On Tuesday, July 24, 2012, New York City’s Department of Mental Health and Hygiene will hold a public hearing about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on sugary beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces.
As Reason points out, this involves not only full-calorie sodas but even iced tea sweetened with honey.
A poll taken on June 4 shows that most people are opposed to yet another Bloomberg ban (emphases mine):
Rasmussen found 65 of Americans oppose a law that would ban the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 ounces; 24 percent favor such a law. When asked about the constitutional authority to enact such a law, 9 percent think Bloomberg does have the authority to prevent people from buying sugary drinks, while 85 percent disagree. Virtually all major demographic groups Rasmussen identified oppose the sugary-drinks ban in equal proportion.
The widest divergence comes in the political identification of those polled, giving more evidence to my hypothesis that leftists like bans:
Forty-one percent of Democrats favor a ban and 45 percent oppose, in contrast 11 percent of Republicans favor and 80 percent oppose.
You can read a list of the questions here. They are straightforward.
Baylen Linnekin, writing for Reason, reviews the ban and reminds us of previous Bloomberg interventions:
I’ll be speaking in opposition to the ban at the hearing—on behalf of the members and supporters of the nonprofit I lead, Keep Food Legal—for two main reasons. First, the ban would restrict food freedom of choice. In this way it’s no different than several other New York City food-related bans dreamt up by Mayor Bloomberg’s administration that I noted in an earlier Reason column on the soda ban. A partial list of these bans includes a proposal to restrict new tavern licenses, a suggested ban on happy hours, a ban on food donations to homeless shelters, an attempt to limit restaurants’ use of salt, and a trans fat ban.
As with Tobacco Control efforts over the past few decades, Linnekin notes that the Food Control science is spurious:
The second reason the ban is a bad idea is that it rests on bad assumptions. It’s this latter argument that particularly interests me here.
For one, the justification for the proposed rule appears to rest largely on a claim that Americans are obese because we “consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks.” But nothing in the one citation on which that claim is based, a 2005 article in the Annual Review of Public Health, directly supports this bold claim.
Rather, the authors of that study looked at the results of five earlier studies that showed “caloric intake rose by roughly 12% (300 calories per day) between 1985 and 2000, mainly because of increased consumption of grains, added fats, and added sugars.”
The closest the researchers get to validating the basis of the New York City health department’s proposed rule is when they note an “increased consumption of carbohydrates” in the form of “fruit and soft drinks, [which] are also responsible for a surprising number of calories.” But the authors then immediately cite other research that pegs “increased snacking” (with no mention of soda) as the main factor behind increased caloric intake. What’s more, the ARPH authors conclude that neither soda nor sugar nor carbohydrates but “technology may be primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic” …
“From 1999 to 2010, full-calorie soda sales declined 12.5% while obesity rates went up,” notes New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a group that opposes the ban. “According to the CDC, added sugars consumed from sugar sweetened beverages are down 39% thanks in part to more low- and zero-calorie choices.”
Just as galling as spurious conclusions, however, are the sanctimonious comments from our notional betters in the matter of health and the proposed large soda ban.
Note the similarity to reasoning and rhetoric which has been used over the years against tobacco and civil liberties:
- Rowan University Prof. Lawrence Weisberg, MD: ‘The trivial issues of personal freedom in this case pale before the public health and welfare exigency.’
- Spike Lee, filmmaker: ‘I’m in favor of [the soda ban] … Children today in public schools across the country are not being taught art, are not being taught music and they have no physical ed. Obesity is a major, major problem in this country. Americans-we’re just obese. It’s crazy.’
- Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation: ‘Soda isn’t food. It has no nutritional value. And soda consumption has been strongly linked to obesity and diabetes. New York City has every right to reduce the harm and the health care costs being imposed by irresponsible corporate behavior. The mayor’s proposal won’t prevent anyone from buying sugary drinks.’
- Jamie Oliver, English chef and restaurateur: ‘We hear a lot about how we shouldn’t be ‘nannying’ people with laws about how they live their lives, but with such a massive problem as the obesity epidemic to deal with, we are way past the point where can trust people to make better choices. We have to help them make better choices. Good for Mayor Mike for putting the health of his city’s people first and holding firm against the expected pressure from the food and soda industries.’
- Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn: ‘We have an obesity epidemic in this country and need bold and innovative actions to address this crisis.’
- Dodi Meyer, MD, Columbia University Medical Center: ‘I have seen firsthand the effects that obesity has had on NYC’s children … My patients are suffering now from breathing problems during sleep time, some have joint diseases and other are suffering from severe psychiatric issues due to the stigmatization that goes on in school settings. We as a society are responsible to offer children the best future that they can possibly have. It is the first time in history that the next generation is in danger of having a lower life expectancy that the previous one because of the health effects of the current obesity epidemic. Curtailing the sale of supersize sugary drinks can have a huge impact on the health of our children and therefore allow them to live to their maximum potential.’
There are plenty more quotes at the site. They really are right out of the smoking ban playbook.
9 comments
July 24, 2012 at 1:53 am
rebelsprite
I know this isn’t the point of your post, but it occured to me that they’ll probably just start offering 2 for 1 deals on normal sized sodas instead of doing the Big Gulp anyway, people will still get their fix. They aren’t going to stop until they themselves want to…..I’m not sure why there’s such a problem with moderation here. It’s funny, sad, bizarre, and scary wrapped into one.
July 24, 2012 at 8:39 am
churchmouse
Thanks, rebelsprite.
If I were a retailer — individual or chain — I’d be looking at ways around it. A ‘twofer’ is a great idea.
‘It’s funny, sad, bizarre, and scary wrapped into one.’
Indeed, ‘who’d a thunk it’*?
There will be more, if not in NYC, elsewhere in the US and around the world.
*borrowing from Mary McCarthy’s The Group
July 24, 2012 at 5:48 am
smokervoter
Hello Churchmouse. Finally a chance to drop off a comment on your timely, excellent blog.
When I hear people say that there’s no difference between the two parties it makes me crazy. I sometimes hear the term Republicrats bandied about. Well I’m here to say this is bunko and if conservatives sit out the election over this false assumption they’re doing the nation irreparable harm.
I’m glad to see that you boldfaced the four-to-one tendency of Democrats-to-Republican to accept Nanny State tyranny. That in essence is what has become the critical difference between the two competing parties.
I would have preferred Herman Cain or Ron Paul to Romney. Dr. Paul seems more intent on legalizing the intoxicating green variety of smokage and, except for a 2009 treatise on tobacco prohibition, has been mum on the issue in the main. He could have gained himself more votes by courting our vote but evidently chose not to. If an individual state decides to fine and imprison smokers, under his states rights convictions, I doubt if he would have any objection.
Throwing away your vote on the Libertarian party will simply elect more freedom-squelching Democrats. They’ll get 2% max of the total, so you can brag about your moral purity as you plunk down $20 for a 12-pack of soda pops.
To be sure, there are some despicable RINO’s out there like Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and Oklahoma’s Mary Fallin. He’s retiring and she should be retired – by the smokervoters of that state. On the other hand there are zero Democrats who are even the least bit concerned with ending the health fanaticism of modern day America. They stoke the fire.
Romney’s likely chief-of-staff argued against the SCHIP tobacco tax, which (R) George Bush Jr. vetoed. Romney did not stick the smokers of Mass. with the cost of RomneyCare, his Democrat successor did. Practically any GOP candidate is preferable when it comes down to personal freedom. I think all smokers and stout folks should vote 100% Republican.
I see the occasional large FREEDOM marquee behind Romney at campaign rallies, something you’ll never see at a Democratic party function. They scoff at ‘freedom freaks’ and consider that some kind of old-fashioned, destructive laissez-faire concept.
Spike Lee’s comment doesn’t surprise me in the least. If totalitarianism, in the name of public health, ever becomes the trend, lefties like him will embrace it wholeheartedly in the name of pseudo-intellectual coolness.
You’re a very keen observer of the American body politic. Stateside bloggers take note – add this blog to your blogrolls.
July 24, 2012 at 9:33 am
churchmouse
Thank you friend, for your fulsome sentiment in your final paragraph — greatly appreciated!
I’m delighted that you stopped by to comment and to give such a comprehensive rundown of where the US is politically.
Although like you (I suspect), a libertarian, there is no way anyone should vote for a third party this year. Yes, a vote for a third party puts the Democratic incumbent back in office.
What was appalling in 2008 was reading that as many as 5m registered voters, thought to have been conservative, sat out the US election. Their reason was that McCain was a RINO (well, he was, but there are times when you have to vote for a compromise candidate in order to achieve your objective). Some of these 5m commented online saying, ‘Call me in four years when you need my help. Hopefully, there will be a real conservative to vote for’.
Any casual observer could have foreseen where we would be today. Those non-voting guys and gals helped the Dems put a serious wound into America. I hope they are proud of themselves for their so-called principles. McCain could have won, but, no, he wasn’t conservative enough for this lot. Pffft.
Today’s Dems are Socialists, there’s no way around that one. In fact, if I were a Republican, I’d start sending a message along that line. It wouldn’t be for Romney to say, but for use in a GOP PAC advert. ‘This is not your grandparents’ Democratic Party’. Then, go into a load of Socialist programmes and thought leadership (e.g. Sunstein for his ‘nudge’, Van Jones for his conspiracy theories) that have so characterised the past four years.
The Democratic Party and their supporters have ruined America over the past 50 years. And Bloomberg was a Dem who became a Republican only so he could run against Giuliani (IIRC); now he’s an independent. He’s still got all the left-wing control freakery of a Democrat. (Let us also not forget how accommodating he was to Occupy last year in Turcotti Park …)
As for their attachment to the nanny state, in the US, I would trace it back to people like Ralph Nader (remember Nader’s Raiders?) and ‘concerned women”s groups like MADD. All of this created the crescendo of ‘There oughta be a law against it’, and, lo, there was: mandatory seatbelts, non-smoking flights under two hours, transfat bans, etc. All these directly or indirectly bear a Democratic Party stamp.
Thank you for the tobacco-related info about RomneyCare and Ron Paul. I didn’t know either of those things. Although I like Paul more than dislike him, he does have some odd positions (cannabis over tobacco and the Muslim world over Israel).
Well, I could go on — there’s so much more to say, so if you’d like to come back and continue the discussion, please feel free.
Bottom line — third parties are spoilers, as you noted. Same thing happened in France this year. Marine Le Pen’s FN — necessary as a voting valve to let off steam (they are in a bad way) — really shouldn’t have been used for the Presidentials. Now Hollande is in and it will be difficult to shift him and the Socialists out of there in five years’ time. Sarkozy was a CINO and bad enough on social policy, but Hollande will really veer left.
I’m not sure if you’ve seen the following links, smokervoter, but they might be of interest:
http://freebeacon.com/democratic-domain/ (Eminent domain in San Bernardino County — a group of wealthy Dems)
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/19/military-insider-president-obama-by-any-means-necessary/ (Obama re-election meme and Agenda 21)
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/23/military-insider-barack-obamas-troubling-personal-behavior/ (continuation of previous link)
Since 2008, I’ve had this feeling that the US could turn into Argentina, where their decline started 13 years ago. This is one man’s report, an Argentinian who moved to Northern Ireland earlier this year. He draws parallels between the two countries:
http://ferfal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/argentina-now-you-cant-leave.html
http://ferfal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/attacking-american-dream.html
http://ferfal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/when-will-shtf-in-usa.html
Smokervoter, it’s been great hearing from you. Feel free to drop by anytime for more political exchanges!
July 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm
garyk30
I feel that we should stop calling these people ‘Nannies’.
They are ‘BULLIES’ and nothing less.
As with all ‘Bullies’, they are cruel, vicious, power hungry monsters!!!!
July 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm
churchmouse
Excellent point, Gary.
What else do bullies do? Deprive people of creature comforts, just as in this case.
Obesity epidemic, my foot. I was finished with Jamie Oliver after his foray into West Virginia a couple of years ago. Now I’m also finished with Spike Lee. Sad, but there you go.
I’m sorry to read that Jamie Oliver doesn’t think we can be trusted. It would be interesting to find out what makes him such a health authority, especially as he has packed on the pounds in the past few years. He should mind his own business.
As for Spike Lee, who seems to be saying that the government needs to take care of us every step of the way, well … he can help spread the word about returning to a well-rounded childhood, which he also described in his comment. If the neighbourhood isn’t safe enough, then perhaps he can help the honest men and women in those neighbourhoods to take their areas back. But that’s a lot more difficult than implementing a soda ban and involves some degree of personal risk and responsibility.
July 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm
lleweton
I think a valuable dialogue has developed recently between those who are concerned for freedom from an ethical point of view and those who do so from a religious position. If that is happening, then much credit, yes, I will say so, is due to you CM. And may it bear fruit, abundant, with vigorous seeds for the future. Meanwhile, today, I visited an internationally famous hospital for XRay for arthritis. At the main entrance, huddled, I can only describe it as that, were two elderly men in wheelchairs, nursing cigarettes secreted in the palms of their hands. They sat next to some waste bins. At least they were not descended on and removed but, to me, they seemed utterly alone. We are being subjected to a health culture which standardise everyone, like beans in a Heinz can. HOW can doctors, of all people, with experience that we are all different and individual, keep silent while this persecution goes on – and while civilised, compassionate remedies can easily be provided?
July 24, 2012 at 8:48 pm
churchmouse
Thank you, Llew.
It is repugnant to think that people who have paid into the health service — let’s not forget that — are forced out by rubbish bins, in what is now very hot weather, to have a quiet gasper whilst awaiting results or have a brief respite from further tests.
Thank Heaven the staff did not remove them or ask them to extinguish their cigarettes. Yes, this does make ordinary taxpayers feel very alone, indeed.
Is sitting next to waste bins, especially at an elderly age, good for hospital patients?
A special place in Hell awaits healthist hospital administrators, doctors and nurses. Vile.
Llew, you struck a chord there with voicing an objection to our standardising everyone, ‘like beans in a Heinz can’ (for overseas readers: the UK’s best known brand of baked beans). Words fail me.
As far as bridging the gap between the secular and religious in this respect, there never used to be a problem until a decade or so ago. Those who stood for liberty — and fought for it — stood shoulder to shoulder. No more, it seems. If this blog can go some way towards bridging that gap, then, so be it. I am happy to participate in a small way.
Thanks again for the insight and the comment, friend — I do appreciate it.
August 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm
A Link to the Past 10/08/2012 « In Defence of Liberty
[...] Churchmouse Campanologist: New York Soda Ban: A ‘Trivial’ Issue of ‘Personal Freedom’ [...]