Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Nestor Davidson, professor and director of the Fordham Urban Law Center, and Sierra Tishgart, assistant editor of Grub Street at New York Magazine, explain Judge Tingling's ruling blocking enforcement of Mayor Bloomberg's sugary drink restrictions.



Nestor Davidson and Sierra Tishgart

Comments [45]

Liz from NYC

The problem is not SODA!

Oct. 11 2013 12:41 PM
RBC from NYC

jgarbuz: Local governments don't regulate alcohol and tobacco consumption. You can consume as much as those that you like. They just regulate the age in which you can buy booze and tobacco.

Funny that you mention alcohol - one of the items exempt from the ban was alcohol. Under Bloomberg's law, you could buy 100 ounces of rum but only 16 ounces if it had Coca-cola in it. Does that make any sense?

Mar. 12 2013 05:43 PM
Michele Jacobson from NJ/Vermont

I'm the nutritionist who spoke on WOR-Channel 9 last night on this topic. I support Bloomberg's ban on supersize soft drinks. Unfortunately they only aired a small sound byte of my interview. Here is the transcript:

Mar. 12 2013 04:52 PM
art525 from Park Slope

j- I turned over to Tom Ashbrook on WBUR where they were having a discussion on the same subject. There you can hear a perfect example of how I wish the debate would be conducted. As indeed a debate. Tom Ashbrook played devil's advocate and it made for a more interesting and more informative conversation.

Mar. 12 2013 11:39 AM
doink alert

there ya have it folks --

Ya cant outlaw stupid!

Mar. 12 2013 10:43 AM
art525 from park Slope

j- what I object to is that I would like to have had a balanced discussion about the subject. Maybe we might have shed some light on this issue instead of having people promote their own points of view. Silly idea huh?

Mar. 12 2013 10:42 AM
Marik from Harlem

I resent the closeted racism that this host uses and implies like "minorities in the outer boroughs" can make decisions for themselves and need to be restricted in what they can do. If you're going to be a racist than do it outright and see where that gets you. Don't pretend otherwise.

I for one enjoy a soft drink and when I go out with my wife we'll split a large instead of paying twice as much. But them we have these wealthy clowns telling us what we can and cannot do and I find that unacceptable. This is not like a speed limit like the guest implies, since that is to stop someone recklessly killing you. No one is holding a gun to your head to buy a soda, and I don't believe any one ever killed someone with a bendy straw. This is the kind of move that increasingly turns people off to politicians and government in general and we simply don't need to keep going down this road.

Mar. 12 2013 10:41 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Back in the 19th century, nothing was regulated by the government. You could buy opium, liquor, whatever without any government regulation or special taxes. However, in those days, when people worked, they worked HARD. They sweated off their carbohydrates in hard work. But those days are gone. Very few people work up a sweat at work these days. Just the opposite. As fewer people farmed or dug ditches for a living, and work became more sedentary, the use of drugs, liquor and sugars only build up fat in the body, because they are not worked off. Many now pay to go to gyms to work up a sweat.

Mar. 12 2013 10:30 AM

folks Brian expresses his opinion on a regular basis. his show isn't hardcore editorial, nor is it editorial free. what are you calling him on exactly?

Mar. 12 2013 10:29 AM
Bob from Brooklyna

Beyonce and Justin Timberlake are W H O R E S.

Mar. 12 2013 10:28 AM
Bob from Brooklyna

Brian, we definitely resent our corp overlords, including Coke and Pepsi.

Mar. 12 2013 10:28 AM
Ellen from Sleepy HOllow NY

give it up! WE made a conscious decision every time we decide to order one scoop instead of two scoops of ice cream, to order the fruit salad instead of the brownie sundae.....Bloomberg is getting a little too obsessed with this one and really grasping at straws to justify this insanity. The judge was right on...

Mar. 12 2013 10:26 AM
art525 from Park Slope

Hey Bloomberg, if you want to rule like Mussolini how about making the trains run on time.

Mar. 12 2013 10:26 AM

people keep saying that Bloomberg (of whom I have plenty of criticisms) is telling them what they can put in their bodies. FALSE!!! he's not regulating your consumption, he's regulating how a product is sold to you. it's OBVIOUSLY flawed legislation but it's an attempt to address a fairly urgent issue, a first stab. you want more soda? buy more bottles of it. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU. hopefully one of the effects is to cause people to stop acting solely out of habit and give a moment of thought to what they're consuming. and hopefully little moments of second thought add up to a statistically significant change in the health of the society. the whole "government's taking my rights away" knee jerk reaction is becoming a silly joke. if you as an individual want your primitive urges manipulated for profit that does not accrue to you, you definitely still have that right.

also, hl: I'm pretty sure Brian's never ruled out his right to express his opinion. There's plenty of analysis and opinion on TBLS, no gotcha there.

Mar. 12 2013 10:26 AM

The original Coca-cola bottle was 6.5 oz and I heard meant to be shared by two people.

Mar. 12 2013 10:26 AM
Kristen from Brooklyn

I wonder why everyone against this ban brings up this notion of "freedom." In terms of its "My right to put whatever I want in my body." It's my understanding that almost all food is regulated and rightly so. NY state is one of many states where at certain times you can't even buy alcohol before noon. It seems to me everyone is picking on this public health issue because its currently popular. When they live day to day with endless regulation without even noticing.

Mar. 12 2013 10:26 AM

2 Points:
If lots of people now buy multiple 16 oz sodas to get the quantity they want, they are using twice as many paper cups- not good from an environmental perspective.
Also, what about "free refills" offered by places like McDonald's. If I eat inside the McD's I can still drink my 32 oz or more.

Mar. 12 2013 10:25 AM
art525 from Park Slope

I agree with j l, Brian. You are being pretty clear in your view on this issue. And I disagree strongly. I don't want a paternalistic government that arrogantly dictates to me what I can and cannot do.

Mar. 12 2013 10:25 AM
Abdul Smith from Brooklyn

What about the family of 3 or 4 who might buy the bigger size for cost effective reasons with the intent to share? This does becomes a tax for them.

Mar. 12 2013 10:25 AM
Nancy R. from Upper West Side

I think the law is similar to the law on cigarette packages stating that smoking can be hazardous to one's health. Education of the public is key. The ads on the subway regarding the calories in these drinks should also be on the buses. I support Bloomberg in his attempt to raise consciousness.

Mar. 12 2013 10:24 AM
hila paldi from NYC

the soda/junk food lobby prevented the tax! they are the ones who promote the idea that it is not in the public interest. just like big tobacco and the gun lobby's NRA. its all special interest groups, not grass groups.

Mar. 12 2013 10:23 AM
Tony from UWS

Why not just regulate what we call the sizes? For instance: small is 8 oz., medium is 12 oz. and large is 16 oz.,etc. Also, restaurants and stores would be required to offer the smaller sizes as well as the humongous ones

Mar. 12 2013 10:22 AM
shaneeza from brooklyn

if as a country we are looking to implement a national healthcare system, we need to take more responsibility for what we put in our bodies. i don't want my tax money paying for someone who makes unhealthy food & beverage choices.

Mar. 12 2013 10:22 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

LOL. portion control. I would like to control Bloomberg's portion of the money supply so he can't force his agenda on the poors.

Mar. 12 2013 10:21 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Wow - I actually agree with John for once. Shame on the NAACP local chapter and the Hispanic Business Federation, hope they enjoy their coke bucks, as "their people" are literally poisoned to death.

Sugar doesn't even need to be taxed, the Feds simply just need to stop subsidizing big sugar.

Mar. 12 2013 10:21 AM

Is the opposition about protecting sellers/producers or consumers? I wonder who would sign a petition to protect these mega size drinks, I don't know if it has been done. Surely kids mostly?

Mar. 12 2013 10:18 AM
RUCB_Alum from Central New Jersey

Regulating the maximum size portion is absurd. Any consumer can just buy two, or three or as many as they want.

Preventing the cost per price from dropping below that of a 16 ounce serving IS something the Board of Health could have done...and probably where they will go next.

No discount for buying the bigger one.

Mar. 12 2013 10:17 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The very HIGH profitability of selling sugar water in fast food and other restaurants makes it tough to fight against. Sugar water is VERY profitable, not the rise of Coca Cola over the last century. Same as the cigarette industry used to be. But sugar, like tobacco, is a killer if used to excess! It's also killing the economy in health care for diabetics and others whose health problems are exacerbated by obesity.

Mar. 12 2013 10:16 AM
h l

Geez Bryan, Aren't you supposed to be neutral and just report the news and listen to the different points of view? You're not 'right' just because you're on the air.

Mar. 12 2013 10:16 AM
Moss from Westchester

As long as there are vending machines in NYC schools dispensing ANY drink or snack with added sugar, the mayor's entire rationale is a load

Mar. 12 2013 10:15 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

Real education, teaching NYC kids how to read and think critically, will solve this problem and many others without banning anything.

Mar. 12 2013 10:15 AM
rai from NY, NY

Tax sugar!!

Mar. 12 2013 10:13 AM
John from office

While I dont agree with the ban, I do understand where the Mayor is coming from.

People, more so in the hispanic and black community, have bad habits and the society ends up paying the bill. I see people smoking their Kools and drinking their grape soda and it shows in their overall health.

This was not a victory for the public and brian sees it as a joke. It is not. You have very fat kids out there and their parents are too uneducated (stupid) to know better.

Lets here it for fried chicken and pepsi!!!

Mar. 12 2013 10:13 AM
Andre from NJ

This proposition may fall because it unjustly restricts people's freedom to consume sugary soft drinks in harmful amounts. A better approach would be to impose a surcharge on large portions of such drinks, to be used specifically towards the costs of treatment of obesity and diabetes. People would still be able to consume excessive amounts of soft drinks, but not without defraying the costs of their own healthcare.

Mar. 12 2013 10:13 AM
Bob from Brooklyn


coming to a theatre near you, summer 2013

Mar. 12 2013 10:13 AM
Phil from Brooklyn

I haven't heard the mayor present the logic that the regulation of products with no-nutritional value has a direct correlation to the cost of government subsidized healthcare.

By reducing products that lead to obesity which in turn leads to a litany of health problems, the government is logically reducing the burden on tax payers. Is there a flaw in this logic?

Mar. 12 2013 10:13 AM
Lee from Queens

The mayor's ongoing crusade to save us from ourselves is getting really old. This is not a caring guy. If he's so concerned about New Yorkers he should put as much time and energy into repairing the horrible homeless situation in NYC....and help the 50,000 people a night sleeping on the streets.

Mar. 12 2013 10:12 AM
The Truth from Becky

Bloomberg is out of line, period! Too far.

Mar. 12 2013 10:09 AM
hila paldi from NYC

tax the sodas like cigarettes! high taxes on sodas are win win win!

Mar. 12 2013 10:09 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

Legal angle: How much taxpayer money will be wasted fighting this in court? How much will Bloomberg pay judges to get this through?

BTW, all these big soda companies can go F themselves too. Your soda products suck.

Mar. 12 2013 10:08 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

If local governments can regulate alcohol, tobacco and drug consumption, I don't see why it can't regulate sugar consumption as well. What we are talking about here is sugar, a very dangerous product when used to excess. The mayor may be an arrogant ninny-nanny, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. The sugar-water industry has been pushing the consumption of too much sugar on the population, so I don't see why local authorities can't try to do something to inhibit them.

Mar. 12 2013 10:07 AM
MikeInBrklyn from Clinton Hill

Here's my prediction; Christine Quinn will not win NYC's mayoral race. Like me, many will be turned off by the fact the she is much too beholden to powerful lobbying interests, particularly real estate.

Mar. 12 2013 10:06 AM
art525 from Park Slope

I agree Robert. But I would go further and say it reperesents the arrogance of our mayor. This is an arrogant paternalistic guy who thinks he should dictate for us peasants what we should do. Democracy isn't his long suit. He bought himself a thrid term after a popular vote to limit terms showing a complete disdain for the process. But being a rich man he was able to buy his office. I thought we were a democracy not a plutocracy. Yes let's educate people on health issues but we don't didtate waht people can or can't do. What's next?

Mar. 12 2013 10:00 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

It's time we start shouting at these 'elected officials': LEAVE OFFICE. Prohibition doesn't work. We need full freedom with accurate and widespread education. It's time to focus on real education and literacy so everyone can make informed decisions for themselves.

Bloomberg is a c*nt of the 10th degree. Kelly is a lapdog bigot. And Uncle Sam is a rapist. Control freak motha f-ers. GO AWAY MAMMA AND PAPPA POLS. This city and country is so messed up.

Why are we even talking about this stupid soda ban when punk ass plainclothes NYPD are executing kids in Brooklyn?

Mar. 12 2013 09:55 AM
Robert from NYC

Well the soda ban DIDN'T go into effect today and I say GOOD! This is not something that should be legislated as I've said many times here before when the topic came up. Yes, I agree people ought to cut down on their sugar intake and stop drinking so much sugary drinks at one time, but if the Mayor feels some kind of responsibility to bring that to our attention then he should do it with a nutrition education program. His is not only the cheaper way to go about it (which is probably why he's doing it that way) but it is the wrong way. You don't start legislating what people can eat and drink. If you need a historical precedent to this we have it, it's called "prohibition". Seems alcohol is worse than sugar but that just might not be true, I'm not an expert on that, sugar is pretty wicked even in smaller portions. But the point is you cannot nor should not legislate what we can ingest or why not people can eat or drink a particular food/beverage. That's a bit authoritarian and what's next! Education should be the way to go and it's up to us to push for an education program on proper nutrition, a serious and long-term program in the schools and even in the food shops where we shop. It ain't difficult and businesses as well as government should be seriously involved.

Mar. 12 2013 08:39 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.