NYC Board of Health Passes 'Soda Ban'

Michael Howard Saul, The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2012

The New York City Board of Health on Thursday approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial proposal to ban the sale of large sugary drinks in restaurants and other venues, a sweeping initiative that backers hope will reduce obesity and critics decry as government run amok.

Beginning March 12, the city will prohibit restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The city will begin fining sellers for violating the ban in mid-June.

The proposal passed by a vote of eight to zero, with one abstention, one absence and one vacancy on the board. Dr. Thomas Farley, the board’s chairman, called the vote “historic.”

Opponents said they are exploring all possible paths to prevent the new ban from taking effect next year, including the possibility of a legal challenge. Recent polls show a majority of city voters oppose the initiative.

Opponents have complained that the deck was stacked against them because every member of the board is appointed by the mayor. Adding to that perception, before the board voted, the administration delivered a 20-minute presentation rebutting the critics’ points.

After more than 38,000 oral and written comments, the administration proposed no changes to the initial proposal that was made public in May.

Joel Forman, a board member, said there is “overwhelming” evidence that obesity is a major health problem in the city and nation.

“I can’t imagine the board not acting,” he said. “I laud the proposal and I support it.”

Dr. Forman said he hopes the initiative will “spread nationally.”

Pamela Brier, a board member, described the initiative as “terrific” and said she wholeheartedly supported it.

“It’s hard to do – there are a lot of unhappy people,” she said, noting the criticism. She said she hopes the ban becomes the “new norm.”

Board member Lynne Richardson said she was skeptical at first but found the arguments for it “convincing” and “compelling.” She said the opponents engaged in “hyperbole that was stunning.”

Board member Susan Klitzman said the obesity problem in New York is patently obvious. “To not act would really be criminal.”

Deepthiman Gowda, a board member, called the initiative a “small” but “bold” and “exciting” step forward.

“The reality is we are in a crisis,” he said. “We need to act on this.”

Several of the board members stressed that they listened carefully to the public’s input, spending many hours reading the flood of comments both for and against.

The proposal is the latest high-profile initiative from Bloomberg, who has made public health a hallmark of his nearly 11-year tenure at the helm of the nation’s most populous city. In 2002, the mayor persuaded the City Council to approve a ban on cigarettes in restaurants and bars, a law that has since become widely popular in the city and adopted around the globe.

“Obesity is going to kill more people in the world his year than starvation,” Bloomberg said during an interview on MSNBC, just hours before the board’s vote.

The mayor has defended the ban, which he described Thursday as “portion control,” as an upfront way to alert consumers about the dangers of large sugary drinks. While the new rule bans the sale of sugary drinks in large cups, consumers may purchase as many drinks as they choose.

“I don’t think it’s government’s job to ban people from doing things with a handful of exceptions,” Bloomberg said. “But, generally, it’s government’s job to tell you the facts of what is bad for you and let you make your own decision.”

Bloomberg announced Thursday afternoon that the new Barclays Center, home of the Brooklyn Nets basketball team, will be the first major venue to voluntarily implement the ban.

Eliot Hoff, a spokesman for New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a coalition of individuals, companies and groups opposed to the ban, said there was never any hope the Board of Health would reject the proposal because the mayor appointed all the members. More than 250,000 New Yorkers and 2,100 business owners have signed a petition against the ban because it is “arbitrary and restricts our choices,” Hoff said.

“We’re smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink,” said Hoff, adding that the ban goes “against the wishes of a majority of New Yorkers and we will not let that fact go unnoticed.”

A sugary drink is defined as any beverage sweetened with sugar or another caloric sweetener that contains more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces and contains less than 51% milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient. A diet soda, a milk shake or sweetened latte that is larger than 16 ounces wouldn’t be banned.

During the first three months after the ban takes effect, the city will inspect and inform sellers when they are not in compliance with the law. The city will allow a three-month grace period before it begins issuing notice of violations that are subject to fines.

More than half of New York City adults, or 58%, are overweight or obese, and nearly 40% of city public-school students in eighth grade or below are obese or overweight, according to the city.

During the mayor’s tenure, the Board of Health had required calorie counts to be posted on menu boards and banned the use of trans-fats in foods. The mayor’s administration also launched a major effort to limit the intake of salt.

Many of the initiatives, at first, were unpopular but public sentiment then changed, the mayor and other administration officials have pointed out. On Wednesday, for example, McDonald’s announced it will begin posting calorie counts on all its menus nationwide next week.

“Two or three years ago, they sued us to stop doing it in New York City,” the mayor said on Thursday. “I’ll rest my case, thank you.

In other business, the board also unanimously approved another controversial proposal that would require written consent from a parent or legal guardian when oral suction is performed during a baby boy’s circumcision. The written consent will require notification that the city advises against oral suction because of health risks, including the possibility of infecting the baby with herpes.

Dr. Forman said he thinks the board should consider even stronger action. “It’s crazy that we allow this to go on” he said.

Opponents, including some religious leaders, have called the requirement an infringement on their religious rights.

Watch a video about New York’s soda ban:

'Soda Ban Explained'

Casey Neistat, The New York Times, September 9, 2012

Soda Ban Explained: The filmmaker Casey Neistat presents a guide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to restrict sales of big sugary drinks in New York.

I don’t drink much soda, I don’t buy Big Gulps, and my body mass index is right where it should be. Until the public hearing on July 24, I had largely ignored Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large, sugary drinks because it would have no effect on my daily life. It was watching supporters of the ban struggle to articulate exactly what it would mean that motivated me to educate myself and ultimately make a movie about it. The proposal is best conveyed visually, not verbally.

To start — the proposed ban on large, sugary drinks isn’t really a ban on anything. Even if the New York City Board of Health passes the ban this coming Thursday, 7-Eleven, the ubiquitous convenience-store chain, will still be able to serve its 50-ounce Orange Explosion Slurpee, which contains 107 grams of sugar, the equivalent of nearly four full-size Snickers bars. Dunkin’ Donuts could still sell its large Vanilla Bean Coolatta (174 grams of sugar, or nearly six Snickers bars, in its 32 ounces). And if you can find a place with unlimited refills, you can still drink as much soda as you like.

The proposal would not include alcohol, fruit juices or any diet soda. Grocery stores and convenience stores would be exempt. Iced coffee and other beverages where the sugar is added by the customer would remain unaffected. Drinks are also exempt if they contain more than 50 percent milk, which would most likely allow Dunkin’ Donuts to sell Coolattas, and Starbucks Frappuccinos, as long as they can prove the milk content is there. Buying multiple 16-ounce drinks is also O.K. The ban will certainly not stop people from getting exactly what they want, as Mayor Bloomberg has made clear.

“All we’re doing here is educating,” Mayor Bloomberg said. “It forces you to see the difference.” Limiting the serving size forces people to consider how much they’re ingesting. Earlier this year the Center for Consumer Freedom ran a full-page ad in The Times saying that “New Yorkers need a Mayor, not a Nanny.” With 58 percent of adults in New York City overweight or obese and 5,800 deaths a year in the city because of obesity, it is evident that some people just aren’t responsible enough to feed themselves. This lack of nutritional responsibility affects everyone — obesity costs the city $4 billion a year in direct medical costs. A nanny is just what New York City, and the rest of America, needs.

If New Yorkers reduced portion size to 16 ounces from 20 ounces for one sugary drink every two weeks, it would collectively save approximately 2.3 million pounds over one year. This proposal could be the catalyst the city needs. Obesity is an epidemic, a crisis whose impact is widespread — over 27 percent of young adults in America are too overweight to serve in our military. Sugary drinks alone are not to blame, but they are part of the problem, and this proposal is a small step toward a solution.

Casey Neistat is a New York-based filmmaker. He has made dozens of short films released exclusively on the Internet and is the writer, director, editor and star of the series “The Neistat Brothers” on HBO. His previous Op-Docs include “Texting While Walking,” “Bike Thief” and “Taxi Lost and Found.”

Stanford Study - Organic Produce Reduces Exposure to Pesticides

News Release - Environmental Working Group 
Organic Produce Reduces Exposure to Pesticides, Research Confirms
Stanford Univ. Study Also Finds Organic Meat Has Fewer Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
August 31, 2012

Environmental Working Group : "Consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat, according to researchers at Stanford University who reviewed a massive body of scientific studies on the much-debated issue. The Stanford team analyzed more than 230 field studies and 17 human studies conducted in the United States and Europe to compare pesticide residues, antibiotic resistance and vitamin and nutrient levels in organic and conventionally produced foods. The study, published Monday, September 3, 2012 is available online at the website of The Annals of Internal Medicine (abstract only)...Based on its review of the available research, the Stanford team also concluded that conventionally raised meat harbors more antibiotic resistant bacteria. It found that consumers of non-organic chicken or pork are 33 percent more likely to ingest three or more strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those who eat organic meat."