Support NeoGAF

[Mammoth Jones]

But it does have an effect. You don't think less people will drink 20 or 32 or 64 ounces of soda in a sitting if it's more inconvenient to get that much? No one is looking for this to solve all of the problem but it's not a bad step given the negligible impact on freedom.

I'm sure some will say "All those steps?1?!" to go get another 16oz soda. But do you really think THAT is going to tip the tides of the obesity epidemic when dude is pounding down a double cheeseburger with bacon and extra blue cheese with cheesy fries?

It's sad when you go to a deli anywhere in NYC and see parents buying their kids a bottle of Coke and a bag of Doritos for breakfast when taking them to school.

Ugh. That's fucking gross. But that brings up another point: Nutrition really needs to be taught in class in all grades. Because honestly knowing about some dead European King that lives 1000 years ago is fucking useless compared to knowing that guzzling soda and eating Doritos at 8am is just fucking destroying your body.

 

[rpmurphy]

It's sad when you go to a deli anywhere in NYC and see parents buying their kids a bottle of Coke and a bag of Doritos for breakfast when taking them to school.

Growing up, I saw other kids' lunches which were nothing but a dry pack of instant ramen, or ziplock bag of cereal, or some other crap like that.

The school didn't have a cafeteria, so the only lunch you could "buy" was cheese or pepperoni pizza.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm sure some will say "All those steps?1?!" to go get another 16oz soda. But do you really think THAT is going to tip the tides of the obesity epidemic when dude is pounding down a double cheeseburger with bacon and extra blue cheese with cheesy fries?

I think it will discourage enough people from overindulging that it makes it absolutely worth the cost.

You're framing this in an extreme and I don't know why. It isn't designed to make the guy who eats 14 triple cheeseburgers a week a fitness model. It's designed to discourage the casual sort of convenience-induced overindulging that probably accounts for the bulk of the issue with regards to obesity. It's not a one and done thing, it's just a step on a long road.

 

[Opiate]

I think I agree with the "Right" part. But you'd have to go full ball deep. No rubber into *properly* rationing someone's nutritional intake for this to work. It would require a system to vast that it defies belief we'd see it in our lifetimes. I don't think we're gonna have a USA where everyone has their caloric intake via food & drink "properly" monitored by the government. And if we do I don't think that's a place many would want to live in.

Oh no, I'm not suggesting this. I'm suggesting nudging people works much better than pushing people, and in general works much better than people realize.

I know I've said this before, but this isn't a fight between the government and people who just want to make their own choices. It's a fight between the government pushing one direction, advertisers and companies in the other, and consumers stuck between the two trying to best make decisions. Taking away the government's role doesn't actually stop people from being influenced, it just means corporations like Coca Cola and McDonalds have no opposition to their influence, which we can study and show actually exists.

This doesn't mean a law banning the behavior is the best approach, though. That I may agree with. But I don't think this requires a vast government operation; just approaching the topic in a different manner. Just like people are a lot more likely to follow your advice if you suggest it humbly and kindly than if you say "do this, idiot." An information campaign is one example of that, but taxes could be another, preferably on the supply side rather than the consumer side, so customers don't notice it. This is largely a battle of perception.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I find myself disagreeing with posters that I would otherwise agree with. I'm finding it hard to dismiss my initial gut reaction to the legislation -- though I understand the sentiment behind it. I may even agree with the sentiment behind it. And I don't necessary buy the "anti-freedom" arguments of the other side. But that alone is not reason enough. I've only really heard about this in passing but there are probably better ways to go about this. So, I have to say I agree with the judge, though I would not mind a more nuanced "nudge."

 

[captmorgan]

Im pissed off at this ruling, not because I give a fuck about fatty mcfatfat. But because I own stock in Pepsi and this would have been an excellent way to raise prices for less soda. Why wont the judge think of the stock holders for a change?

 

[The Technomancer]

I know I've said this before, but this isn't a fight between the government and people who just want to make their own choices. It's a fight between the government pushing one direction, advertisers and companies in the other, and consumers stuck between the two trying to best make decisions. Taking away the government's role doesn't actually stop people from being influenced, it just means corporations like Coca Cola and McDonalds have no opposition to their influence, which we can study and show actually exists.

I feel like this doesn't come up often enough in debates like this.

 

[SRG01]

I'm sure some will say "All those steps?1?!" to go get another 16oz soda. But do you really think THAT is going to tip the tides of the obesity epidemic when dude is pounding down a double cheeseburger with bacon and extra blue cheese with cheesy fries?

Okay:

1. It was already discussed in the other thread that this was about behavioral economics. It's been covered to death.

2. That double cheeseburger with bacon and cheese is probably less bad for you than drinking a fructose-laden drink.

3. On another post of yours above, yes you're entirely wrong regarding all the empirical evidence concerning consumption. Here's just a small one I liked previously: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15761167

3a. This is why most restaurants also serve bottomless drinks. They don't consciously feel like they've finished their drink.

3b. Like you even said above regarding Bloomberg, the entire law is about portion control. Simply stopping the consumer momentarily works wonders.

 

[Bombadil]

Yeah. Based on what you wrote I know an attempt at a discourse would be pointless. Just don't take everything you read at face value.

Your posts are cheaper than corn syrup.

 

[Dead Man]

Oh no, I'm not suggesting this. I'm suggesting nudging people works much better than pushing people, and in general works much better than people realize.

I know I've said this before, but this isn't a fight between the government and people who just want to make their own choices. It's a fight between the government pushing one direction, advertisers and companies in the other, and consumers stuck between the two trying to best make decisions. Taking away the government's role doesn't actually stop people from being influenced, it just means corporations like Coca Cola and McDonalds have no opposition to their influence, which we can study and show actually exists.

This doesn't mean a law banning the behavior is the best approach, though. That I may agree with. But I don't think this requires a vast government operation; just approaching the topic in a different manner. Just like people are a lot more likely to follow your advice if you suggest it humbly and kindly than if you say "do this, idiot." An information campaign is one example of that, but taxes could be another, preferably on the supply side rather than the consumer side, so customers don't notice it. This is largely a battle of perception.

This is all true, but I don't think the push the government was making is the right one to do to fight against marketing. It just creates angst.

Edit: Totally misread your last paragraph, lol, I agree with that as well.

 

[Valnen]

I vote for scaled healthcare costs - fatties pay more per pound.

Then they'll probably just find a way to get disability and pay nothing. Have fun with that. Making the "fatties" pay more isn't a logical solution, it's one born out of childishness and hate.

 

[teh_pwn]

Good.

As somebody who hates how much sugar is in the American diet I appreciate the laws intent. However, it's a stupid law and violates peoples' ability to do what they want to their own bodies.

Lots of junk and fast food is addictive and is ingrained in our culture. Kids are hooked by age 5.

But I'm getting at a larger problem. This country will continue to be obese, chronically ill, and life expectancy will begin to decrease until nutritionists actually look at the science behind food and it's impact on food consumption.

This problem paired with our medical system is going to bankrupt our productivity and competitiveness.

Don't most America eat-outs have a free-refill policy anyway? The whole thing seems redundant

Right, but NYC is a different place than hopping in a car to a restaurant. You actually have to walk a mile to the subway to commute to where you live. Knowing that changes how you eat, especially where there's a calorie number next to it to sanity check your appetite (oh shit, that's 1200 calories? That's not worth it).

I'm generally not a calorie counter, but with shit food it's a good tool when it's plastered to the item in the menu. I was surprised how effective it was.

 

[eznark]

Appeals court upheld the original ruling.

The Associated Press ‏@AP 7m
BREAKING: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstitutional.

Great news.

 

[jamesinclair]

Fuck judicial activism.

If thats unconstitutional, than so is limiting business hours.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Fuck judicial activism.

If thats unconstitutional, than so is limiting business hours.

Rational basis review. Two judges have said that it doesn't meet that.

 

[eznark]

That'd be even better if it set such a precedent!

 

[Guevara]

Basically we're like a morbidly obese Thelma and Louise and we're heading over the cliff holding hands.

"Let's keep going"
"Whatdya mean?"
"Go!"
"You sure?"
"Yeah"
both start crying into their supergulps.

 

[jamesinclair]

Rational basis review. Two judges have said that it doesn't meet that.

So essentially theyre saying they dont care about scientific studies?

How does the Mass happy hour ban pass the same test? It limits how much drink can be served / priced at any given time.

Does this mean the foi gras ban can be thrown out? Trans fat bans?

 

[firen]

.

 

[PogiJones]

What part of the constitution does this allegedly violate? The dormant commerce clause, maybe? (EDIT: Seems it was a separation of powers violation of the NY Constitution, as I mention below.)

 

[Slayven]

Appeals court upheld the original ruling.



Great news.

Sometimes the system works.

 

[Brinbe]

Man, I remember last trip I took down to NY, I saw this at one of the rest stops.

blew my feeble Canadian mind

 

[commedieu]

Man, I remember last trip I took down to NY, I saw this at one of the rest stops.

blew my feeble Canadian mind

that's the child size..

 

[PogiJones]

Oh, looking at the original judge's rationale, it seems it was an issue of an administrative department overreaching beyond the power granted to it by the legislature, and the judge acknowledged that the legislature has the power to enact the law if they so choose.

So really, it's a separation of powers issue (which I suppose is in the NY Constitution). That makes sense. I'm going to assume the appellate judges found it unconstitutional on the same grounds, unless I see otherwise.

 

[SneakyStephan]

The freedumdumdumz to drink yourself into an early grave and go shopping in a mobility scooter.

crying eagle with mountain dew tears

 

[BobLoblaw]

This was bound to happen. They would've been much better off taxing the shit out of them.

 

[empty vessel]

Rational basis review. Two judges have said that it doesn't meet that.

The rulings are not legally sound.

 

[jamesinclair]

The rulings are not legally sound.

Theyre perfectly sound if you ignore science!

 

[perfectchaos007]

This was bound to happen. They would've been much better off taxing the shit out of them.

Just like marijuana. I would be okay with a "sin" tax. Added taxes on 32oz + sugary/aspartame drinks, liquor, marijuana, cigs, cocaine etc. as long as they are all legal.

 

[maniac-kun]

Why would you want these drink sizes anyway? i cant imagine to drink more then 500 ml with a burger meal.

 

[Mortalias]

The law was ridiculous. If the population is too uneducated to realize heavy consumption of soft drinks leads to negative health effects, then that's a larger problem. 'Fixing' a symptom will never solve the problem.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm sure some will say "All those steps?1?!" to go get another 16oz soda. But do you really think THAT is going to tip the tides of the obesity epidemic when dude is pounding down a double cheeseburger with bacon and extra blue cheese with cheesy fries?

I actually kind of think that it will. Think about the last time you ordered a drink from a fast food restaurant. Did you pay attention to the ounce count of the various drinks, or did you just pick the medium if you wanted some, or a large if you felt particularly thirsty? Then, after you bought it, did you finish the drink or not?

Looking at my own buying and drinking habits, I have to say that I'd be ingesting much fewer calories if McDonalds defined its medium at, say, 12 ounces, rather than the current 21 oz. It's not hard to think that it would have a similar effect on other people.

 

[jamesinclair]

I actually kind of think that it will. Think about the last time you ordered a drink from Ia fast food restaurant. Did you pay attention to the ounce count of the various drinks, or did you just pick the medium if you wanted some, or a large if you felt particularly thirsty? Then, after you bought it, did you finish the drink or not?

Looking at my own buying and drinking habits, I have to say that I'd be ingesting much fewer calories if McDonalds defined its medium at, say, 12 ounces, rather than the current 21 oz. It's not hard to think that it would have a similar effect on other people.

last year burger king changed what use to be medium into small.

If you want the actual smallest you must specify value size, which they do their best to hide.

It's like Starbucks, if you ask for small they give you tall, rather than the smaller and cheaper short.

 

[perfectchaos007]

The law was ridiculous. If the population is too uneducated to realize heavy consumption of soft drinks leads to negative health effects, then that's a larger problem. 'Fixing' a symptom will never solve the problem.

Smoking has just as serious long term negative health effects but there's no regulation on the limit of ciggs you can buy as long as you are over 18. Why should we limit soda consumption if we don't limit ciggs? Does big tobacco have better lobbyists? yes

 

[Mortalias]

Smoking has just as serious long term negative health effects but there's no regulation on the limit of ciggs you can buy as long as you are over 18. Why should we limit soda consumption if we don't limit ciggs? Does big tobacco have better lobbyists? yes

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. The law is stupid because it assumes limiting soft drinks will lead to a healthier population.

 

[empty vessel]

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. The law is stupid because it assumes limiting soft drinks will lead to a healthier population.

It assumes it because scientific evidence suggests it.

 

[jamesinclair]

Smoking has just as serious long term negative health effects but there's no regulation on the limit of ciggs you can buy as long as you are over 18. Why should we limit soda consumption if we don't limit ciggs? Does big tobacco have better lobbyists? yes

As I mentioned previously, Massachusetts and possibly other states do limit serving sizes/amount for alcohol in bars. Why is that ok?

 

[APF]

Limiting any food consumption will lead to a healthier population.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Smoking has just as serious long term negative health effects but there's no regulation on the limit of ciggs you can buy as long as you are over 18. Why should we limit soda consumption if we don't limit ciggs? Does big tobacco have better lobbyists? yes

It's because the patterns of consumption for cigarettes are different than they are for sodas or unhealthy foods. Cigs are a good where reducing the number of cigarettes in a pack or making cigs smaller or contain less nicotine really wouldn't decrease the amount of cigarettes smoked, because it's an addictive substance, whereas a good body of research indicates that smaller serving sizes really do reduce average consumption in the case of food.

We do, however, implement analogous nudges in the case of smoking - things like excise taxes on tobacco or restrictions on advertising. I think the analogy with smoking strengthens the case for the soda restrictions, not weaken it.

 

[PogiJones]

The rulings are not legally sound.

I was looking for how they ruled specifically, but all I could find was a news article that briefly mentions the lower court's reasoning.

So then I posted this:

Oh, looking at the original judge's rationale, it seems it was an issue of an administrative department overreaching beyond the power granted to it by the legislature, and the judge acknowledged that the legislature has the power to enact the law if they so choose.

So really, it's a separation of powers issue (which I suppose is in the NY Constitution). That makes sense. I'm going to assume the appellate judges found it unconstitutional on the same grounds, unless I see otherwise.

Is this framing of the issue inaccurate? I couldn't find the actual rulings anywhere.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Stop and frisk is next or am I not worth 77 cents? I know it's two vastly different issues but the speed this was overturned and the inability of one of the best cities in the world to rectify that issue just makes me feel worse about NYC.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Theyre perfectly sound if you ignore science!

These are legal rulings, not scientific rulings. The science is irrelevant to the question of whether the administrative agency which promulgated the rule had legal authority to do so.

Oh, looking at the original judge's rationale, it seems it was an issue of an administrative department overreaching beyond the power granted to it by the legislature, and the judge acknowledged that the legislature has the power to enact the law if they so choose.

So really, it's a separation of powers issue (which I suppose is in the NY Constitution). That makes sense. I'm going to assume the appellate judges found it unconstitutional on the same grounds, unless I see otherwise.

The Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court regarding the agency's overreach. (Fun fact for those who don't know: in New York, the Supreme Courts are the trial courts, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the first appellate level, and the Court of Appeals is the highest court. Don't ask me why.)

 

[Buzzati]

If it fits your macros.

 

[Mortalias]

It assumes it because scientific evidence suggests it.

I'm not arguing that scientific evidence wont show that drinking less sugary soda will lead to a healthier society. I'm arguing we can find a better way to accomplish it besides coercion.

 

[faceless007]

I'm not arguing that scientific evidence wont show that drinking less sugary soda will lead to a healthier society. I'm arguing we can find a better way to accomplish it besides coercion.

Such as?

Edit: And it's hardly coercion if the person can still get a refill or buy more. Consumption is not being punished in any way.

 

[APF]

Such as?

One key thing would be promoting better awareness that sodas are highly-caloric drinks; also that drinking your calories 'count', that you would have to exercise for hours to burn off the calories in one of these hugely-sized drinks, and that there are better ways of hydrating eg water.

 

[Mortalias]

Such as?

Edit: And it's hardly coercion if the person can still get a refill or buy more. Consumption is not being punished in any way.

Better education, for one. Cigarette consumption was through the roof early-mid 20th century. Cue the large campaign against it, and consumption in the U.S. has been dropping ever since.

Of course, heavy taxes on it helped with that. Which I have no problem with. Rack up the prices of the mega sodas through the roof. But don't ban them altogether. That removes choice on the consumers end.

 

[empty vessel]

I was looking for how they ruled specifically, but all I could find was a news article that briefly mentions the lower court's reasoning.

So then I posted this:

Is this framing of the issue inaccurate? I couldn't find the actual rulings anywhere.

It does appear to actually be an issue of whether the administrative body exceeded its authority. The legal soundness of the decision on that issue is a meaningless question, because the judicial test is so amorphous as to reduce it to a question of the judges' personal preferences. There's irony in a judicial decision which boils down to judges' policy preferences and which says that an administrative body usurped the legislative body.

If the court had ruled that the regulation lacked a rational basis as an above poster had suggested, that would not be sound, because there was an evident rational basis for the regulation.

 

[PogiJones]

The Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court regarding the agency's overreach.

Awesome, just read it, thanks. Seems my framing was accurate.

It does appear to actually be an issue of whether the administrative body exceeded its authority. The legal soundness of the decision on that issue is a meaningless question, because the judicial test is so amorphous as to reduce it to a question of the judges' personal preferences. There's irony in a judicial decision which boils down to judges' policy preferences and which says that an administrative body usurped the legislative body.

Yeah, their test is pretty mushy. They do break down four factors (from precedent) to consider, though, and they seemed to argue each factor pretty well, although I obviously didn't see the petitioners' brief to see the other side. But it seems like this regulation died by its "clean slate" drafting, i.e. the legislation didn't grant them powers to regulate soft drinks as a hazardous material. Also, the court killed it based on the regulation's economic (see: non-health-related) considerations in its exemptions, such as exempting frappucinos, or exempting grocery stores. The court seemed to think that a health administration's actions should only be health-motivated, and that issues complex enough to warrant the balancing of social costs are to be left to the legislature (in this case, the City Council). That seems... iffy to me; what agency has ever completely disregarded the economic factors of its policies? But the other three factors I thought were fairly solid.

If the court had ruled that the regulation lacked a rational basis as an above poster had suggested, that would not be sound, because there was an evident rational basis for the regulation.

Agreed.

 

[Host Samurai]

I don't drink sugary drinks (but like to have a large diet Coke in a movie) . But happy do see Bloomberg lose. I can't stand that guy. Hes such an ego maniac, hes doing this for the purpose of his ego to see how much he can get away with.