Many years ago we limited the volume of sugary drinks consumed by our family. Nothing better than a cold Coke, but not if you can swim in it.

I'm still not licensed to tell you that you should do the same thing at your house. Seriously though, stop. Portion control, it's what's for dinner.

But you should be able to make that decision for yourself, and maybe you want to go sharesies sometimes.

Anyway, it's great to know that things are so awesome in NYC that they can afford to focus on the soda police.

Jumbo beers still available.

Comments

[Thomas]

A few years back I did the simple exercise of writing down everything I ate or drank for two weeks and tallying my daily caloric intake. A real eye-opener. I stopped drinking sweet sodas then. They aren't worth the calories.

[justcorbly]

Every time I have a checkup at the doctor, he asks me if I drink sodas. I say no. He smiles.

[Dale]

A 16 ounce limit is going to be a bit over .9 ounce inconvenient for the bottlers that work in metric.

[Bill Yaner]

"But you should be able to make that decision for yourself."

But you still could. Just buy as many as you want. Studies have shown, though, that the "default" portion suffices in the majority of cases.

Good for Bloomberg, I say. This obesity epidemic is a very serious, very rampant thing for our country. And once again, we find our nation's health being "managed" by those who stand to gain the most from over consumption, I.e. the food industry.

You can trivialize that Mr. Cohn, but I say good for Bloomberg. A man for all seasons.

[Andrew Brod]

Obviously, Thomas' and JC's comments are beside the point. I mean, good for you guys and your healthful food choices, but what does that have to do with the price of HFCS in China? This is about policy, and it's bad policy to constrain choices that don't generate significant externalities.

I heard one of Bloomberg's aides on NPR today, talking about the success of the city's no-smoking-inside ordinance. Again, not the point! The indoor smoking ban was all about the obvious externalities. An excess of sugary drinks just makes people fat.

A Coca-Cola spokesman said that "the people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes." Um, no they're not. But that's irrelevant.

[Andrew Brod]

From a WSJ article: "But puzzling to many in the city are the exceptions to the ban: It wouldn't pertain to supermarkets, groceries or convenience stores. More specifically, 7-Eleven's 'Big Gulp' drink would be safe."

[Bill Yaner]

"An excess of sugary drinks just makes people fat."

Well, yes, but also sick, AB. Very, very sick...just like cigarettes. And with so many of those suffering these sicknesses, the state picks up the tab for their treatment.

Ergo, government should have a say in limiting such egregious obscenities as a 32 ounce of empty carbs that poison the consumer for the sake of maximizing profits.

One man's opinion.

[cheripickr]

"Very, very sick...just like cigarettes--empty carbs that poison the consumer"--corn syrup--seriously? Soda police? Try soda Nazi.

[Account Deleted]

Will they prohibit people from buying two 16 oz drinks at a time or companies from running buy one get one free specials?

[Andrew Brod]

No soda for you!

[Bill Yaner]

No. This is not that slippery slope, Jeff. It's about one very smart man understanding how industry is making our population sick In the city he manages and saying the public interest should be at least as strong as the private interests that profit off the public payments to their bottom line.

I think we're struggling to understand this issue.

[Andrew Brod]

No, we understand it just fine. You think people shouldn't be fully allowed to decide how much sugar water to drink.

[Sean]

uhm, yeah, ab. that's exactly it.

the fast food industry went bonkers with its soda : price ratio (search for "soda") to draw consumers into gulping down huge portions without thinking. and why not? soda water and syrup provide a 90 percent profit margin!!! for new yorkers with ed & lisa as parents, setting good examples, such an industry move would have little affect on their habits, but soda, and chemically processed foods, create habits that creep up on those who are more focused on daily survival (the majority of our country under the middle-income line) than what is the optimal food/drink to consume/imbibe at a particular time of day.

being healthy isn't easy for folks living in a world moving so fast that holding/getting a job, paying rent, raising kids, etc. has to be the primary focus of each day.

so call bloomberg a soda nazi. call him anti-american; a "freedom" taker. i have no problem with legislation that limits (doesn't outlaw) the sale of product that *isn't good for our bodies.* you'll find me outraged when i can't buy multiple heads of broccoli at a time or a large cut of fresh salmon.

lastly, i'll be even more impressed when bloomberg (or obama, on a national level) legislates a healthy menu for school kids, including a ban on soda machines. it amazes me that things like the pizza is a vegetable! fiasco can occur in this day and age.

[cheripickr]

The 1st 3 comments on the NYC article pretty much say it all:

"This is based on ignorance. Most fruit juices are higher in sugar content than most sodas. That the sugar is based on natural fructose rather than high fructose corn syrup does not mitigate the damage. This is just a stupid reaction by some rich guy who saw some fat guy drinking a Big Gulp and wants to use his power and privilege to "stop" "those people" from doing what offends them."

"Seriously?? This is so beyond silly, plus it is going to cost me money. I rarely let my 8 and 10 year old children have soda, and they are both healthy and active, perhaps on the skinny side. The exceptions I make are when we share a large soda at the movies or out to eat. Larger sodas are sold at a significantly lower price per ounce so it makes great economical sense for me to share. so I am now forced to forgo this rare pleasure or pay a higher price for this, even though my kids and my family is active and healthy. But the government won't step in an limit drinking of alchoholic beverages or enforce the law around college campuses even though binge drinking and drunk driving kills untold thousands each year. I am fine with the gov't not stepping in there, but this will do nothing and will cost me hard earned money."

"People are going to drink as much soda as they want regardless of the size available to them. One can always just buy two or get refill. I appreciate the effort, but there are more effective ways to combat obesity."

[Thomas]

AB - You are correct that my comment was not on point. I was just relating my personal experience with giving up soda (or co-cola, as all sodas were called where I grew up).

I agree with you that the proposed NYC ban is bad policy.

[Andrew Brod]

And I'll note that I too am trying to give up pop (as all sodas were called where I grew up). With the birth of our first a few years ago, my wife and I decided that it'd be good to model a no-soda lifestyle (has that phrase ever been written before now?) for our children.

Since then I've backslid. My wife has enabled me (yeah, it's her fault!) by buying Izze and organic sodas, and there's little or no HFCS in our house. But so far I'm still in the thrall (if you believe folks like Bill Y. and Sean) of the food-industrial complex.

I'm working on it. I'm hoping to quit. But it's on me.

In the meantime my hobby today when I take mental breaks from work will be to write a list of policies that are more stupid than telling me I can't buy a 20-ounce soda.

[Andrew Brod]

For what it's worth, my rather hard-nosed views about personal behavior aren't a recent thing. They're at least 15 years old.

[cheripickr]

25 yrs ago I went cold turkey on coca-cola when they changed formula. Stuck with diet coke even when they brought back Classic even though it sucked. About 7 years ago they came out with Coke zero and I am once again a happy boy to the tune of about 8/day. Acesulfame is the best thing to ever happen to diet drinks. If you've noticed that they taste better than they used to, that's why.

[Ed Cone]

Mexican real-sugar Cokes have become easy to find in GSO, for those of us who prefer the taste.

I probably drink 4 Cokes a year, which has much more to do with my adult-onset sensitivity to caffeine than concern over calories.

Sean makes a good point about the industrial food complex and its grip on many people, and I don't think anyone here is advocating the Supersize Me diet. The NYC policy, though, strikes a lot of us as the wrong solution.

[cheripickr]

Great article Andy.

[Andrew Brod]

I thought my conservative homies would appreciate it.

[polifrog]

I wish you'd keep that kind of stuff to yourself, Andrew. Cone too.

Agreement is so ... boring.

[Roger Greene]

It's certainly OK for NYC to buy billboards and run ads educating folks about what is and what isn't good for them, but to intervene and try to force choices upon people is about as silly as can be. To be sure, if you ban something that has immediate harm and is likely to poison you then that's a different animal than something that can be consumed in moderation without harm. Funny still that no attacks on alcohol are forthcoming, but something with generally milder negative outcomes than alcohol, used even in moderation, is drawing the Big Brother response.

Heck, when a diabetic goes into a low sugar shock hospital staff will give them orange juice to get quick sugar into their blood stream. I gave up Coke this year and have lost 10 pounds, but that was my choice and I reserve the right to go get a biggie sized one when I do wish to do so. It doesn't make sense that some outlets can serve them and some can't either.

[justcorbly]

You know, technology is at the point to allow our health insurance providers to track our purchases of sodas and cheeseburgers and such. How many of us would be willing to allow Giant Insurance Corp. to do that if they cut our premiums when our consumption was below their threshold?

[polifrog]

justcorbly:

You know, technology is at the point to allow our health insurance providers to track our purchases of sodas and cheeseburgers and such. How many of us would be willing to allow Giant Insurance Corp. to do that if they cut our premiums when our consumption was below their threshold?

That is a different prospect assuming we retain the right to choose our provider, to choose our plan and more generally assuming we retain the right to not purchase insurance.

[Andrew Brod]

Speaking of which, there's this, though its fantasy premise is a federal-government database.

[Roch]

Fantasy?

[cheripickr]

Andrew, that's the funniest thing you've posted since orthodox jews not believing the fetus is viable until it graduates med school. You are on fire today! JustCorbly's vision for a Utopian society in a nutshell. I'll take double sprouts, please

[polifrog]

Hmm. Maybe agreement can be fun...

[Andrew Brod]

Okay, Roch, I should have said the fantasy premise was a federal-government database that's easily accessible to pizza parlors.

[justcorbly]

Frog, I'm willing to let you not by health insurance if you agree to always pay 100% of any treatment out of your own pocket.

This is sorta OT, but I just can't get my head around valuing adherence to a personal belief system more than the health of other people. The value of your life, Frog, is vastly more important that my steadfastness to my beliefs.
We should be dealing with health care by pushing those concerns to the side.

[polifrog]

justcorbly:

Frog, I'm willing to let you not by health insurance if you agree to always pay 100% of any treatment out of your own pocket.

What arrogance. But why me and not all?

But more to the point, why further break a system already broken by your reasoning and force more suffering on all of us to protect your belief that a good, health care, should appear free?

[Andrew Brod]

Contra JC, I'd say the value of Frog's, or anyone's, life is greater than the sum of his health indicators.

[cheripickr]

JC, I think this is what everyone's trying to say, more or less. It could apply to sodas, Big Macs, etc.

(Any reference in the above comment to any set of religious beliefs over any other, or any nonsecular entity for that matter, is purely unintentional and coincidental, and does not necessarily represent the commenter's spiritual beliefs. Void where prohibited (including but not limited to California, Vermont, parts of Colorado, and Asheville.) Other restrictions may apply)

[sittinginthemiddle]

Typical political elitist thinking they can legislate human behavior. So what happens when people continue to drink large amounts of soda just in smaller containers? Incarceration for the benefit of society?
Oh, even better, we will educate them into stopping, laughable.

[Sean]

SITM, what do you call super sizing at fast food restaurants? you actually believe that the food industry's move 25 years ago to maximize profit by serving larger, cheaper to produce drinks/fries *wasn't* an insidious form of changing consumer behavior?
when that evil genius shift in marketing fast food occurred, the entire fast food experience became flooded with a paradox in price point -- where a much bigger meal seemed like a bargain in comparison to the base meal. in reality, the food industry marked up the cheapest elements of their menu, people shifted behavior to a "super-size" behavioral position, we got less healthy as a nation and the industry rolled in the profits.

so it's ok for industry to manipulate citizens into thinking they're getting a bargain while causing harm in terms of the product they're consuming, but it's not ok for government (or in this case, the mayor of nyc) to operate in reverse fashion and set some limits?

i'm not a big fan of gov. legislating how and what i do, yet to me, this isn't a slippery slope issue. if anything, it's a fiery, last ditch effort by bloomberg to keep a subset of sugar peddlers from digging their hold any deeper. i hope it sticks and he expands into other common sense, low-hanging fruit areas as well... though ping me if he tries to mess with vegetables or fresh fish.

[Andrew Brod]

Perhaps, but you appear to be a big fan of government legislating how and what people in another city do.

[Andrew Brod]

To paraphrase the old line about taxes:

Don't regulate you, don't regulate me, regulate that fellow behind the tree.

[Ed Cone]

Sean's larger point is that public health campaigns are necessary to push back against the mega-dollar advertising and marketing efforts behind products like tobacco and junk food. On that I agree, even if Bloomberg is being a soda jerk.

[Ged]

I see what you did there, Ed! Har.

[Andrew Brod]

It was his larger point if you ignore what he said. He's clearly okay with government constraining soda sales in this way.

But sure, better public education sounds like a pretty good option to me. It might even be cheaper than monitoring and enforcing the new ban.

[cheripickr]

Seeking consensus here, you want a policy that is the perfect blend of personal responsibility and government intervention? Forget the unnecessary waste associated with soda policing. How 'bout a progressive tax based on this?

[Ed Cone]

Obviously Sean and I disagree about Bloomberg's strategy here. Both sides have been articulated pretty well in this thread (thanks, commenters). But why should that be the end of the conversation? Bloomberg may be wrong on soda, but he's addressing something larger that interests me.

Also, curious AB about your statement in that old column on tobacco advertising, with which I largely agree, that smokers are "doing something we can only conclude they want to do (or else they’d quit)." Seems to me that significantly understates the power of addiction.

[Andrew Brod]

I may have stated that a bit strongly, but I do think addiction can be defined only in terms of the alternatives. Given the myriad options there are to quit smoking, I don't know how else to characterize smokers but as people who want to smoke, or at least who prefer smoking to the alternatives.

One could say that this is easy for a non-smoker to say, and it's true that I don't smoke. But I do love sugary drinks, the topic of this thread. Am I addicted? I might be, by the standard definition, because there are some meals that just don't taste right to me if paired with water or even beer. And I love beer. When I have those meals, I could opt for water or beer but I don't. I have a Coke, my drug of choice. For what it's worth, I drink no more than one a day. Maybe I should go to zero, but so far I choose not to.

[Sean]

in the article, bloomberg made it pretty clear that he felt backed into a corner regarding his options to make an impact via legislation. this is him executing an executive mandate, trying to make whatever difference he can without being blocked by a lobbyist influenced city council, state legislature or what have you. i agree it's not an optimal approach to comprehensive health reform, but i do like his attitude that essentially says, "the rest of the country can just bitch about the health crisis, we'll do something, anything, about it."

i lived in nyc for 10 years, andy, so while yes, i'm cheering on a restriction in another city, i'm doing so based on the experience of having lived there and would gladly live under such an edict. i feel strongly that, again, while it isn't a complete approach to improving the health of the citizens of metropolitan new york, it will make a tick on some chart in the right direction. i felt the same about the smoking ban when i lived in the city and had even more skin in the game with a pack a day habit. call me a paradox of liberal/libertarian leanings, but sometimes there truly are no brainer, common sense restrictions that can help society while not affecting personal freedoms.

you do understand, ab, that this ban wouldn't affect your coke a day habit, right? are you just feeling for the folks who buy tubs of soda water out of habit, wanting them to be able to continue to fuel their addiction on the cheap? they'll still be able to purchase two 16 ounce bottles to their hearts desire...

[Andrew Brod]

I understand that this is a stupid law, yes.

[polifrog]

I'm curious.

This law appears to have sprung from a single mind in a single branch of government in the local sense. I may be missing something, but the law appears to have been generated outside the acceptable law creation process as related to American historical sensibilities.

W?hy is the debate on this so close to implementation?

Is this really a law or is it more akin to an EPA or ObamaCare regulation that like the contraception mandate is debated only after implementation?

[bubba]

"I may be missing something, but the law appears to have been generated outside the acceptable law creation process as related to American historical sensibilities."

Obama's example has inspired him. Perhaps he'll be the third party version of Hope and Change in '16.

Meanwhile, is there any evidence that Bloomberg's pompous proposal would achieve its desired effect? I don't think so.

His self-aggrandizement matches the excess of the sellers of soft drinks.

[Thomas]

"Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday. "

Apparently that is the process in NYC. How that relates to "American historical sensibilities", I don't know.

[polifrog]

So, where is the local legislative body (town/city counsel) in this?

There is none. There is no body of deliberation that directly represents the citizens.

This law is an excellent example of what results when public representative consensus is replaced by the whims of an individual and his direct appointees.

And that is what runs counter to historical American sensibilities in the creation of law.