Soda industry sues NYC over sugary drink limits

Soft-drink makers, restaurateurs and other businesses are suing to block New York City's move to end the sale of super-sized, sugary drinks in many eateries.

The American Beverage Association and others sued the city Friday. City officials had no immediate response.

The lawsuit says the unelected health board shouldn't be telling people how much soda to drink. The suit also says the rule "burdens consumers and unfairly harms small businesses."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls it a reasonable, promising way to curb obesity.

• NYC Health Commissioner on soda ban: "We are just making healthy choices easier"
• New York City's sugary drink limits: What's next?

The city Board of Health approved the unprecedented regulation last month. It would stop restaurants, cafeterias and concession stands from selling soda and other high-calorie drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

8 Photos

New York City's ban on big sodas

The rule will apply in restaurants, fast-food chains, theaters, delis, office cafeterias and most other places that fall under the Board of Health's regulation. People who buy sugary drinks at such establishments will still have an option to purchase an additional 16-ounce beverage.

Exempt from the ban are sugary drinks sold at supermarkets or most convenience stores and alcoholic and dairy-based beverages sold at New York City eateries.

The rule is set to take effect in March.

[Fed-Up_Patriot]

Thank you American Beverage Association.. Sue the hell out of this socialist control freak..... Where can we send donations to help with the lawsuit?

[Fed-Up_Patriot]

Also your lawyers should also - look into the interstate commerce clauses of the US constitution.. If your bottling facilities for 32oz drinks were all out of state then a strong case exist that the new soda ban infringes interstate commerce.. Also while we are on this topic YOU MUST ANNOUNCE VERY LOUDLY to the news media the layoffs and bottling plant closures that are a direct result of this bad law.

[T-Prop]

This is silly.
What a goofy country this has become.

[lolapalooza1116]

@ALPAA10000:

It would behoove you to research the difference between liberty and tyranny.

The difference between a good hearted statist and a jack booted thug are negligible.

You might also want to spend a few moments on the concept of personal responsibility.

[centralcacoast]

You know, what I don't get is this. There are bans/proposed bans for trans fat, supersize, and soda size. I'm sure there will be many more to come. Why is there no ban, or proposed ban on tobacco consumption. I can't buy a 32 oz soda to drink on my trip, but I can smoke a carton of cigarettes if I want. Really? Tobacco lobbyists are clearly more effective than food/beverage lobbyists.

[voxpopulus]

NOBODY needs 32 ozs of soda in one sitting. Idiots.

[voxpopulus]

Drug dealers are small businesses too. No-one is stopping you drinking as much sugar as you like. Get obese. And then complain how the world unfairly favors skinnies.

[eroteme2]

I wonder why Bloomberg has not informed us how long it will take to curb obesity using his brilliant plan to ban 32oz sugary soda containers. It will be impressive to visit New York City and see no obese people, I would guess there will neither be any people there who are overweight. The mystery now, for me, is how will Bloomberg keep thirsty sugary soda drinkers from slurping two 16oz sugary sodas instead of one 32oz sugary soda. There may be an unseen problem here, think of all the publications providing diet programs that will go broke if this 32oz container ban spreads throughout the country, adding more to the unemployed. I have not yet heard of any liberal Democrats who are saying Bloomberg has no feeling for us common people, who slurp sugary sodas because he is filthy rich.

[alphaa10000]

Apparently, many things remain a mystery to you-- the article itself notes nothing prevents your buying two or two thousand 16 ounce containers. But the NYC measure does make heavy consumption more inconvenient, which is the whole idea.

How long the measure will require to "curb obesity" is a straw-man argument, since there are many factors at work in obesity-- over-consumption of sugary soft drinks only one. The NYC legislation is designed to promote better health by addressing one prominent source of obesity, as well as obese public health costs in later years.

[1notrub11]

Alpha, then why not regulate ALL sources of over consumption of sugar? The reasoning is the same.

The monies associated with regulating and enforcing such laws are better spent on health education. Much better in the long term to educate rather than legislate.

[maiingan]

How does this "burden consumers"? By making them buy 2 of these sweet drinks? Tell ya what burdens consumers a lot more: having to lug around excess flab. Getting diseases in which too much fat on the body is a risk factor.

[MegaProcrastination]

I was wondering the same thing and then I remembered something. When we go to the theater (which is rarely) we buy one large drink and share it. That alone costs around $3 or $4. If we were in NYC we'd end up having to buy two which would most likely cost $2 or $3 each. The extra expense of that can be a burden.

However, I'm more inclined to drink water or iced tea than pop anyway since I don't drink sugar and I've poisoned myself more than plenty enough with diet pop over the years. In the end, I still think it's goofy of Mayor Bloomberg to think limiting the size of soft drink a person can buy will do anything more than anger consumers.

[AnotherJean]

If you want more soda, just buy another one. Obesity is a major factor in cancer and heart disease, and it is one of the great big reasons that health care is so expensive. Obesity is as bad as smoking, and we restrict that by age, don't we? Everywhere I go, I see many, many people who are 100% overweight, something that was not true when I was a kid in the 1950s and 1960s. Gluttony costs us all. Get some sense and self-control, for crying out loud.

[MIO42]

When an Industry can't Police itself
It's going to end up being Policed!
Why should taxpayers be penalized for a few who are Gluttons
Why should health facilities have to carry the load for a few who tank up on calories that can kill good health
There are people with legitimate health concerns who haven't tried to dig themselves a grave with their MOUTH

[MegaProcrastination]

I don't know. If I pay health insurance premiums why should those premiums be paying for other women having babies or for someone else's birth control?

[alphaa10000]

@Megaprocrastination-- Insurance is voluntary, and takes into account the risk of all subscribers (but very seldom pays directly for birth control).

The cost to public health from obesity is not voluntary, like an insurance policy, but is a definite tax burden and research-based outcome of poor health practices.