First of all, let me get this off my chest: it really bugs me when the media refers to this as a “soda ban.” It’s a ban on the sale of soda in cups larger than 16oz, or a restriction on soda sales, but not a “soda ban.”
Okay, end rant, begin article.
The controversy over New York City’s soda restrictions, set to go into effect in March, hit an unexpected snag last week when the local chapter of the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation filed a joint brief accusing the new law of being discriminatory: because of jurisdictional technicalities between city agencies, the restriction will impact small corner delis and sandwich shops — more likely to be black- or Hispanic-owned — but not large convenience stores.
But The New York Times points out
the N.A.A.C.P. has close ties to big soft-drink companies, particularly Coca-Cola, whose longtime Atlanta law firm, King & Spalding, wrote the amicus brief filed by the civil rights group in support of a lawsuit aimed at blocking Mr. Bloomberg’s soda rules, which are set to take effect in March.
Coca-Cola has also donated tens of thousands of dollars to a health education program, Project HELP, developed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The brief describes that program, but not the financial contributions of the beverage company. The brief was filed jointly with another organization, the Hispanic Federation, whose former president, Lillian Rodríguez López, recently took a job at Coca-Cola.
The N.A.A.C.P.’s New York office referred questions to the American Beverage Association, the soft-drink industry’s lobbying group and the primary plaintiff in the suit against the city’s new soda rules.
- Sidebar: When Coke was the “white Cola” and Pepsi was the “Negro cola”
September 13, 2012: Bloomberg 1, Big Soda 0
Today, New York City’s Board of Health approved Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of cups of soda over 16oz (which does, however, include some loopholes: see New York City’s Soda Ban Explained). It will take effect in six months, pending legal challenges (“We are exploring legal options, and all other avenues available to us,” says Eliot Hoff, spokesman for the soda-industry financed organization New Yorkers for Beverage Choices).
- July 24: Public hearings today, Board of Health vote in September, lawsuits no doubt continuing until Mayor Bloomberg leaves office in 2014 after which this all becomes a very expensive moot point.
- Coca-Cola: ”There is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity”
- Richmond, California Voters Weigh Soda Tax: They’ll vote in November whether to impose the nation’s first-ever surcharge on sodas and sugary drinks (though other municipalities have proposed them in the past). Supporters say the penny-per-ounce tax will raise between $2 million and $8 million per year, which will be used to pay for soccer fields, school gardens and programs to treat diabetes and fight childhood obesity.
For links to CJA posts as soon as they go online, as well as Facebook-only content, please “like” us (using the button on the upper right-hand portion of this page).
All articles on this site are
© 2013 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
“Councilman Corky Booze”? That defies comment because there’s just too much to choose from.
Yes, that’s the trouble with being a comedian who talks about politics … Sometimes you just can’t top reality.
Wasn’t it Will Rogers who said “I just talk about what I read in the papers”?
Next they’ll be saying that too many calories connects to obesity.
“Even a Twinkie has some nutritional value. But soft drinks have none. They’re poisonous”.
One twinkie (and who ever eats just one) has 150 calories and 2 grams of saturated fat. By “some nutritional value”, I’m assuming he’s referring to the 1 gram of protein that it contains or the 4% of the RDA of iron. That’s kind of like saying pushing on the TV remote control buttons at least provides some exercise.
The twinkie is also a unit, equal to the average amount paranormal activity in New York City.
Marry me?
There are people who have a highly active lifestyle for whom a 32oz soft drink, even daily, isn’t going to push them into obesity. There is no shortage of obese people who consume only diet soda. That said, all other things being equal, people who drink nothing but sugary fizzy water are going to have a lot of calories provided by that fizzy water, and that’s going to affect their overall tendency to retain body fat. But, it’s nowhere near the top of the list. The real culprits are A) inactivity, B) the amount of meat in the American diet, and C) portion sizing.
I’ve read a lot of debate over that. For one, Americans topped out the amount of red meat in our diet in the 1970s; why have we been getting fatter since then? Some of what I’ve read indicates that the amount of simple carbohydrates is the prime determiner on how fat you get; and other things have shown that people who drink diet soda aren’t any less fat then those who drink normal soda.
Re your c):
The ban addresses NOTHING BUT portion size. It bans *cups* larger than 16 oz. with soda in it. It does not ban or limit the amount of soda or anything else sold to anyone.
One will still be able to legally buy 32 oz of soda — it will just have to be sold as 2 16 oz cups, or 1 16 oz cup with free refills.
Regardless of how you feel about the soda tax, Coke saying its products don’t make anyone fat kinda reminds of the cigarette companies’ old shenanigans.
And James, sorry to burst your vegan bubble, but it ain’t the meat. People lose weight on Atkins living on bacon milkshakes. Based on my personal weight loss/gains the key problem is carbohydrates, and simple overeating. People (Americans, that is) don’t wait until we’re hungry to eat. We’re on the see food diet.
The Atkins diet is a bit of a fallacy in that we need carbs (as well as fat) in our diets. It’s just that pasta and bread are such a staple of the typical American meal that many get more than needed. A better plan is to monitor what we eat. I’m not willing to eat, say a hamburger, without a bun. So I cut calories elsewhere. To say you’re just going to give up one nutrient is dangerous.
Agree that the Atkins diet is not sustainable long-term, but its success is pretty damning for carbs. Also, I know diabetics who have improved their condition by switching from the old sugar- and calorie-oriented diets to carb counting.
If you look at the foods our gummint subsidizes, it’s heavy on the carbs. Corn and wheat in particular. People are gonna buy the cheapest calories they can find.
Not just the USA either. This is kinda interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/11/why-our-food-is-making-us-fat
So say you go to one of many places that provide self serve beverages. From what I understand, the ban doesn’t apply to diet drinks, so they still provide cups holding more than 16 ounces. What’s to stop you from grabbing a 60 ounce cup and filling it with whatever you want? I’m glad see New York has solved all of their problems to get to a point where they can worry about stuff like this.
I believe the rule says a place whose self-service includes sugary drinks can’t provide cups larger than 16 oz.
The mayor did this through the Board of Health because the city council wasn’t interested. My guess is the council will overturn it.
But he got people talking about the amount of sugar they consume, and I think that was his real goal. His ban on trans-fats didn’t spread across the country, but the New York rule led to a lot more awareness and changes to restaurant chain recipes.
Don Asmussen has already weighed in on what will happen if the “Soda Bill” becomes law:
http://assets.amuniversal.com/37f19360e013012fe95f001dd8b71c47
I’ll give you my 32-ounce drink when you pry it from my cold, fat hands!
If the jurisdictional splits are causing the law to be enforced differently, then it’s a sign that the jurisdictions need to be reconsidered and better-calibrated, because at least one of them is either being too strict or too lax. That doesn’t mean the laws they are supposed to enforce are wrong.