Lawsuit Challenges New York Sugary Drink Ban

An anonymous reader writes "Soda makers, along with other trade organizations, filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the New York soda ban that is about to be implemented in the city. 'Last month, the board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to ban restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums and arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban, designed to reduce obesity, is slated to begin March 12. ... The lawsuit also claims that new regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a section of the New York Civil Laws and Rules. Opponents have specifically said it’s unfair that convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its famous Big Gulp drink, would be exempt.'"

Comments

Good

[wmbetts]

The law is ridiculous hopefully it gets over turned.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. Instead of one 24-ounce soda they get two 16 ounce ones. This is soooo much healthier.

Re:Good

[artor3]

Drinks used to be served in smaller containers, and society survived just fine. Restaurants started using larger containers to exploit flaws in human psychology, allowing them to trick customers into buying more than they want or need. This is done to make more money, and to hell with the health of the general public.

Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.

Re:Good

[artor3]

Advertisers spend half a trillion dollars every year to control you. Any one individual might be able to resist, but on the balance, advertising works. They wouldn't spend so much money on it if it didn't.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Between the government and the private sector, I know who's lied to me more about products. Hint: it rhymes with sivate prector.

Re:Good

[Fuzion]

No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.

It's very unlikely that a black market rise because I don't see anyone willing to pay any significant amount for a single 32-oz container instead of two 16-oz containers.

Re:Good

[Wrath0fb0b]

Drinks used to be served in smaller containers, and society survived just fine. Restaurants started using larger containers to exploit flaws in human psychology, allowing them to trick customers into buying more than they want or need. This is done to make more money, and to hell with the health of the general public.

Or public health officials have been tricked into thinking it's more important for people to be healthy than to eat satisfying junk food and are exploiting flaws in human psychology regarding the correlation between physical appearance and mental state (we are biased towards believing that attractive people are happier).

That's the problem with the "people are stupid" line of argumentation that's prevalent in the nanny state -- it doesn't really explain why we should prefer moving decision-making from one group of stupid people to another group of stupid people.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to make you purchase your half pound of sugar in 3 cups. If making giving yourself diabetes slightly inconvenient is "government tyranny" then we probably need more of it.

Re:Good

[whatthef*ck]

Oh, one thing comes to my mind: They could allow for large servings under the condition that the glass/cup will have multiple mandatory photos of repulsively obese people on it. Just like with cigarettes and the warning labels on them.

Do the busybodies who are convinced they're smarter than everyone else, and hence, entitled to manage their lives, ever rest?

Re:Good

[Dr Damage I]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Re:Good

[artor3]

If you think advertising doesn't affect you, that goes to show how well it is working. The fact that I am aware of how well it works and take pains to avoid seeing it does not make me weak-willed. It makes me self-aware.

Obviously advertising works, but it doesn't control what I do.

Those statements are contradictory. The entire goal of advertising is to get people to do certain things. You can't say advertising works while simultaneously thinking that it doesn't allow some form of control over people.

Re:Good

[AK Marc]

I don't understand why they don't just add a tax like $1/ounce for every beverage that contains carbs

Ending the corn subsidies and dropping all restrictions on imported sugar would have the same effect. Crash goes the HFCS, and the market will settle a little better for the consumer.

Re:Good

[SuricouRaven]

People crave sugar because it kept their ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors alive. Those who sought and consumed high energy foods when they were available stored up energy to last them through the harsh times. This continues into modern times. Humans are genetically programmed to desire foods laden with fat and sugar above all else. All that has changed is the availability - where those ancestors would have had to search for unpicked fruit or brave the bees to steal honey, modern man just guzzles down coke whenever he wants to. He always wants to.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount

[hawguy]

Plus, why could I not then just drink multiple ones?
Makes as much sense as those TSA rules about x amount in a bottle. So instead of one big bottle that's not allowed, you put the solution in two small ones, each of which is allowed.

> I cannot sell you this 16oz cup of soda, but you can buy these two 8oz for the same price.

It doesn't make sense if the goal is to prevent all people from consuming more than x ounces of soda.

However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case - it's about changing behavior in the general population. Sometimes public health policy decisions can even be harmful for certain individuals, but the overall health benefit is worth it (i.e. a small percentage of the population may be allergic to a vaccination, but overall vaccinations save more lives than are lost to complications from the vaccine).

I can believe that banning soda sizes larger than 16 ounces will result in a net decrease in consumption. There are certainly going to be some people that, when limited to a "tiny" 16 ounce soda, they'll get around the ban by buying two 16 ouncers when they really just wanted a 24 ounce soda, but 2 sodas are harder to carry than one, and are in general more expensive (though I wouldn't be surprised to see 2-for-one specials after the ban (Buy one 16 oz and get one free!). It seems unlikely that many people are going to buy a hot dog from a vendor and try to juggle two 16 ounce sodas in their hands - but if they really need that much sugar, they still have that option, which is why these plaintiffs will probably not win this lawsuit.