NYC Considering Ban On Larger Sugary Drinks

Because there are apparently not bigger issues facing New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration has proposed a ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 oz.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” said Bloomberg. “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something.”

The ban would apply to non-diet soda, fruit drinks with less than 70% juice content, coffee or tea that has been sweetened. Drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8 oz. would be allowed.

Grocery stores, vending machines and newsstands would be exempted from the ban, but movie theaters, stadiums, delis, and food carts would have to follow the new guidelines.

Fast food restaurants would be limited to handing out 16 oz. cups, regardless of whether the drink is diet. Though they could continue to offer free refills.

The administration believes it has the right to regulate soda sales at these establishments because they fall under the umbrella of the city’s health department.

A rep for the New York City Beverage Association tells the NY Times:

The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top… It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.

Mayor Bloomberg says that his plan doesn’t take away consumer choice because consumers still have the choice to simply buy more sodas.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” he explained. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

The mayor also suggested that businesses who will be hurt by the lack of sales of larger drinks should just charge more for the smaller ones.

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks [NY Times]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Here to ruin your groove says:

    “”Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” he explained. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.””

    Great! We now have the choice to create more waste.

    • Jozef says:

      Came to say the same. A good headline would be: “Bloomberg considering increasing the amount of trash New Yorkers produce.”

    • That guy. says:

      IMO, the large drinks at movie theaters are a ploy to make you have to use the restroom in the middle of the movie…then you buy another ticket for another showing (perhaps with other friends) to see the part you missed.

    • TrustAvidity says:

      Don’t forget about the prices! I can pretty much guarantee you that after this takes affect, 2 16-oz beverages won’t equal the current cost of a 32-oz. I wouldn’t even be that surprised if 16s matched the 32 price and the upped the current 16 cost.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      But what if I want a 48 ounce?

  2. wackydan says:

    And the nanny state is really perpetuating itself from local municipalities up… not federal on down as we all imagined…

    Balls.

    • castlecraver says:

      Fortunately, it’s considerably easier to choose a new municipality to live in than expatriate.

      • StarKillerX says:

        While you might be right in most of the country, for example where I live if I don’t like what the town does I can move 5 miles away to a different town while changing nothing but my address, not so in an area like NYC.

        Although your comment does reminds me of when Mario Cuomo was running for President, when the head of his campaign was asked why voters should vote for him when his policies resulted in businesses leaving the state in droves the response was something like “his policies didn’t work in NY because companies always had the option of leaving the state, but they wont have the option when we elect Cuomo President” and instantly I said to my wife, true, they wont flee their states, they’ll flee the country.

  3. highfructosepornsyrup says:

    this is dumb

    • vastrightwing says:

      Since when did you ever expect governments and politicians to do anything else? Being the cynic, I’m looking for the money angle here. Someone will be profiting from this law. I just can’t come up with whom? Or, someone is being punished for something.

  4. ScarletsWalk says:

    I think sugary sodas/drinks are not healthy for most people every day, especially in large quantities, but I don’t like the idea of this being regulated.

  5. Blueskylaw says:

    “NYC Considering Ban On Larger Sugary Drinks”

    McDonalds announces a new combo-value meal that comes with the standard
    one (1) ounce drink cup and a “commemerative” 32 ounce drink cup.

  6. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I rarely buy drinks larger than 16oz. I just get free refills.

  7. That guy. says:

    Some say that this wouldn’t have much impact on the obesity issue.

    A 32oz Coke from McDonald’s is 310 calories, 86 grams of sugar.

    A hot fudge sundae from McDonald’s is 330 calories, 48 grams of sugar.

    That soda is almost as many calories as a hot fudge sundae, and nearly twice the amount of sugar!

    So yes, soda intake is an issue. Diet soda is just substituing calories and sugar for chemicals.

    • StarKillerX says:

      But this does nothing about any of that, it only putting limits the sizes allowed to be sold.

      • That guy. says:

        True, it does limit the size. So in theory a customer could just by two drinks, but that won’t happen.

        The upgrade at fast food places to go from a 16oz drink to 32oz is typically less than a dollar. Two 16oz drinks would be more expensive. It would also be a pain to carry…which leads me to the main point. Most people are lazy. They will just accept the smaller drink, and think nothing of it.

        • cspschofield says:

          And this justifies the State butting in where it has no goddamned business, how exactly?

    • NaOH says:

      You realize that everything is made of chemicals, right? Sugar is a chemical.

  8. dolemite says:

    Interesting that they attack soda specifically. 16 oz of OJ = 200 calories, 16 oz of beer = 200 calories, 16 oz of soda = 200 calories (give or take). How about instead of the government telling us what we can’t do, we roll out jobs for nutritionists, trainers, city-run gyms? Oh…that’s right, in America we only lead with the stick, not the carrot. And it always fails completely and utterly, just like the war on drugs.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Actually it’s not the job of the government to do either.

    • That guy. says:

      Perhaps there would be concern regarding alcohol (and not sugary drinks) if fast food locations sold 32oz beers for $3 to customers of all ages.

      (That would be pretty cool actually)

      • nbs2 says:

        Except the city isn’t saying that it has to be expensive – it’s just flat out banning the sale. Bars and other venues would only be permitted to serve a pint as the largest size – nothing larger.

        I’m still bothered by the juice exemption. After nutritionists have been trying so hard to get parents to realize that juice is not much healthier than soda, Bloomberg undercuts everything by exempting juices.

        • That guy. says:

          Many juice sugar content comes from the actual fruit. From what I understand, that kind of sugar is healthier than corn syrup in soda. Then again, lots of fruit juice has added sugar.

          • nbs2 says:

            The difference with fruit is that the actual fruit contains enough solids to fill you up that you consume a reasonable quantity of sugars. With juice, you get rid if the (healthy) fluff and straight to the sweetness.

          • jimbo831 says:

            Just want to agree with nbs2. Fruit is healthy because it is relatively low sugar and fills you up well (pulp, fiber, etc). Juice takes out the good parts and just serves the bad part. Here is an example:

            1 average orange: 62 calories, 12g sugar, 3g fiber
            1 8oz glass orange juice: 112 calories, 21g sugar, 0g fiber

            Now think about it even further. Who really drinks 8 oz of orange juice? Usually it is sold in sizes of about 16oz. That is 224 calories right there and 42g sugar, with nothing that will make you feel full. That is more calories than the equivalent amount of Coke.

    • ajaxd says:

      16 ounces of soda equals to between 40 to 50 grams of HFCS. It’s not that much in terms of calories but calories come in the form of refined sugar.

    • Ayanami says:

      ONE Soda has a full day’s supply of sugar, that’s why it’s under attack, it’s also addictive. How do I know? My GF is having real difficulties quitting her 3-5 soda a day habit. The usual withdrawl signs are there, change in attitude, random scratching / twitching, etc. She’s doing well but laments that her body is PISSED at her. We both quit smoking without too much hassle, but she is having real difficulty with this.

  9. MeowMaximus says:

    Bloomberg is an idiot, wasting tax payer money on this initiative. I think he need to be recalled.

  10. Torgonius wants an edit button says:

    But I’d still be able to walk into a store and buy a 2 litre bottle of Coke, right?

    Looks like the Supermarket lobby paid more than the Fast Food / Convenience Store lobby.

  11. bholley says:

    “Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” he explained. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

    Except for the fact that this will be A. more wasteful due to the duplicate containers and B. more expensive due to both the duplicate containers and the slight upcharge from going from a larger size to a smaller one (its not a linear scale).

    If someone wants to bring on diabetes by sucking down a couple Double Gulps during a movie, they should be able to.

  12. Torchwood says:

    So, lets put a higher priority on eliminating obesity! After all, job creation proposals is so last decade….

  13. shepd says:

    When a libertarian doesn’t want to do something, they don’t do it.
    When a liberal doesn’t want to do something, they make it so no-one may do it.

    • CubeRat says:

      +100

      • jsweitz says:

        Why are you wasting your time on the internet when you could be out doing things for “society”?

    • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

      “When a libertarian doesn’t want to do something, they don’t do it… regardless of the destructive effect on society.”

      There. Fixed that for ya!

      • shepd says:

        That works for me!

        If I have to exist not to destroy society, then society has made a mistake. I will die someday. Best they learn that now so they can work on the problem right away instead of later, when the pain will be greater.

      • spamtasticus says:

        Not drinking a large soda because I choose not to will destroy society? Please elaborate

    • castlecraver says:

      Right. Because every single one of the pro-choice, anti-guantanimo, pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuana liberals out there are homosexual terrorist stoners who have abortions every few weeks.

      • shepd says:

        Not every liberal doesn’t want to do everything, ya know. There’s a lot of them out there that want to do everything…

        …they just know better than to say they want to.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        What? A libertarian should be “pro-choice, anti-guantanimo, pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuana” unless you were referring to Republicans which are not libertarians no matter how much they say they are.

  14. jaydez860 says:

    The FDA just said that HFCS is not “sugar” and can not be called corn sugar. Technically this wont apply to the majority of soft drinks becasue they are not “sugary”, they are “syrupy”

  15. tundey says:

    I love this guy. Businesses should just charge more for the smaller ones. Nice.

  16. StatusfriedCrustomer says:

    They should issue licenses – you must get a permission note from your doctor to get the large size drinks.

  17. PercussionQueen7 says:

    GET OUT OF MY SUGAR. Just because some people can’t handle making healthy choices doesn’t mean I want my sugar consumption regulated.

    What’s next, a bacon tax?

  18. damicatz says:

    And people wonder why productive citizens are fleeing New York in droves.

  19. bhr says:

    Personal responsibility: New York assumes you have none.

  20. Straspey says:

    This is being proposed as a matter of “Public Health”.

    So then – consider this…

    A person who smokes cigarettes would be able to buy as much as they want and be free to chain smoke – ad infinitum – pack after pack —

    But the same person would be restricted, by law, from purchasing a cool, sugary drink an a container larger than 16 ounces…

    • Coelacanth says:

      Except for the fact that cigarette taxes are very, very high in NY – and Bloomberg has made strides to severely restrict the locations in which a person may smoke. Not to mention the extremely graphic ads / commercials with which everyone’s bombarded…

      There were the “sugar tax” proposals…. so in effect, the same strategy applied towards cigarettes attempted first – failed (for the moment) – and now he’s moved onto another approach.

      Saying that he’s permissive when it comes to smoking is disingenuous…

      (All this coming from a non-smoker.)

      • DarthCoven says:

        This.

        A pack of smokes can run you upwards of $13 in Manhattan.

        So glad I quit 3 years ago…

  21. bholley says:

    “Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” he explained. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

    Except for the fact that this will be A. more wasteful due to the duplicate containers and B. more expensive due to both the duplicate containers and the slight upcharge from going from a larger size to a smaller one (its not a linear scale).

    If someone wants to bring on diabetes by sucking down a couple Double Gulps during a movie, they should be able to.

  22. Vox Republica says:

    Cost aversion doesn’t eliminate thirst, it simply directs it to the consumption of cheaper alternatives: people that aren’t going to ask for tap water aren’t going to suddenly develop taste preferences drastically different than those they already hold. Only the least market-conscious companies would actually be hurt in such a circumstance. The smarter ones will increase the amount of low-calorie renditions on shelves, and aggressively market them as being a healthy alternative.

    Sin tax is the slightly more sensible choice. Progressive taxation, with bigger hits going to bigger drinks (cup sizes are static, so it wouldn’t create sizable accounting difficulties). Revenues go to bolstering public health programs and easing the financial strains placed upon the city’s health care infrastructure by the obese and diabetic.

    • shepd says:

      No taxes and increased education are the correct solution.

      If sin taxes worked, nobody would smoke or drink. Clearly they are worthless. The smoking level would be as low as it is right now without the sin taxes. How do I know that?

      When was the last time someone said to you “I don’t smoke because the taxes are too high, but I really would like to.” Sure, you might hear “I smoke a little less because it’s bad for me” or “I smoke cheaper cigs because the taxes are high” but never “I quit because taxes are high–wish I didn’t have to because I love smoking, it’s fun and excellent”.

      • Vox Republica says:

        The cigarette comparison fails on its face because there is no functional alternative product to tobacco. Same with alcohol. With soda and other similar beverages, for every ______, there is generally an extant Diet ______ or ______ Lite to go with it.

        More to the point, though, I think you misunderstand the full effect of sin taxes. They’re not simply to stop people from doing the activity or consuming the product taxed. In my specific suggestion, the revenues from those taxes would be used to partially assuage the financial strains placed upon health care infrastructure by consumers that doggedly persist in soda-ing themselves into chronic long-term (and expensive) health problems.

        • shepd says:

          In that case, we need taxes for dangerous sports, such as hockey (hey, I’m a Canuck). If you knew how many injuries that caused *per game*, never mind per season, you’d lose your mind paying taxes to sew those people back up.

          Also, I don’t know of anyone who really likes regular soda who is very willing to drink diet. Do you think the taxes would make smokers switch to “filter” cigarettes if those were less taxed cheaper? Smokers complain enough about switching to cheaper brands–there’s likely a limit to how much you can make someone do what you force them to do.

      • who? says:

        Actually, no. Sin taxes do, in fact, work. From Wikipedia (which has links to the original studies):

        “One of the reasons for the support of increased cigarette taxes among public health officials is that many studies show that this leads to a decrease in smoking rates. The relationship between smoking rates and cigarette taxes is in fact very elastic; the greater the amount of the tax increase, the greater the proportion of smokers who stop smoking.[13] This is especially prevalent amongst teenagers. For every ten percent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes, youth smoking rates overall drop about seven percent.[14] This rate is also true amongst minorities and low income population smokers.[15] The rates of calls to quitting hot-lines are directly related to cigarette tax hikes. When Wisconsin raised its state cigarette tax to $1.00 per pack, the hot-line received a record of 20,000 calls in a two month time period versus its typical 9,000 calls annually.[16]

        An analysis of smoking and cigarette tax rates in 1955 through 1964, prior to the Surgeon General’s first report and general antismoking sentiment, shows the same relationship between tax increases and declining smoking rates that are prevalent today, suggesting that popular attitudes towards smoking are not a confounding factor.[13]“

        • shepd says:

          Interesting. In Canada, cigarette taxes are 300% of the product price, since at least 1997 (they have gone up since then, actually):

          http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1199

          According to that, 30 x 7% = 210% of “children” should not be smoking. I suppose you could argue that we’re talking about a 7% reduction, so 93% -> 86% -> 80% and so on. Being a complete failure at math myself, I used excel to work that out 30 times over and I get (assuming every single child wanted to smoke from day 1, which is already an inflated number) I get 21% which nicely matches how many smoke:

          http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/facts-faits/teens-ados_e.php

          – Each day, between 82,000 and 99,000 young people around the world start smoking.
          – Almost 20 per cent of Canadian teens (aged 12-19) currently smoke (daily or occasionally).

          However, if I put in the actual percentage of children smoking before heavy taxes (about 50%) I get 10% that should be smoking now. In fact, the taxes are higher now, so that number should be lower (I’m thinking around 8%).

          I guess you could say what works in the US doesn’t work in Canada, I’m all for that. At least I’m right in my home country. Seems odd, though, that a more socialist country would ignore the government even more than a much less socialist country, but there’s no accounting for taste.

          • shepd says:

            Feh, I failed at math even worse. I did it 21 times over, expanded to 30 times over I get:

            100% of people start smoking -> 11% smoking now
            50% of people start smoking -> 5.6% now

            Taxes don’t seem to be working in Canada. Again, perhaps there’s some huge culture gap between Canadian teens and American teens that I’m missing. Could you comment on what the difference might be? Why we would find the numbers found in their study are off by a factor of 4? Because, from my end of the keyboard, the taxes have only managed a somewhat better than 50% reduction from what they were (they were at a bit less than 46%), a pathetic rate for such an incredibly high tax. I’m certain education would work better than that. We can get more students graduating high school with good education than 26%!

  23. kataisa says:

    How’s that Hopey-Changey thing working out for you?

    This kind of fascism is just a preview of what’s to come with ObamaCare: the government deciding it knows what’s best for you.

    No of course back-door deals and health care provider and pharmaceutical payouts have nothing to do with it, the paternal government is merely concerned for the American people’s health and well-being. That’s why they are in bed with the Big Food and Big Drug lobbys.

    • Vox Republica says:

      Ah yes, the old fascism canard. Volunteer for a day with elderly Polish and German emigres. Ask them about their lives from 1939-1945. Then, grab a few nickels, rub them together, and see if you can buy a sense of scope and/or a clue.

      • Darury says:

        Yes, because we all know that for facism to start, it must come with full force jack-booted thugs. It would never creep up with the government getting involved in personal choices and picking winners and losers in private enterprise.

        • Vox Republica says:

          This is such a nonstarter of an argument. By this absolutely absurd and baseless standard, literally any law that restricts anything is simply a bellwether of fascism.

          Government is already involved with personal choices, and has been since the advent of civil society. For example, I can’t choose to not feed my kids. Similarly, you can’t choose to take my property by force. Well, correction: we can choose to do those things, but we both would end up in jail. That’s sort of what a society of laws does: places bars on certain actions, and imposes punishments on those that would perform said actions. Generally, these bars are in the interest of what’s known as the “greater good,” or more neutrally, society at large.

          If you want to complain about nanny states, fine. If you want to characterize people that push such agendas as stupid or misguided or even un-American, fine. But fascist? That’s grounded in such a blatant misunderstanding of the term that it’s almost laughable. Read up on fascism sometime. Seriously. Read. Grab a book. Grab ten. Then get back to me.

          Fascism. Seriously? This? Fascism? Get some fucking perspective.

          • cspschofield says:

            No, Bloomberg isn’t a Fascist. He doesn’t want to force a ‘return’ to some mythical culturally pure society by expelling ‘foreign’ influences.

            Instead he wants to create a perfect society according to his personal beliefs, and to hell with individual freedoms (other than his, but then Laws only apply to Little People). There is a word for such arrogance; Liberal. A good word ruined by association with as annoying a passel of nitwits as ever pestered a population.

    • varro says:

      Bloomberg is a Republican. FAIL. Fail HARD.

      • Southern says:

        You fail harder.

        Bloomberg was a democrat all of his life, until 2001 when he for mayor as a Republican (and even then he was a RINO), winning the election that year and a second term in 2005.

        Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and has been an Independent ever since. Although he did run on the Republican ticket for his 2009 election, he did so AS AN INDEPENDENT and is not a member of the Republican party.

        Bloomberg is considered a social liberal, who is pro-choice, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and an advocate for stricter gun control laws.

  24. craftman says:

    No more Ventis (20oz sweetened coffee drink) at Starbucks?

  25. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Theater owners will love this. Couples will no longer order 1 large drink but must order 2 mediums.

    • patjk73 says:

      Add to this that most movies have crazy soft drink prices to begin with. Usually something like $4.00 for Small, $4.25 for medium and $4.50 for large. Now 32 oz of soda will cost $8.00 instead of $4:50.

  26. homehome says:

    Well, then ppl would just buy two of them lol.

  27. ldillon says:

    I see this being framed as a “freedom of choice” issue when it’s really a “people are easily deceived and conditioned by ubiquitous advertising from a young age” issue. Freedom of choice assumes a level paying field and an informed consumer. In this case we have neither. Healthy food choices do not receive nearly the advertising dollars as unhealthy food choices. People may have some vague idea that soda is bad for you but most have never actually talked to a nutritionist to know how many calories they should be consuming, etc.

    Sure, people who post on Consumerist are much smart than the average person and would never make such poor health choices, but overall, people are affected by advertising.

    • Cerne says:

      Tell me are you a condescending asshole in real life too or just the internet?

      Adults are more than capable of informing themselves and then making informed choices. Society does not need a bunch of busy bodies taking away our freedom to protect us from ourselves.

      I you personally don’t feel equipped to make proper life style choices feel free to have yourself committed to a facility for the mentally incompetent.

  28. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    You can still buy a milkshake, though.

    Regular 20 Oz Coke = 240 calories, 65g sugar
    McDonald’s Chocolate Triple Thick 21 oz Milkshake = 770 calories, 134g carbs

    I’m scratching my head over this one.

  29. libwitch says:

    I think what drives me crazy about it, is yes, soda is abs. terrible for your health. There is nothing that is good in it for you. But fruit juice is actually not good for you either – its just sugar. And milkshakes aren’t. And people can just take unsweetened coffee and tea and dump sugar into them and….

    Why doesn’t he just simply say “we are only allowing water to be sold in NYC?” Wouldn’t it just be easier?

  30. Kman says:

    excellent business opportunity. I’m going to invent large cups with a divider in the middle. Market it as two 16 oz cups in one. I’ll even make a special lid that has holes for two straws.

    Perhaps, just make half cups with sticky tape on the flat side so they can stick together.

    PS. nobody steal my idea.

  31. ZenListener says:

    Thank God I live in America, where we have freedoms and don’t have to worry about the government legislating every little details of our lives.

    Oh. Never mind.

  32. corridor7f says:

    I’ll just head to the corner store and buy me a 2L… jeez.

  33. Jared The Geek says:

    First they came for the tobacco but I was not a smoker so I did nothing. Then they came for my soda and I was too fat to get up and do something.

    • Southern says:

      Don’t forget that they also came for your food fried in transfats, your childrens homemade lunches at school, and your McDonalds Happy Meals.

      This is just yet another link in the chain.

      Eventually they’ll come for the 2 liters at the grocery store, the candy bars, the large popcorn with butter at the movie theaters (since this will kill the sodas above 16oz there already), and maybe even kool-aid (since kool-aid has 16grams of sugar per 8oz).

      And nothing will change, ever, so long as the silent majority remains…. silent.

  34. Jared The Geek says:

    And I am stoked that the article picture is from the bottler in Sacramento (Natomas).

  35. framitz says:

    Why do the people of NYC put up with this buffoon?

  36. Jawaka says:

    “Because there are apparently not bigger issues facing New York City”

    What an ignorant and obnoxious comment. I suppose that the mayor should drop everything that he’s doing and only concentrate on the things that YOU find to be worthy.

  37. HeatherLynn30 says:

    This is stupid. It would make far more sense (to me, at least) to implement a tax on less-healthy foods and use the money to subsidize the cost of healthier foods. People don’t like being told what they can and can’t have – but hit them in the pocketbooks, you won’t have to do much convincing.

    Every week, it is painfully obvious to me that if I didn’t care about my health, I could get out of the grocery store with enough food for two weeks for $20. But instead, I spend about five times that making healthier choices. Something about that is not right.

  38. shepd says:

    And the answer is… …sell the syrup separate from the soda.

    “Please, just one packet per 16 oz, thank you!”

    Or better, “FREE 32 Oz cup with discounted 2 x 16 Oz purchase!”

  39. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Fuck you, New York. I’ll drink what I want. It’s not your job to regulate my food. That’s my job.

  40. dush says:

    So now I’ll just buy two 16oz drinks instead.

  41. majortom1981 says:

    This has already been done here in suffolk county which is two counties east of NYC. Fast food resteraunts cannot serve huge drinks anymore.

    It was not a big deal when it passed.

  42. Rocket80 says:

    Next thing you know buying sugar in the grocery store will be limited just like buying Sudafed.

  43. Dyscord says:

    Seriously? “Oh you can just get more sodas! And stores can just raise the prices on smaller sizes!” WTF? Why is this even an issue New York?!

  44. TerpBE says:
  45. cspschofield says:

    New slogan;

    “New York; where we’ll take care of you, whether you want us to or not.”

  46. Outrun1986 says:

    Some of those Starbucks drinks have even more calories and sugar than soda as they pour syrup right into the drinks, and you can get a huge one too. Some people drink this stuff for breakfast too, I would never be able to do it.. Some juice drinks have little to no nutrition and lots of calories. Chocolate milk has lots of calories and HFCS too but people still drink it and its still allowed in most schools. Subway even offers a 180 or more calorie chocolate milk as a “healthy” option in their kids meals.

    Once again there is no magic bullet to the obesity epidemic, there are too many factors, if you take away one thing, people will find something else just as bad or worse to eat or drink. I don’t think soda is healthy, but taking it away is just very stupid and is a total waste of time and funds that could be used for more important things rather than a ban that will not do anything to actually reduce the weight of fat people. Soda isn’t the magic bullet here.

  47. powermetal2000 says:

    Most movie theaters & fast food joints will LOVE this idea. Instead of paying for 1 drink, people will have to pay for 2 if they want more than 16 ounces. More profit for them.

  48. gman863 says:

    If he wants to force people to lose weight, why doesn’t Bloomberg take a cue from Southwest and make fat people pay double the price for taking up two seats in a restaurant.

  49. buddyedgewood says:

    Last time I looked, Coke or Pepsi don’t use sugar in their colas. They use HFCS, and they have been for years. The only soda that uses sugar, that I know of, is Sierra Mist and that’s just recently from what I understand.

  50. yossi says:

    Just so everyone understands,, 4 grams of sugar is a teaspoon. therefore when you drink a 20 ounce bottle of coke with 65 grams of sugar…. you are opening a bag of white sugar, taking a spoon and eating 16 thats SIXTEEN spoonfulls of sugar. Maybe when you realize how much sugar that is, you will think twice about drinking a 20 ounce bottle of soda, or a 32 ounce cup at the theater.

    SIXTEEN SPOONFULLS OF SUGAR!!!!

    • Jules Noctambule says:

      Since when does Coke contain any cane sugar at all?

    • JNat42 says:

      So is that your or my concern! Look, there are countless magazine articles and tv programs about the ills of over eating, drinking too much soda, not getting enough sleep, taking drugs, and etc. Im sure most people have caught that information at sometime but THEY ARE STILL GOING TO DRINK THE SODA ANYWAY! (or smoke or do drugs) Enough said on the subject!

  51. DragonThermo says:

    Yet another reason why we need to severely reduce the size and power of government! There is no moral or Constitutional reason why the government should tell you what size of beverage you are allowed to drink. If I want a freakin’ 20 oz sweet tea, I should be able to use the money that I earned through the sweat of my brow to buy a freakin’ 20 oz sweet tea.

    If you think this Nanny State interference with your individual Liberty is bad, wait until we get Socialized healthcare (ObamaCare)! Then we will have given the government complete control over your daily life. The government can not only tell you what size of beverage you are permitted to drink, but can tell you what can and cannot drink and what you can and cannot eat.

    If I want to eat nothing but Oreos with a tub of trans-fats and wash it down with 64 oz sweet tea, then that is my right as a free American. The government has no business telling me otherwise.

    • JNat42 says:

      You got the wrong idea of Obamacare. First of all the total plan has not been hammered out so no one knows what it would contain! Secondly, you are ALREADY paying taxes for those indigents, homeless, uninsured, etc who go to your health dept and hospital. It doesn’t matter if you pay locally or on the national level- you are already paying in some fashion or form for those who don’t pay, so get off Obama’s back! And, if you watch tv you would hear hospitals say that emergency room waits would not be so long as people would have insurance to use the doctor for problems instead of using the emergency room. Lastly, there are those who can afford insurance and DONT pay as they figure, let the system take care of me for free= the new way- let them pay for themselves instead of being mooches on tax payers! You and others got this Obama insurance plan all wrong!

  52. jameesss says:

    This is dumb. I dont think New Yorkers will stand for it. Will they next require you to get 2 regular slices of pizza instead of the NY jumbo slice? Or a reasonable amount of meat at Kat’s Deli? Or 2 street gyros instead of one large one from those carts? Unhealthy, cheap, ridiculously large and tasty food is what NYC is all about.

  53. mcgyver210 says:

    New York is turning into a Communist Dictatorship just a little faster than the rest of the Country.

    You will not control Obesity with STUPID LAWS like this thought up by IDIOTS IMO.

    What will happen is the vendors will benefit with more $$$$s from extra sales of the smaller sizes until they have to pay extra to cleanup the spills from people trying to carry all the small cups.

    Obesity is caused by many things but not really because of the size of a drink.

    We have become a Lazy Society that doesn’t want or need to work hard for a living which is a key part of a healthy body thanks in part to Government policies.

    It is also extremely cheap to eat Junk Un-Healthy (IMO) food approved by the Government as healthy compared to eating healthy nutritious food. Trust me I know since we eat very Healthy

    Look now it is easier to live off the working class than to actually work.

    Incidentally: I am not Obese by any stretch of the imagination 6′ tall 174 lbs

    I remember as a kid it was highly unusual to see an overweight person but now it is more unusual to see a normal healthy weighted person.

    So before we blame a Cup Size we should look at the real sources of the Obesity Epidemic.

  54. JNat42 says:

    With all the problems a big city can have, I just can’t understand why Bloomberg would concern himself with the size of soda servings. I don’t think NYC government needs to control what people eat and drink. Let adults decide for themselves. If a person is overweight and wants to drink a large amount of soda, well- let ‘em! It’s their choice as much as it is a smoker to smoke, etc! We all have bad habits and you can’t regulate us to death over all of them- especially soda!