Bloomberg "confident" soda ban will be upheld

Last updated 6:06 p.m. EST

Smaller sodas were set to hit New York City eateries tomorrow until a judge stepped in at the eleventh hour to strike down the new regulations.

New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled Monday that the city may not enforce the new regulation, CBS New York reported Monday afternoon. The ban, which was set to take place Tuesday, applied to sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces sold at restaurants, fast food establishments, delis, sports venues and movie theaters. The limits do not apply to milk-based and alcoholic beverages sold at these eateries. Also exempt are sugar-sweetened drinks sold at grocery stories and convenience stores.

Tingling said loopholes in the regulations defeated the limit's stated purpose.

"It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to limitations on re-fills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule," Tingling wrote in his ruling.

8 Photos

New York City's ban on big sodas

There was to be a three-month grace period before violators could face $200 fines.

"I definitely believe it's going to hurt my business," Mary Cira of Pronto Pizza, told CBS New York ahead of the ban. She said she had to throw out about $1,000 worth of 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles of soda and change her menus. "I have a combo special with a 2-liter soda."

Since the sugary drink limits were first proposed last May, health advocates have lauded Mayor Michael Bloomberg for taking a unique step to combat obesity, while consumer groups and advocates for small business owners have accused the mayor of wanting to turn the city into a nanny state.

Play Video

Sugar war: Is the sweet stuff toxic?

"Certainly the Bloomberg Big Gulp ban is not going to solve obesity, but you know what? It's a good baby step," sugar researcher Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said on CBS This Morning in February. "It's going in the right direction."

Center for Consumer Freedom Senior Research Analyst J. Justin Wilson said in a statement he didn't expect the ban to make a meaningful difference, according to CBS New York.

"Personal irresponsibility is what got New Yorkers to put on a few extra pounds. And it's going to take personal responsibility, not a government takeover of our diet, to shed that weight," he said.

Critics and the American Beverage Association had taken their challenges to court since the Board of Health approved the mayor's proposal in September.

"It would be a tremendous waste of expense, time, and effort for our members to incur all of the harm and costs associated with the ban if this court decides that the ban is illegal," Chong Sik Le, president of the New York Korean-American Grocers Association, said in court papers filed in February.

CBS New York reported that some businesses were holding off on making changes to their menus while awaiting a court to challenge or delay the ban. The judge issued his ruling Monday afternoon.

Play Video

Bloomberg on 'Big Gulp' law: Not banning anything, just portion control

Mayor Bloomberg defended the ban on the March 10th "Face The Nation."

"This year, for the first time in the history of the world, more people will die from too much food than from too little food. More people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation. And we've got to do something about this. This is going to bankrupt the country. Our medical system cannot handle it," he said. "We've just got to do something. And all we're doing in New York is reminding you that it's not in your interest to have too many empty calories," he added.

One day ahead of the rules going into effect, the mayor's office had also released a study that found nine out of 10 of the New York City neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates also were neighborhoods with the highest rates of sugary drink consumption. City officials said the new data is the latest evidence that sugary drinks are harming New Yorkers' health.

"Reducing sugary drink consumption is critical to reducing obesity and obesity-related illnesses, which kill more people in New York City than anything except smoking. This is what the portion cap on sugary drinks is all about," city Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said in a statement.

• Bloomberg wants soda ban to go statewide so it applies to grocery stores
• New York soda ban's rivals spar in court
• NYC soda ban goes into effect in March, but fines won't start for 3 months

Bloomberg tweeted Monday that his office plans to appeal:

We plan to appeal the sugary drinks decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the measure will ultimately be upheld.

-- NYC Mayor's Office (@NYCMayorsOffice) March 11, 2013

The mayor also held a Monday evening press conference where he defended the sugary drink limits, noting their was initial controversy surrounding some of his earlier health campaigns like banning smoking in workplaces or banning trans fats.

"It would be irresponsible not to do everything we can to try and save lives," he said.

Bloomberg also expressed confidence that the ruling would be turned over on appeal and that a judge would eventually rule the city Board of Health was within its legal limits.

"There are many instances where a lower court decision has gone against us and been reversed," he said.

[SaraServalis]

This treasonous fascist Nazi ought to BAN the beating of peaceful demonstrators into a bloody pulp who are exercising their Constitutional Right To Assemble.

Bloomberg should be ARRESTED and IMPRISONED immediately.

[legalbutunjust]

The real position on Bloomberg's part, is to get people to think about their choices BEFORE a decision is reached on what amount to pay for soft drinks. How much are the extra ounces worth to you, basically, is the direct message.

This ban, now temporarily blocked by a supreme court judge with jurisdiction in the matter, is designed to, essentially, kick people in their wallet.

If you read the underlying message coming from this enactment, it's basically saying that people's intake habits with their body, their consumption and calorie habits, their overall health, is all now between whatever addiction or pattern of choices they have, and an ADDED cost to maintain those addictions and patterns.

Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from consuming as much soda as you want to, at any one point in time. Hap at it; it'll just cost you more insofar as the fact that available sizes for purchase have been curtailed, in terms of only quantity.

There will still be the same soda, the same old menu of soft drinks and sugary options when it comes to beverages. And there will still be large quantities available (provided, however, demand still permits the business to increase their supply and at a profit). If you want more than the available amount, you'll just have to order more than one (or maybe more than even two of the biggest size, depending on the kind of business).

The law as it is, doesn't give employees of a business the legal right to restrict either how much you spend, or what you choose to drink, wherein soft drinks high in sugar or other less caloric choices are available for you to purchase. It is still, your money, after all.

[SUZAMBA]

I don't agree with Bloomberg idea on banning soda, for the mere fact, that many drinks and foods contain sugar. Will they also be banned for causing obesity? Most sugar consumed in food and drinks, turns into starch, which turns into sugar.
Everyone has the right to agree and to disagree, that is called freedom. You believe healthy people are better off, not so true. They can also face many health issues.
It's sodas now, just what will be next?

[CarsonCitySteve]

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemoller

So now, first your salt, next your sodas, wait until your chocolate goes ....

[Necroscope84]

1pheasant1 replies: linkicon reporticon emailicon "...don't expect a free buggy at your local Walmart. I happen to know people who work there..."
___________________________________

Wow! You certainly have friends in high places. No wonder the smug attitude.

So I shouldn't have friends who work for a living at Walmart? Is something wrong with my freinds? Should they be CEO's of a huge corporation or something? My friends always have a smile on their faces, never take advantage of me, always lend a hand when needed and offer a shoulder to cry on if asked. I could leave a hundred dollars on my table all day long and not a single one of them would ever dream of taking it. They're good people and I'm very PROUD to call them my friends. I don't care where someone works, how much money they do or don't have. They're my friends and I love them for that. Sorry they don't live up to your expectations!

[WilliamSpears]

The United States is the envy of much of the world in regard to its individual freedoms. However, freedom of the level we have enjoyed comes at a price. Freedom to choose can be messy and harmful but the alternative is much worse. Is the price of true freedom worth a single life? Hundreds of thousands already have died for it.

Should the government allow any individual to make an unhealthy decision? Should our government say "I'm sorry Sir/Madame but you are too obese to buy that 32 oz. soda, it will make you fatter and endanger your health"?

What right does any government have to dictate individual legal behavior? When does the "I know best" precedent stop? Bacon, red meat, candy, they are all "bad" for your health in excess. Do we want to surrender our freedom of choice and become drones of a totalitarian government institute?

I hope not. If people die as a result of the freedom of choice we have, it is the cost of that freedom and must be born by society as a whole. We may not like it and seek to control behaviors that we personally don't agree with but freedom means freedom and having other dictate how you live is not what freedom is. Educate, inform and allow.

[AOCGUY]

Unless the individual in question is deemed not competant to make decisions on their behalf or those decisions endanger others then no the government has no business making the decision for them. There may be a few exceptions, although I can't think if any at present.

While I do not choose to injest harmful substances it is certainly my right to do so.

[truth2141]

What a joke, how infantile to try and control stuff like this.

Ridiculous, I hope the judge's decisions sticks

[TimeToEvolve]

I wonder how much money the judge was paid by Coke or Pepsi. In our predatory capitalist disaster of a country just follow the money.

[WilliamSpears]

"TimeToEvolve replies: linkicon reporticon emailicon I wonder how much money the judge was paid by Coke or Pepsi. In our predatory capitalist disaster of a country just follow the money."

You are way too cynical. Why does an action that stops a law that violates individual freedom have to be tied to a money trail? Smaller soda sizes mean more profits as two 16's cost more than one 32. I don't buy the money connection this time.

[oldoc44]

Yeah, this is clearly over-reach (again) but so is the idea of going back to Little House on the Prairie lifestyle as suggested by Ryan and his Teavangelical right wingers. We're getting so polarized and downright reactionary it's starting to get in the way of real progress in our country. Plenty of room for everyone with a bit of a let live approach and some compromise and common sensse.

[vaoldman2]

Just so long as he stays in New York, I have no problem, if he goes anywhere else, he will have a problem with the adults. Besides he gives a lot of humor to the adults outside of New York. Please New Yorkers just stay in New York, don't move.

[1pheasant1]

bikeboat replies:
No napkin? Use one of your fat folds.
__________________________________________________

I have no fat folds, but we could use you as a toothpick.