Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Judge Overturns Bloomberg’s Soda Ban, for Now

  1. #1

    Default Judge Overturns Bloomberg’s Soda Ban, for Now

    Judge Overturns Bloomberg’s Soda Ban, for Now


    By Samer Kalaf | March 11, 2013 - 04:30PM

    Mayor Bloomberg probably has a sadface right now. New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled today that the soda ban planned to start Tuesday will be on hold and ignored. Tingling called the ban “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.”
    Furthermore, Tingling wrote:
    The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule.
    Looking at this helpful guide, it seems like almost everything’s exempt from Bloomberg’s halted edict. The proposed ban is full of sugar and fury, signifying nothing. There’s no word as to whether or not Bloomberg will appeal the ruling, but for now, enjoy your large, sweet beverages.

    Tags: Bloomberg, Judge Milton Tingling, Michael Bloomberg, NYC, Soda Ban

    http://animalnewyork.com/2013/judge-...a-ban-for-now/
    Last edited by scumonkey; March 12th, 2013 at 02:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Judge was right on point, this stupid law was completely arbitrary and made no sense. Dairy drinks with more calories is OK because milk is good for you? Yeah OK, good luck with that - a calorie is a calorie. But that's besides the point, the government shouldn't be in the business of telling you what you can and can not eat. I agreed with the trans fats ban (except its ignorance of naturally occurring trans fats) because that substance is a legitimate poison. But sugary soda isn't a poison, it's bad diet and it's not the city's job to force you to eat a certain way

  3. #3

    Default

    Not that I agree with Bloomberg's rule, but you have to be careful with banning this and not banning that. Fat - trans-fat and otherwise - has been in the American consciousness for a long time. Over the last 30 or 40 years, fat consumption has decreased about 25%, while sugar consumption has increased over 30%. And we are getting fatter, especially children where I think it's the most dangerous.

    And we should avoid boiled-down statement like "a calorie is a calorie."

    Study challenges the notion that a calorie is just a calorie

    A new study published today in the Journal of American Medical Association challenges the notion that “a calorie is a calorie.” The study, led by Cara Ebbeling, PhD, associate director and David Ludwig, MD, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children’s Hospital, finds diets that reduce the surge in blood sugar after a meal--either low-glycemic index or very-low carbohydrate–may be preferable to a low-fat diet for those trying to achieve lasting weight loss.

  4. #4
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Well if it makes you happy a milk sugar calorie is a sugar calorie. People will argue that HFCS is much worse but IMO the jury is out on that

  5. #5

    Default

    That makes me less happy. There's no such thing as a sugar calorie. There's no such "thing" as a calorie, just like there's no such thing as a kilowatt-hour.

    Just a scale to measure energy.

  6. #6

    Default

    While I too find the ban on 64 oz. sugar drinks to be a bit bizarre, I am reminded of the public's initial reaction to the trans-fat restrictions when they went into effect . People got over that, and they weill likely get over this too.
    Last edited by eddhead; March 12th, 2013 at 09:56 AM.

  7. #7
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    I think that was more public confusion over types of fat than anything. People didn't want to be told how fatty their food should be, when they didn't realize that the ban was in fact for a specific synthetic fat that dangerously & unnecessarily clogs arteries. It's a poison and has nothing to do with too many calories. This new ban, however, is telling people what to eat. The argument made is for portion control, but I agree with the judge that the control is "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences". Don't tell me that a large soda is bad for you but a venti Mocha Frappucino isn't. What a joke of a law

  8. #8

    Default

    It's a sad day that Bloomberg is lambasted for at least trying to help people who can no longer be trusted to help themselves. If a person is drinking 64oz of anything other than water from one container it is a case of utter, abject apathy towards one's own health and the resultant burden upon society to keep your fat ass alive for years to come.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    I think that was more public confusion over types of fat than anything. People didn't want to be told how fatty their food should be, when they didn't realize that the ban was in fact for a specific synthetic fat that dangerously & unnecessarily clogs arteries. It's a poison and has nothing to do with too many calories. This new ban, however, is telling people what to eat. The argument made is for portion control, but I agree with the judge that the control is "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences". Don't tell me that a large soda is bad for you but a venti Mocha Frappucino isn't. What a joke of a law
    I am not sure I am getting the difference. We tell people what not to eat today (transfats) and what not to smoke today. You can fry foods in shortening and butter (also bad for you) but not in trans-fats. All of the county, school districts are replacing soda drinks with sugar-free beverages and juices. Is that any different? I am not a nutritionalist, but to me processed sugar products are no less a poison than trans-fats are.

    I don't actually support the ban, and I get the judge's point, but if the law ultilmately passes, and I think it will, people will get over it, as they did with the othe bans, and maybe even be healthier because of it.
    Last edited by eddhead; March 12th, 2013 at 12:53 PM.

  10. #10
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Decades ago when they were looking for a healthier butter substitute they came up with margarine. The only problem was that it was a liquid, so their solution was to hydrogenate the fats. The hydrogenation made the fats hard and sticky, which as a side effect was a virtual glue for your internal organs. It is absolutely a toxic substance that should not be eaten in any quantity. I see that the public confusion is still alive and well

  11. #11
    Jersey Patriot JCMAN320's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    4,145

    Default

    Yea I remember they did a test with margarine v. butter. The test was that they put two scoops, one of butter the other of margarine, on a plate and released a group of ants. The ants went right for the butter and wouldn't go anywhere near the margarine. That's how toxic that stuff is.

  12. #12
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,757

    Default

    JC, unfair comparison.

    You can also put certain other substances that would get more ant attention that do not necessarily mean they are "healthier" for you.

    Moderation is, was, and will always be the key. PHTFs (partially hydrogenated...) may not be better than regular fats, but we are kind of spinning wheels here. MOST of these things are fine so long as you do not gorge yourself on it.


    Now, as for sugar. Sugar and simple saccharides are not healthy for you. All you have to do is look at the levels they are found in any "sweet" natural substance to see how far above and beyond we go with MANY of our "treats".

    You spike your blood sugar on these, you body cranks out insulin and converts it into a more compact, high energy storage material called FAT. (twice the energy, half the mass).

    Now the only thing I see that is off, as I overheard conversations coming in on the train, was that there were a lot of other odd riders on the bill prohibiting things like sugar being added to your morning coffee and such...

    i am not sure that the government should take on responsibility of ALL health concerns of the general public, but focusing on some of the prime offenders is still OK in my book.


    They are not prohibiting the sale of 4 glasses of soda to one individual. Just the sale of one glass that holds just as much. What, these people don't want to bother having to carry more or get up to refill more often at the free refill stations?

  13. #13
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Moderation is, was, and will always be the key. PHTFs (partially hydrogenated...) may not be better than regular fats, but we are kind of spinning wheels here. MOST of these things are fine so long as you do not gorge yourself on it.
    This is so completely false. There is NO safe amount of trans fats, every little bit will cause damage to your arteries. The damage is reversible, fortunately, but a diet with regular hydrogenated / partially hydrogenated fats will inevitably lead to an early death

  14. #14

    Default

    @eddhead:

    There's a lot of confusion today about diet and nutrition, much of it stemming from a perception that fat is bad, as opposed to sugar, which has been regarded as benign, as long as you don't overuse it, which will just mean you are not burning as much energy as you are taking in and will gain weight.

    Trans fat is man-made and considered a "poison," but if simple sugar is killing more people than trans fat, who cares what it's called.

    All sugars are carbohydrates. The sugar found in soft drinks is a simple carbohydrate, easily broken down in the body. Complex carbohydrates are foods we associate with dietary fiber.

    Complex carbs are better for you than simple cards. In fact, simple sugar isn't necessary in the human diet. Renewed research on sugar is drawing a picture that points to it as a major cause of cardiovascular disease.

    Sugar was not a major component of the American diet until the modern food-processing industry was born; there's a lot of hidden simple sugar in our food sources. We consume at least twice as much sugar as is necessary; the amount goes up every year. It's not just about getting fat; you can consume a lot of simple sugar, not gain weight, and still not be healthy.

    A number of studies link dietary sugar with adverse changes in lipoproteins. Several studies have shown an inverse association between dietary sucrose and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.8,9 Data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development In young Adults (CARDIA) study show a consistent inverse association between increased dietary sucrose intake and HDL cholesterol concentrations, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in blacks and whites, in both men and women, and after adjustment for other covariates.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    It seems to me that the only food types that there seems to be a craving for, absent just being hungry, are sugar and salt. You may crave a steak, but it's because you're hungry, and at some point, eating it satisfies your appetite, and you don't want any more.

    It doesn't seem to work that way with sugar and salt. Do you have to be hungry to open a bag of Doritos? Even more so with sugar. What stops people from not just having a scoop of ice cream and wolfing down the whole pint may be guilt, not - I'm full.

    The "sweet tooth" may be hardwired from our evolutionary past. Sugar is the most concentrated source of energy, and food energy was a primary life-or-death matter for our ancestors. Infants prefer sugar.

    An interesting take is the yin and yang of it. Table salt lacks the trace minerals of natural salt that the body needs; a craving for salty food may be an attempt to correct a mineral deficiency in the body. Sugar is cool, at the far yin side of the dietary scale. Salt is hot, yang. Maybe the body is trying to achieve balance between these two compulsions.

    Alcoholic drinks are yin. You don't see many bowls of chocolate chip cookies or M&Ms at a bar; plenty of salted nuts and pretzels.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    There is NO safe amount of trans fats, every little bit will cause damage to your arteries.
    Simplistic. Show me research support for this "every little bit" and how it fits in with the entire dietary and environmental picture.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software