Julia Boitano

3/29/2013

[Edition 1, Volume 1]

NEWSDAY

LARGE SODA BAN: NOT OVER YET

By Julia Boitano
The day before the proposed ban on large sugary drinks was supposed to go into effect in It is clear that this issue is not over and it needs to be stopped before it wins and it put into action. The recent proposal of the soda ban by BLOOMBERG CALLED TH E STRONGLY WORDED COURT RULING A TEMPORARY SETBACK would restrict the sale of soda and other sweetened beverages over 16 oz. in restaurants, delis, sports New York Citys major, Michael Bloomberg,

AND EMPHASIZING THAT THE CITY

IS CONFIDENT ABOUT WINNING AN APPEAL. New York, a Manhattan judge Milton A Tingling, struck it down. Contrary to popular belief, even though the ban was denied on March 11, it is still relevant. Mayor Bloomberg vowed an appeal late on Monday to try once again to get the ban passed (Hajela). According to the Huffington Post, Bloomberg called the strongly worded court ruling a temporary setback and emphasizing that the city is confident about winning an appeal.

arena vendors, movie theaters and food carts (Sifferlin). Bloombergs main reason for proposing this ban was to reduce obesity. He states Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, Oh, this is terrible. New York City is not about wringing your hands; its about doing something (Park). Yes it is true that

obesity is such a large problem in our country but is this ban the right way to approach the problem? Absolutely not. The soda ban is giving the government too much power which is infringing on the rights of restaurants and the rights of the people. There are also too many loopholes in the ban that if it were enacted, it would not help stop obesity which is its purpose. Lets stop the ban of soda beverages and turn to other ways we can help curb obesity. Long Island should be concerned about this outrageous proposal and protest against the governors appeal. Since the large soda ban would affect movie theatres, it truly hits home on Long Island. Currently there are over 50 movie theatres on Long Island alone which serve the 7.5 million people that live there. At AMC theatres, a large soda costs approximately Concessions $4.75. represent

employs 26,200 people and putting this huge company out of business will put this large number of people out of work ("Consolidated
Statements of Operation). It will additionally

decrease amount of jobs available in the future. The soda ban would be giving the government too much control and infrigining on our rights and the rights of restaurants. As individuals, it is our responsibility and choice on the amount of soda we intake. This right to choose is being taken away from us by this ban of large sugary drinks. Why should we be told exactly what we can and cannot drink? Liz Berman, the President of Continental Food and Beverage, Inc., spoke out about her view of choice, This proposal restricts choice. New Yorkers can make our own choices about what to buy, and in what quantities whether its soda, lemonade, tea or a juice or sports drink (Sifferlin). If they are restricting our choice of beverage, what are they going to continue restricting in the future? If this ban is passed, where will the line be drawn? What is the government going to tell me next? What time to go to bed? How big my steaks should be? the

28% of their total $2 billion in revenue. This soda ban will diminish the movie theatres potentially

profits,

putting them out of business. AMC currently

City Council from Queens, Dan Halloran proposed (Sifferlin). According to the New York Times, regulating container sizes was an improper or overreaching use of the Board of Healths powers. Once again, this new ban would be overstepping the Board of Healths bounds and giving them too much authority. The Board of Health has a duty to protect the citizens by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseased. They do not have the authority to ban an item in order to control chronic disease (Saul). Additionally, many might compare this ban to the ban of smoking in restaurants that was enacted in 2002. The difference is that the effect of large sodas does not have a direct correlation to obesity. Not everyone who has a sugary drink over 16 oz. will suffer from health problems while everyone who smokes will face health consequences (Saul). This difference allows for the smoking ban to be enacted by the Board of Health but shows why the soda ban should not be allowed.

Furtherore,

this

ban

would

be

discriminating against restaurants. According to the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendement, no state is allowed to deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law (Equal Protection). It can be argued that the ban is going against this and discriminating against restaurants (Booth). Since the ban applies to restaurants and not convenience or grocery stores, they are not getting the same protection. Along with this, the governement is going too far and hurting small businesses. According to the New York Times, Mr. Bloombergs plan would disproportionately hurt minority-owned small businesses, which faced competition from larger convenience stores like 7-Eleven that would be exempt from the soda restrictions because of a quirk in New Yorks regulatory structure. People would choose to go to big chains such as 7-11 instead of the small businesses since they are still allowed to sell beverages larger than 16 oz. By taking business away from small businesses, competition would be taken away, jobs with good wages and benefits would decrease, money in the local economy

would decrease and the feeling of community would slowly be lessened (Mitchell). With the state the economy is in, the last thing we want to do is make it even worse if it is in control. If the ban wins its appeal and is enacted, logically it just doesnt make sense. There are too many loop holes within the proposal that defeat the purpose of its goal. Since the law would prohibit the sale of soda larger than 16 oz. and not soda in general, the public could easily purchase many small bottles or just get a refill on their already purchased drink. Another large loophole within the proposal was where exactly these large sugary drinks would be banned. The ban is exempt from grocery stores and convenience stores which would once again allow the public to consume large amounts of sugary beverages and defeat the purpose of the ban to begin with.

and their famous, or infamous, Big Gulp containers, are exempt because they are not under the jurisdiction of the Health Department pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health and New York State Department of agriculture and market (Saul). These big gulp drinks range from 20 ounces all the way to 50 ounces and would still be available to the public. Someone could be denied a 20 oz. beverage from a deli, walk across the street and purchase a 50 oz. soda from 7-11.

It doesnt seem to me like this ban would truly be According to Milton A. Tingling, a justice on the helping limit state supreme court of Manhattan and the judge sweetened, beverages. Lastly, not all sugary responsible for deciding whether this ban can be put into effect, The respondents assert the Portion Cap Rule is based solely on health milkshakes, alcoholic beverages, frozen coffees considerations and the aforementioned and lattes would be exempt from this ban establishments, including the 7-11 marker chains drinks are incorporated into this ban. Drinks containing more than 50% milk, such as the consumption of sugary,

(Rettner). Judge Tingling explains that this is just nonsensical because some of these beverages contain more calories and sugar than the targeted drinks. According to Fox News, Mayor Michael Bloomberg saw the measure as an opportunity to make the city healthier, citing sugary drinks and large portion sizes as culprits in the obesity epidemic. If the loopholes in the ban, allow the public to have the amount of soda they want anyway then how is the ban going to make the city healthier? Not only would this ban not work in curbing obesity because of the loopholes within the proposal but it is not the most effective way to adress the problem of obesity. There are so many other high calorie foods and drinks that this ban alone would not be able to help obesity. You may not be able to get a 24 oz. soda but you are completely allowed to purchase a big mac and a large fry with a chocolate milkshake. There is also not one sole habit that causes obesity. Besides for unhealthy diets, The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, states an inactive lifestyle, enviornment, genes, health conditions, lack of a sleep, and emotional factors as other

causes of obesity. Because of this, it would be more effective to educate and inform the public on the issue of obesity rather than limiting consumers decisions. Just like cigarettes, it would be effective to stamp the drinks with warning labels so the right to choose is not be taken away from consumers ("Soda Ban Ineffective in End Goal). With the use of warning label and educational programs, the public will be fully aware and knowledgeable of the obesity epidemic in the US and can respond in the way they feel necessary. Even though Judge Milton A. Tingling regected the ban of sugary beverages over 16 oz. the issue is still prevelent. With Mayor

Bloombergs appeal, there is still a possibility this ban could be enacted, limiting the rights of citizens. Long Island is directly affected through restaurants and movie theatres and citizens should fight back. Not only is the government

demolishing our right to choose but they are also not helping with the obesity epidemic in the best

way

possible. such and

The as

ban

contains

multiple alcoholic and

calories from sugary drinks is just one of them. Educational problems and warning lables are just some ways to help curb obesity without the government having too much power.

loopholes beverages,

milkshakes, being

lattes

exempt

convenience and grocery stores still being allowed to sell the large beverages. There are better ways to handle the situation especially because there is not just one sole cause of obesity. A culmination of many different things can bring about obesity and intake of a large quantity on