<p>[Judge</a> Invalidates ‘Capricious’ NYC Sugary Drink Ban - Yahoo! Finance](<a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-invalidates-capricious-nyc-sugary-200739382.html;_ylt=AhovYtJGwXjJjwytrcJJlDyiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTNyNm0wdHJsBG1pdANGUCBUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGVmdARwa2cDNzkzOTFmMTMtNGIyZi0zMTBiLTlkMjctODNmYWZjMThkNDhiBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzg2MzM4NzIzLThhOGEtMTFlMi1iZmU5LTZkMmU1ZTI5ZTY2NQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3]Judge”>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-invalidates-capricious-nyc-sugary-200739382.html;_ylt=AhovYtJGwXjJjwytrcJJlDyiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTNyNm0wdHJsBG1pdANGUCBUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGVmdARwa2cDNzkzOTFmMTMtNGIyZi0zMTBiLTlkMjctODNmYWZjMThkNDhiBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzg2MzM4NzIzLThhOGEtMTFlMi1iZmU5LTZkMmU1ZTI5ZTY2NQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3)</p>
<p>Perhaps the Mayor should persuade people that sugary drinks are not in their best interests as opposed to passing a law on it. Mr. Lustig seems to be making some progress in this area.</p>
<p>Or perhaps the Mayor of New York City should attend to more pressing problems, rather than worrying about how much soda people are drinking. What next, regulating how many pepperonis you can have on your pizza?</p>
<p>Don’t give him any ideas, Floridadad55.</p>
<p>It’s the regulation that gets people. Encouraging healthy eating is fine, but forcing it is likely to raise backlash.</p>
<p>We have an agency whose sole purpose is to regulate food and drugs - the Food and Drug Administration. You would not want to live without them. I’m strongly in favor of government regulation of food stuffs - and wish it were more strict than it is today. We force people to eat and not eat certain things all the time, and thank heavens they’ve outlawed my mother’s lungen stew, which is my evidence that, yes Junior, there really is a God, and He looks down upon little children.</p>
<p>But putting that aside, the problem with this particular regulation is that there is no data to indicate that regulating the size of drinks will in fact affect people’s calorie intake, which is the point. So I don’t think it’s a bad regulation, but certainly a premature one.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>The problem that I see with this soda regulation is that it opens the door to countless other intrusive nanny state regulations. For example, why not regulate how big an ice cream cone can be served by Ben & Jerry’s. Or how big a slice of pizza can be. Or how many slices of cheese can be put on your cheeseburger. Plus, our government does not have unlimited funds. Do we really want full time government employees running around regulating all this stuff. Or the outlawing of Corn Beef sandwhiches at the Second Ave Deli. Where would it end? I would think that the mayor of New York City would have more pressing problems to attend to, such as the horrible school system, and the dilapidated infrastructure. And how long before these government bureaucrats will start roaming the restaurants of NYC, ripping food out of the hands of fat people?</p>
<p>Was this an attempt to reduce calories or specific calories (sugar, hfcs)?</p>
<p>“The problem that I see with this soda regulation is that it opens the door to countless other intrusive nanny state regulations.”</p>
<p>There is nothing inherently more “nanny state” about this regulation than banning the sale of beef lungs. (Some people apparently loved them - ugh!) Where should it end? Where the evidence of effectiveness is lacking. And, yes, I really want government employees running around keeping us from unsafe conditions. I would start with the bad air in schools. For more than a decade, the EPA has refused to issue pediatric indoor air quality standards because, to do so, would close half the nation’s schools. (Currently, more than a quarter of the nation’s schools don’t meet air quality standards for adults.) You want to know why kids perform so poorly in schools? Here’s one of the major culprits.</p>
<p>I’m not a great believer in slippery slope - sorry. If folks don’t like the regulations their politicians favor, they get rid of them. It’s called “democracy” - and it (sometimes) works.</p>
<p>We have an obese society and it is only getting worse. At least the Mayor is trying to do something. Reducing calories through portion control makes sense to me. I don’t like government over regulation, but I lalso don’t like having to pay higher health insurance premiums to pay for all the fat people who are too lazy to stop eating mountains of sugar.</p>
<p>I was hoping it would go through, because then we could see if the experiment works. It certainly would make me people more aware of how much they are drinking. If it turned out to be ineffective they could always try something else. I remember when coke machines used to spit out 6 or 8 oz. bottles.</p>
<p>I believe that over consumption of sugar beverages (soda, juice, etc.) is the single biggest nutritional cause of obesity and poor health. </p>
<p>Having said that, government intervention in nutrition is a major part of the problem. Subsidies for sugar and corn. Telling people to eat more carbs. Government policy, bought and paid for by the food industry that makes it possible for General Mills to advertise Honey Nut Cheerios (32% sugar) as “healthy”. For the most part, government intervention makes nutrition worse and advice they give is invariably wrong. So, I fail to see how the solution is to have MORE government involvement. Seems like to me that nutrition would probably improve with less “help” from government.</p>
<p>I have seen stories where Bloomberg proposed other health related initiatives. Does anyone know if any others are close to being implemented?</p>
<p>There is some experimentation for higher healthcare premiums for those that smoke or that are overweight that aren’t in programs to stop smoking or to lose weight or get other metrics down. We may get to the point that it hurts in the wallet for some behaviors. It may already hurt in the wallet as far as the job market goes.</p>
<p>I don’t like it. It punishes those who are healthy as well as those who aren’t. </p>
<p>Pop is literally my only indulgence. I hate candy, sweets, and most other unhealthy foods. Why should the government limit the size of my pop when there are so many other pressing matters? It’s just too controlling. </p>
<p>Yes, obesity is a huge problem in our society. This is not the way to fix it. It also seems that there were so many exceptions that all it would do is hurt “mom and pop” shops.</p>
<p>LOTS of studies have shown that portion size affects how much people eat. The larger the portion, the greater the intake. So, if you make portions smaller, people eat less.</p>
<p>Movie theaters especially “push” the largest sizes. The cost differential is small. When a soda that’s almost twice as big costs only 20 cents more, a lot of people buy the bigger size. If they pair it with salty popcorn, they are likely to drink the whole thing. </p>
<p>In NY, the Supreme Court is the LOWEST level court of general jurisdiction. I assume the administration will appeal. Bloomberg has already said he will. So, it’s not yet known whether the law will ultimately survive. But the ban won’t go into effect tomorrow as planned.</p>
<p>I get the lowest life insurance rates, I was weighed and had to give a blood sample. I fail to see why people who engage in a healthy lifestyle pay the same or nearly the same as the fat smoker who sits on the couch watching TV all day. If our society wants good healthy behavior then bad unhealthy behavior should be penalized.</p>
<p>the argument behind this stupid ban is that the body doesn’t account for the caloric intake of fluids, so one can drink as much soda as he wants, let it drain, and drink more. But see, that’s like ordering a big three course meal and then ordering diet coke. It’s a drop in the bucket, if that.</p>
<p>Things aren’t always what they seem. My wife is well “overweight”. She wrecked both knees as a lifeguard saving a drowning person. But she still runs (all right, plods) three miles every morning, and goes to the gym. She is always on the move in her job as a hospice nurse, and does a lot of walking and lifting as part of her work. She eats a balanced, relatively low calorie diet, doesn’t smoke or drink, but all her hormones were wrecked by treatment for a very aggressive form of cancer, and her metabolism is not likely coming back. You wanna penalize her?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the neighborhood where I grew up, you would be hardpressed to purchase something resembling a fresh vegetable without taking a bus - that is, if you could afford them. Penalize them too?</p>
<p>I agree with razor. I want universal health insurance, but I wish we could make those who lead unhealthy lifestyles pay more than those who don’t.</p>