York in a six-month period, lobbying against a proposed penny-per-ounce statewide soda tax. No expense was spared, from the brilliant anti-soda tax TV campaign (created by the agency that spawned the notorious Harry and Louise anti-healthcare reform ads in 1993), to soft-drink industry worker protests (while workers were on the clock and provided with lunch), to an industry-sponsored 'grassroots' coalition called 'New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes,' to PepsiCo's threat to move its Purchase, New York, headquarters to Texas, if the measure passed. The no-holds barred campaign did the trick. State legislators caved and the measure died.
I do agree with the mayor that there should be a way to ensure that when people engage in behaviors that drive up costs incurred by society, society should have a way to get those costs covered by the people responsible for them.
The soft drinks industry's successful lobbying has made that impossible. In the meantime our politicians still have to balance the budget. So, while I intensely dislike the mayor's latest tactic ... I'm not surprised.
I think it's an exercise in futility. If you want more soda, all you have to do is order two. Or, if the establishment offers free refills, order a small and drink all you want (I already do this by choice. Why pay more?).
I agree that the mayor's latest tactic is not going to be as effective as a sugar consumption tax would be but I think he's taking this current approach because its basically what he has left to try.
I suspect his goal is to actually try to change what is considered acceptable behavior. It took us a while (as a society) to get acclimated to the idea that a quart-sized drink, or an even larger one, is an acceptable size drink to sell to an individual in a restaurant.
There are many reasons why we have gotten to the point where 2/3rds of all Americans are overweight -- but our social mores as to what is acceptable behavior is probably one of them.
Frankly I'm concerned about this latest tactic and think that it is a terrible direction for us to go in. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for future govt regulations. I wish that the sugar tax had suceeded.
As long as our health has an impact on government's budget and not just on our individual ones, I don't think this issue is going away.
