HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Soda Industry Sues to Sto...

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:51 PM

Soda Industry Sues to Stop Bloomberg’s Sales Limits (in NYC)

Source: NY Times

New York’s battle over big sodas is heading to the courtroom.

The American soft-drink industry, joined by several New York restaurant and business groups, filed a lawsuit on Friday that aims to overturn restrictions, proposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and approved by the Board of Health, on sales of large sugary drinks at many dining locations in the city.

The suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, contends that the Board of Health did not have the authority to ratify the new rules unilaterally. The rules — approved last month and scheduled to take effect in March — limit the size of sugary drinks to 16 ounces or less at restaurants, street carts, and entertainment and sports venues.

Legal action was widely anticipated from the soft-drink industry, which led an aggressive campaign this summer portraying Mr. Bloomberg’s plan as an affront to consumer freedom and has frequently opposed local regulations of its products.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/nyregion/soda-industry-sues-to-stop-bloombergs-sales-limits.html



My personal position is against this law, but I see this lawsuit as a dumb-and-dumber competition.

Thom Hartmann recently did a debate with a conservative about this law:

36 replies, 4953 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Soda Industry Sues to Stop Bloomberg’s Sales Limits (in NYC) (Original post)
alp227 Oct 2012 OP
banned from Kos Oct 2012 #1
msongs Oct 2012 #5
glacierbay Oct 2012 #6
markpkessinger Oct 2012 #7
glacierbay Oct 2012 #9
LTR Oct 2012 #28
Ter Oct 2012 #16
Scootaloo Oct 2012 #27
Ter Oct 2012 #29
Scootaloo Oct 2012 #34
Ter Oct 2012 #36
erodriguez Oct 2012 #31
hrmjustin Oct 2012 #26
tarheelsunc Oct 2012 #2
glacierbay Oct 2012 #3
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #11
glacierbay Oct 2012 #12
bhikkhu Oct 2012 #4
markpkessinger Oct 2012 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #10
sl8 Oct 2012 #13
bhikkhu Oct 2012 #14
dkhbrit Oct 2012 #15
They_Live Oct 2012 #17
bhikkhu Oct 2012 #19
sl8 Oct 2012 #20
bhikkhu Oct 2012 #22
sl8 Oct 2012 #24
sl8 Oct 2012 #23
bhikkhu Oct 2012 #21
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #18
christx30 Oct 2012 #32
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #33
christx30 Oct 2012 #35
Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #25
Pokoyo Oct 2012 #30

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:55 PM

1. This shit gives Dems a bad name

 

much like gun bans do.

Fuck this bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:23 PM

5. an what does this have to do with democrats? bloomberg is not a democrat nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:25 PM

6. Has nothing to do with Dems

 

he's an Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:30 PM

7. Weellll....

I think it's more accurate to say Bloomberg is a Bloomberg. He was a lifelong Democrat who became a Republican in order to run for Mayor against Democrat Mark Green, who later became an "independent."

He's a political opportunist and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:35 PM

9. You nailed it.

 

I like to refer to him as Blooming Idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 05:41 AM

28. Most people associate him with the GOP

 

I don't think many people know that he was a Democrat at one time.

As for the soft drink ban, it is a totally stupid law. Nanny state nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 12:07 PM

16. He acts like one 90% of the time

 

Plus this was extreme-left legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:45 AM

27. "Extreme-left legislation"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #27)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:29 AM

29. Is it moderate or extreme right?

 

No, it is not, the same way that SF's banning of plastic bags and Happy Meals is extreme left, something I want no part of. How many Republicans voted for this in the City Council?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #29)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 04:30 PM

34. I think you need to learn what "extreme left" means

Instead of going by the freeper playbook of "anything I dislike is EXTREME LEFT!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:26 PM

36. It's not right, moderate, or libertarian

 

It's not regular left, like the sane people here are like myself. It's borderline dictatorship. People's Republic of NYC. Sorry, but I am no fan of either extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 09:52 AM

31. you have no clue what you are talking about

This was not legislation.

The city council did not vote on this.

The Board of health which is appointed by the mayor voted on the mayor's plan.

This is how NYC is run. If you dont vote the mayor's way you get replaced. It has happens with the unelected school board and unelected health board.


http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/archives/1418-power-board-health

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

26. bloomberg ran on the gop line. I never voted for him because he thinks he is the boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:59 PM

2. This is stupid legislation

My only thought from the start of this is WTF is Bloomberg thinking? It makes no sense and I doubt this is what he wants his time as mayor to be remembered for. And people thought of him as a potential presidential candidate before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:04 PM

3. Good

 

I hope Bloomberg gets his ass handed to him on a platter. He has no fucking business restricting the size of a soft drink that people can buy, no matter where. The law doesn't even make any sense, all you have to do is order another soft drink.
I would bet that the court is going to strike down this POS law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:53 AM

11. They should simply impose a tax on sugary soft drinks, period.

They are really, really unhealthy. Obesity is a major health problem that costs a lot to employers, local governments, hospitals and our national health care network in terms of lost days at work, expensive long-term health care (especially for certain forms of diabetes) and decrease our life expectancy and quality of life.

Republicans dislike the ACA because they think it will require them to pay for "other people's" healthcare. Those who exercise, do not drink soft drinks, do not smoke and do not drink pay for other people's bad habits in their insurance costs. Seems like the best way to lower health care costs is to encourage healthy lifestyles.

I don't know whether the law will survive the courts. I can see arguments both ways. Depends on the evidence that is presented. The Supreme Court did not, just based on their emotions, seem favorable to these kinds of provisions, but then, if evidence really supports the law, if the city can show it has significant or compelling reasons to enforce these provisions, who knows what might happen?

So, I think the courts could rule either way. Emotionally, New York's ordinance seems intrusive and extreme, but there may be economic or financial grounds that support it. When people can't afford their own healthcare, it is often the city or county that has to come to the rescue. So, we shall see what the evidence shows on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:54 AM

12. I could support a tax on sugerary soft drinks.

 

I agree that obesity is a big problem in the country, however I don't think that this is the way to try to regulate it, which in reality, doesn't really regulate anything, it's just another feel good useless law that a politician can point to and say "see, I'm doing something".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:09 PM

4. Why don't they just use cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup?

as the link between HFCS and hypoglycemia, diabetes and obesity is documented now.

It look a little bit like the early days of the campaign against smoking, where the corporate line was strictly about liberty and freedom of choice, while behind the scenes it was about killing the science.

In any case, in case anyone hasn't looked at the actual legislation, you can drink sodas as big as you want as long as they don't have HFCS. If the soda companies wanted to use cane sugar, the product would taste as good (if not better), and would just cost a couple cents more to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:33 PM

8. Agreed...

...The legislation is not as odious as it has been made out to be. At the same time, however, I think that if anybody thinks banning these large drinks at concessions is really going to have an appreciable impact on public health, they are seriously deluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:03 AM

13. Which legislation?

The following certainly looks like it applies to drinks without HFCS:

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT (§81.53) TO ARTICLE 81 OF THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH CODE
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/notice/2012/notice-adoption-amend-article81.pdf

Are you talking about some other legislation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #13)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:54 AM

14. Diet or other non-sugary drinks are exempted

...which is part of the point I was intending.

But I see what you mean - in that if they went back to making sodas with cane sugar (as was always the case before 1970 or so), then that would still be a problem under this law. Thanks for pointing it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 12:00 PM

15. Nonsense

Soda consumption has fallen in the last 10 years. Obesity has continued to rise. There is no evidence of causation between HFCS consumption and the rise of obesity. None. Quit this nonsense. The longer we try to blame soda/HFCS for this epidemic the longer it will continue. People are consuming more calories overall and exercising less. It's as simple as that. It's dangerous to continue down the path we are on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkhbrit (Reply #15)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:46 PM

17. Quit trying to "Corn Troll" the situation.

HFCS has been added as a filler ingredient (as well as corn meal) an almost everything at the grocery store now. I think that fact coupled with a computer laden sedentary lifestyle has boosted obesity numbers. Also most corn is GMO now. I try to avoid it. Cane sugar actually tastes better too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkhbrit (Reply #15)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:17 PM

19. Well, there's the Princeton study,

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ , which was the first big one, and which has sparked a great deal of research and debate.

and a newer UCLA study on HFCS effects on the brain: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515150938.htm

and the recent Chemtrust study on causal links to diabetes: http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/documents/CHEM%20Trust%20Obesity%20&%20Diabetes%20Full%20Report.pdf

and the Clinical Epigenetics study of the link between HFCS and autism: http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/4/1/6/abstract

and so forth. There are several reliable sources that say the evidence is still inconclusive (such as the Mayo clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588 ), but "nonsense" is hardly an appropriate term. Most of the studies are new, and scientists tend to be on the conservative side. The same thing went on for years when the cancer-smoking link was being studied.

The calories in vs calories burned model of weight gain is very much oversimplified, as anyone who has dealt with weight problems would tell you.

Average intake has levelled off a little below its peak, but I would agree that "its dangerous to continue down the path we're on.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:08 PM

20. WRT the Clinical Epigenetics study ...

Your link contains the abstract:

The number of children ages 6 to 21 in the United States receiving special education services under the autism disability category increased 91% between 2005 to 2010 while the number of children receiving special education services overall declined by 5%. The demand for special education services continues to rise in disability categories associated with pervasive developmental disorders. Neurodevelopment can be adversely impacted when gene expression is altered by dietary transcription factors, such as zinc insufficiency or deficiency, or by exposure to toxic substances found in our environment, such as mercury or organophosphate pesticides. Gene expression patterns differ geographically between populations and within populations. Gene variants of paraoxonase-1 are associated with autism in North America, but not in Italy, indicating regional specificity in gene-environment interactions. In the current review, we utilize a novel macroepigenetic approach to compare variations in diet and toxic substance exposure between these two geographical populations to determine the likely factors responsible for the autism epidemic in the United States.


The abstract doesn't mention HFCS and I'm not sure what's required for full access to the complete study. Could you summarize the study's findings, esp. with regards to HFCS?

Also, I'm unclear on what the graph illustrates - we're all aware that correlation =/= causation, but I'm not seeing even a clear correlation between the two curves.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:11 PM

22. You can click on the "Full Text PDF" link on the upper right

which gives you a 12 page document. This is from page 4:

"The peak years for annual con-
sumption of HFCS coincided with the peak growth rates
of ASD in California, the only state that reports number
of cases of ASD dating back to the mid-1980s . The
Mercury Toxicity Model shows the HFCS characteristics
most likely contributing to autism include the zinc-
depleting effect that comes from consuming HFCS and
certain food colors found in processed foods, and the
additional Hg exposure that may occur from the low Hg
concentrations sometimes found in HFCS as a result of
the manufacturing process . This model can be
expanded to include additional adverse effects associated
with the consumption of HFCS that likely contribute to
the development of autism through PON1 gene modula-
tion and lead intoxication."

Its a complex argument I haven't gone through myself. The graph I attached was just one that had the most up to date numbers showing the levelling-off to stable trend for HFCS consumption. It just happened to include a line for autism frequency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #22)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:51 PM

24. Doh! Thanks.

Don't have time to go through it tonight, but I appreciate the assist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #19)


Response to dkhbrit (Reply #15)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

21. And the May 2012 Duke study, linking liver disease to HFCS

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-05-26/high-fructose-corn-syrup-associated-with-liver-disease/

Again, you can say that perhaps the absolute causal link hasn't been nailed down and proven, but that's the same argument that is given sometimes for not worrying or doing anything about climate change.

I'd rather see the industry go back to cane sugar, which would be just a little more expensive. And we could convert all that HFCS into ethanol and burn it, where at least it would do a little bit of good offsetting fossil fuels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:50 PM

18. Its a public health issue

As well as a medical cost issue.

So I applaud a leader willing to go out on a limb for the sake of Americans health. But my idea, which I admit would be hard to implement and is probably in the realm of fantasy, is to limit the amount of sugar per drink. So if you get a 12 ounce cup, you'd get the super sweet version. If you order the half gallon size, you still get the same amount of sugar. Your choice.

Sugar is a poison. But its a highly addictive poison that we will not reduce consumption of without brave acts of leadership. If its to stop a poison that is non-addictive, like lead in Chinese toys, we are willing to accept government stepping in. But when its so addictive, we will fight any ban until they pry the dixie cup from our cold dead pudgy fingers.

I don't think it will last either, but at least it got people to think a little about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:19 PM

32. There are lots of things

that a brave leader should do to improve the health of his or her city.

They should ban smoking within the city limits even in people's homes.. They should also ban red meat. People should be put on a vegan diet, whether they like it or not. Give a $10 fine for swearing. $200 fine for premarital sex. Mandate exercise, with fines/jail for noncompliance. Mandate boxes for TVs that will only allow 2 hours per day maximum. I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of anything right now. But the citizens will be healthier, or they will PAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #32)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

33. Difference between banning and curbing

Government DO restrict smoking inside public buildings where I live anyways. As well as public buses. But its not illegal and banned everywhere. But the reason is that its a public health issue because of secondary smoke.

Reducing the size of poison pop a kid can buy at any one time is not an outright ban. Its just a way to extend the boys life. So it will be years later than it would have been when he'll be so obese that your tax dollars will have to pay for him to be transported to a hospital to undergo emergency surgery.

Also this action is a good way to create awareness of our sugar addiction even if it goes down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 09:17 PM

35. The problem with that is

when someone smokes around me, I have to smell it. If someone drinks a large soda, as long as I am not between them and the restroom 45 minutes later, I don't have to care.
I know soda isn't good for me. The guy selling it to me knows it's not good for me. But if I choose to buy it. I don't need a busy body mayor sticking his idiotic nose where it doesn't belong. Why doesn't he go fill a few potholes and let me relax in peace?
Full disclosure: I am 5'10, weigh 155 lbs. I bike 7 miles a day to and from work. Soda isn't the problem that everyone thinks it is. Lack of activity is. Again I say mandate exercise and leave me the hell alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:53 AM

25. "Big Soda" rears it's ugly head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:30 AM

30. I like Bloomberg but people should drink what they want

 

We should educate people about the dangers of high calories but let's not go all prohibition on things. I'm for people choosing what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread