Opinions clash during New York City soda ban public hearing
iStockphoto
Medical professionals who favor a proposed ban on large-sized sugary drinks likened soda companies to Big Tobacco, saying the plan would protect the public, while opponents accused the city of playing Big Brother and wondered what tasty but unhealthy foods might be targeted next.
Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?
Bloomberg soda ban: Board of Health eyes popcorn and milkshakes
NYC mayor proposes ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who proposed the plan, said that he believed this would combat New York City's obesity problem. City estimates suggest that half of its residents are overweight or obese, according to CBS This Morning. Five thousand New Yorkers die every year from weight-related issues.
"This is becoming a devastating public health issue. It's an epidemic," Bloomberg said.
Medical experts spared no rhetoric in hailing Bloomberg's proposal as a way to protect the public from a soft-drink industry they said pushes carbonated calories on children and employs the same well-financed lobbying tactics as Big Tobacco.
One doctor said before the hearing that the calorie-packed beverages increase the risk of diabetes, and are responsible for a big share of the "massive suffering and premature death" linked to obesity.
"Soda in large amounts is metabolically toxic," said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. "It's obvious that this is the right thing to do."
A 20-ounce bottle of Coca-Cola has roughly the same calorie count as a McDonald's hamburger, but Dr. Kelly Brownell, a psychology, epidemiology and public health professor at Yale University, said it is easier to over-drink than over-eat.
"You don't feel as full when you consume calories in liquids," he said. "These beverages are the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet."
But, some pointed out that sodas aren't the reason for weight problems.
"I'm not overweight because of big-gulp sodas," said Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. "Frankly, I'm overweight because I eat too much pasta, pastrami, bagels, cream cheese and lox, red velvet cake, cheese cake."
Critics ridiculed the idea that city officials should regulate portion sizes.
City Councilman Daniel Halloran III called the proposal a "feel-good placebo" that would hurt profit margins at small businesses while failing to improve anyone's health.
He questioned whether a limit on the size of steak was around the corner.
Chris Gindlesperger, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association, scoffed at the notion that soda makers were similar to tobacco companies.
"There's no comparison," he said. "Cigarettes can kill you. ... Soft drinks are a treat to be enjoyed in moderation - they can play a role in a healthy, balanced and active lifestyle."
Another critical councilman, Oliver Koppell, called the ban "a clear overreaching of government into people's everyday lives."
"This infringement on the rights of New Yorkers leads us to ask what will be banned next?"
Joy Dubost, a nutritionist who works for the National Restaurant Association, said the proposal wasn't backed up by scientific evidence.
"It's not reasonable to blame or cite one product," she said, adding that the proposal "produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity."
Several critics questioned why the city was making a proposal on sugary drinks a priority when some city schoolchildren have no physical education classes.
The proposal requires only the approval of the Board of Health - appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg - to take effect. But opponents could still sue to block the ban, or they could convince legislators to step in and block the proposal.
The board is scheduled to vote on the measure Sept. 13.
New York City's ban on big sodas
Since Bloomberg proposed the ban in May, opponents including members of the restaurant and soft-drink industries as well as libertarians have accused him of attempting to institute a "nanny state" with far-reaching government controls that infringe on individual choice. City officials, meanwhile, argue they are trying to save lives in the face of an epidemic that is killing 5,800 New Yorkers and costing $4 billion each year.
The portion size restrictions would only apply to food-service businesses regulated by the Health Department, including restaurants, food carts, sports arenas, delis and movie theaters. Grocery stores, drug stores and some convenience stores are regulated by the state and would be unaffected.
Drinks that are more than half milk or 70 percent juice would be exempt, and the rule wouldn't apply to lower-calorie drinks like water or diet soda, or to alcoholic beverages.
A poll conducted by NY1-Marist showed that 53 percent said the proposal is a bad idea, while 42 percent praised the concept. Forty-five percent thought the ban would help people lose weight, while 52 percent said they didn't think it would make any difference.
In a letter released Monday by The New England Journal of Medicine, New York University researchers said the ban could affect nearly two-thirds of drinks bought at the city's fast-food restaurants, according to a survey of more than 1,600 receipts. On average, if all sugary-drink buyers who switched from their normal size drink to a 16-ounce one could consume 63 calories less per fast-food outing. Currently, 62 percent of drinks purchased are over the proposed allotted size.
Popular in Health
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Controversial update to psychiatry manual, DSM-5, arrives
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Flesh-eating disease victim gets bionic hands
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- Consumer Reports rates top sunscreens for 2012
- CDC: One in five U.S. kids has mental health disorder
- What does bipolar II mean for Catherine Zeta-Jones?
This is just one more attempt on the part of politicians to enable them to control every aspect of our lives.
It starts out small; what kind of lightbulbs we must use, what kind of cooking oils we can use etc. and proceeds slowly (so you won't notice) and eventually gets to the point where every aspect of your life is concerned.
Obama and Congress are practicing the same kind of treachery.
We have allowed 545 people to control our lives to the point where we are almost a third world country, and millions of Americans are suffering because of them.
No jobs, no funds for teachers, firefighters, police officers, millions homeless because the government refused to intervene when the banks etc. knowingly created the failure of our economy.
How much longer are we going to tolerate this crap.??
All of these actions committed by government are reported as " for our own good", "to HELP Americans improve their lives", 'to improve our safety here at home", while they are doing everything they can to undermine our Constitional rights and spend us into oblivion.
Any politician who claims to be in favor of "smaller government" is lying through their teeth.
Obama wants to nationalize every industry.
The Republicrooks want us to become a government of the 1% of the divided States.
Enough is enough.!!!
More and more I am hearing dire predictions of rioting here in the US when Americans finally wake up and see for themselves how we are being screwed out of our freedoms and literally everything we own.
It's all going to belong to the government, and they are setting it up so that we have no recourse against them.
TERRIFYING DOESN'T BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT.!!!
Like it or not, it is quite obvious that people are simply too dumb or incapable of taking care of their own health. In the face of our obesity epidemic, and the fact that we still have 20% of people smoking, you can't argue against this point. Now, here's the kicker: who pays financially for the poor health decisions of these people? I do, and so does everyone else who has health insurance (which is about to be everybody). That's right, because the costs of health care are ultimately shared across the population (which is, after all, the point of insurance). I happen to be a very health conscious person. I don't smoke, I don't drink soda or other sugary beverages, I exercise very regularly, etc. Why should my health insurance costs go up because other people refuse to take care of themselves? That's why I think if you're too dumb to do it yourself, the government needs to step in.
That being said, I think an excise tax on soda's in general of any size would be a better alternative, just like gasoline or cigarettes. People would freak out about that just as much, but it really is a good idea; then use the tax money to help cover health care. A 100% tax should do it, so a $1 soda would now cost $2, with $1 going to the government to offset the cost of your future heart disease or diabetes meds, and you can drink as much soda as you want since you're paying the cost of your future healthcare (and I don't have to).
How about government stay the hell out of our lives? Stop punishing the masses for the few and let people decide what do for themselves.
While your idea is well intentioned, the idea of government attempting social change, through incentives or punishment is wrong, in my opinion.