In Soda-Ban Battle, Starbucks Beats Mayor Bloomberg

Susan Berfield, Bloomberg Business Week, March 11, 2013

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg seemed confident that limiting the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces would be good for city residents'  health and that such a ban could be adopted nationwide. That was on Sunday. On Monday, a state judge blocked the rule, just a day before it was supposed to go into effect. The challenge was brought by the American Beverage Association (otherwise known as Big Soda) and others. The judge called the rule arbitrary and capricious. "The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose," New York Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling wrote.

Many smaller businesses, as well as McDonald's (MCD) and Dunkin' Donuts (DNKN), had been prepared to follow the new restrictions. Not Starbucks (SBUX), though.

The company, which was not part of the lawsuit, made it clear last week that amid confusion and uncertainty surrounding the new rule, it wasn't making any immediate menu changes. A spokeswoman said that many of Starbucks's milky and custom-made drinks might be exempt. The lawsuit was already underway. There would be a three-month grace period before the city would impose fines. Why rush?

When Bloomberg (who is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg Businessweek parent Bloomberg LP) was asked about this on Sunday's Face the Nation, he said: "No. 1, that's ridiculous. They can figure out—Starbucks knows how to market things, knows how to package things. They can change instantly when it's in their interest to do so. This is in the country's interest."

The most recent official word comes from Michael Cardozo, corporation counsel of New York City's law department: "We plan to appeal the decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the Board of Health's decision will ultimately be upheld." Starbucks didn't immediately respond with a comment.

Berfield is an associate editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. Follow her on Twitter: @susanberfield

New York City Cannot Ban Sales of Large Sodas: Judge

Joseph Ax, Reuters, March 11, 2013

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A judge on Monday invalidated New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments, one day before the new law was to take effect.

State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban.

The decision was a blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had touted the ban as a way to address what he has termed an obesity "epidemic." But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers' personal liberty.

A spokesman for Bloomberg's office was not immediately available for comment.

The ban had prohibited the city's food-service businesses from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, though city officials had said they would not begin imposing $200 fines on offending businesses until June.
Bloomberg has made improving the health of New Yorkers part of his legacy. The soda ban had followed similar crackdowns on fat, sugar and salt and a smoking ban that has been replicated around the world.

In anticipation of the soda ban, Bloomberg on Monday released new data tying sugary drinks to the city's fattest neighborhoods. The new city study that showed nine of the neighborhoods with the 10 highest obesity rates were also the highest in sugary drink consumption. At the other end, the three least obese neighborhoods were also the lowest in sugary drink consumption.

Companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and McDonald's Corp had argued that the ban was inconsistent in its application, since it would still permit grocery and convenience stores to sell the drinks in any size.

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.”

How Our Habits Would Need to Change for a Soda Ban to Matter

Brian Fung, The Atlantic, July 24, 2012

Will people actually consume less soda just because they can't buy it in one giant cup?

Chatter is picking up again around New York's plan to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces as the city gathers for its first public hearing on the proposed measure. Today's debate will be followed by a vote on Sept. 13, which -- hooray! -- leaves us a whole extra month to bicker over the bill.

With any luck, at least some of that talk will be informed by new research appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine explaining exactly what conditions Mayor Bloomberg would need for a soda ban to work.

Critics of Bloomberg's proposal point out that the soda ban does almost nothing to prevent those who want large quantities of soda from getting large quantities of soda. Remember that the stricture prohibits "food service establishments" from selling sugary drinks in quantities larger than 16 ounces. Diet sodas, dairy-based products like milkshakes, and alcoholic beverages are exempt from the ban. Determined soda addicts can simply buy two 16-ounce Cokes to get 32 ounces.

True enough, but left to their own devices, humans tend to think inside the box. You wouldn't ask Pepsi to design, test, and field a whole new 26-ounce bottle every time you're in the convenience store trying to decide between a 20-ounce bottle and a one-liter bottle. You'll probably choose one or the other and go about your business. In much the same way, Bloomberg hopes that consumers will simply accept buying 16-ounce sodas as the new norm.

For every person who opts for a 16-ounce soda over a larger size, New York restaurants will theoretically see a slight drop in the number of calories their customers are getting from sugary drinks. To find out just how much of an effect the ban might have on calorie intake, researchers at NYU gathered fast-food receipts from four regional cities, along with data from two existing studies on fast-food habits. Next, they cross-referenced that data with nutritional information supplied by the fast-food companies themselves. That gave the scientists a chance to calculate precisely, down to the item, how many calories were contained in a given meal.

Then, armed with that big stack of actual purchasing decisions, the researchers ran simulations in which a percentage of those (anonymous) consumers were "given" smaller sodas instead of bigger ones. They set up hypothetical scenarios where 10 percent of customers bought the smaller size (16 ounces) and 90 percent bought the larger size (32 ounces), running the simulation 1,000 times. They repeated that process for different distributions, from 20 percent on up to 100 percent of customers opting for the 16-ounce sodas.

What they found was that calorie consumption as a function of soda intake begins to come down when about a third of customers adhere to the soda ban instead of circumventing it by buying two sodas of a smaller size. Naturally, the more people that play by the rule, the bigger the general decrease in caloric intake from soda.

Here's the takeaway for New Yorkers (and Cambridge-ians, too): we no longer have to make assumptions about whether a soda ban would work based on ideological cues about freedom and the role of government in mandating nutrition. There's actual data now pinpointing the exact threshold between success and failure. As long as more than 30 percent of city residents accept the options they're given at the checkout counter, the share of calories they get from sodas is likely to drop. While that may or may not actually affect the overall health of New Yorkers, it would be a quantifiable win for Michael Bloomberg.

Marion Nestle: The soda industry strikes back

Marion Nestle, Food Politics,  June 11, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to limit sugary soft drinks to 16 ounces has elicited an industry counter attack as well as much attention to the role of sugary drinks in obesity.

The soda industry established a new organization, “Let’s Clear It Up,” with a website to spin the science.

Soda is a hot topic. And the conversation is full of opinions and myths, but not enough facts. America’s beverage companies created this site to clear a few things up about the products we make. So read on. Learn. And share the clarity. Myth: The obesity epidemic can be reversed if people stop drinking soda. [I'm not aware that anyone is claiming this.  Bloomberg's proposal is aimed at making it easier for soda drinkers to reduce calorie intake.] Fact: Sugar-sweetened beverages account for only 7% of the calories in the average American’s diet, according to government data. [The figure applies to everyone over the age of 2---to those who do and do not drink sodas.  The percentage is much higher for soda drinkers.]

Coca-Cola is using a second strategy: divert attention.  Its full-page ad in Sunday’s New York Times said:

Everything in moderation.  Except fun, try to have lots of that. Our nation is facing an obesity problem and we’re taking steps to be part of the solution.  By promoting balanced diets and active lifestyles, we can make a positive difference.

By “balanced diets” Coke means varying package sizes.  By “active lifestyles” Coke means partnerships with Boys & Girls Clubs of America and gifts to national parks.  This approach merits its own website: livepositively.com.
And then we have USA Today’s not-to-be-missed interview with Katie Bayne, Coke’s president of sparkling beverages in North America:

Q: Is there any merit to limits being placed on the size of sugary drinks folks can buy? A: Sugary drinks can be a part of any diet as long as your calories in balance with the calories out. Our responsibility is to provide drink in all the sizes that consumers might need. [Need?] Q: But critics call soft drinks “empty” calories. A: A calorie is a calorie. What our drinks offer is hydration. That’s essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits whether it’s an uplift or carbohydrates or energy. We don’t believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration. [Water, anyone?]

Finally, there’s the Washington Post interview with Todd Putman, a former Coke marketing executive now in recovery.

Putman, whose positions at Coca-Cola included U.S. head of marketing for carbonated drinks, said in the interview that among his achievements was tailoring the company’s national advertising campaigns to specific groups. The approach helped Coca-Cola intensify marketing to target audiences such as African Americans and Hispanics. “It was just a fact that Hispanics and African Americans have higher per capita consumption of sugar-based soft drinks than white Americans,” he said. “We knew that if we got more products into those environments those segments would drink more.”

Is the soda industry behind the Center for Consumer Freedom’s Nanny Bloomberg ad?  I’ve yet to hear denials.

FT :Fatty food clampdown is hard to swallow

Louise Lucas and Alan Rappeport, the Financial Times, June 8, 2012

Winnie-the-Pooh: [tries to climb out the front door but is stuck] Oh, oh, help and bother! I’m stuck.
Rabbit: Oh, dear. Oh, gracious. Oh. Well, it all comes from eating too much.
– Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree
 

Food and drink manufacturers are, like Winnie-the-Pooh, in a tight spot. Ten days ago Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, announced a ban on the sale of “supersized” sugary drinks in restaurants, cinemas and stadiums. And this week – prodded by Michelle Obama, the US first lady – Walt Disney, the media giant behind the film versions of A.A. Milne’s Pooh stories, said it would ban junk food ads on its children’s TV programmes and websites by 2015.

These measures, coming on top of taxes on unhealthy foods in places such as Denmark, Hungary and France, hurt. For this is an industry that relies on marketing (which swallows up about $1 in every $10 of revenue) to sell products that no one needs and which, in excess, can lead to obesity.

 

The big fear for food producers is that legislation, taxation and regulatory clampdowns such as those that engulfed the tobacco industry will come to plague them – despite their protestation that food, unlike cigarettes, does not kill. 

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, the two biggest beverage makers, both flagged a potential dent to earnings from legislative changes long before Mr Bloomberg hatched his plans. In its most recent annual report, Coca-Cola topped a list of more than 30 risk factors” for its profitability with concerns about obesity, related negative publicity and the possibility of new legislation. 

“Obesity and other health concerns may reduce demand for some of our products,” it said.

 “In no way can we [the industry] be complacent,” says Fiona Dawson, managing director at Mars Chocolate UK. She argues that “progressive” companies, such as Mars, are staving off legislation by keeping ahead of the curve – reducing fat, sugar and salt, and curbing advertising to children.

Some believe the health lobby will receive an extra boost from cash-strapped governments, pointing to the introduction last year of Denmark’s “fat tax”, which charges DKr16 ($2.70) per kilogramme of saturated fat in a product. “The nature of budget deficits worldwide is going to lead to more creative taxation under the guise of health,” says Martin Deboo, a food and drink analyst at Investec, the UK brokerage.

Companies are responding with a range of strategies, from working with government, to self-regulation, to lobbying to stave off legislation.

Mars ditched all advertising to under-12s globally in 2007; Nestlé, the world’s biggest food company by sales, stopped advertising to children under six last September and limited the products it advertises to those below 12.

But not all their peers followed suit, which makes Disney’s ban a big blow to the industry.

“It was a pretty significant thing,” Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, told the Financial Times. “[Disney] were ... coming up against some components of the food and beverage industry in deciding that they weren’t going to allow certain products to be advertised because of their public health impact.”

Despite Disney’s move, restrictions on advertising unhealthy food are tighter in Europe than in the US, where one-third of American adults are obese, the highest percentage of any nation in the world.

Advertising restrictions were introduced in the UK in 2006, when the media regulator Ofcom announced a ban on ads for foods high in fat, sugar and salt around children’s viewing times.

European companies have also led the way in working with government to set policy. For example, in the industry group working under the UK government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, set up in 2011, business interests have as many representatives as government and civil society combined.

Elsewhere, companies have worked to reformulate their products, eliminating as much sugar, salt and calories as they can while trying not to compromise taste: no one, as Ms Dawson points out, will buy a treat that does not taste good. 

Heinz discovered as much last year when it reduced the salt in its HP sauce, a favourite British accompaniment to eggs, bacon and sausage. As the mass-market Daily Mail newspaper trumpeted: “HP sauce’s recipe secretly changed after 116 years by American owners of the Great British Condiment.”

Changing recipes is not only risky; it also takes time and gobbles up cash. Mars, for example, has reduced saturated fats in its Mars bars and Snickers by 15 per cent. “But that took us five years and millions of pounds in research and development spending,” says Ms Dawson.

For some companies, the easier response is to follow the path set by their tobacco peers and head to emerging markets, where regulators are often more relaxed about the health implications of their products.

Carbonated drinks are already growing faster, admittedly from a lower base, in emerging markets than in the developed world. Latin America overtook North America in sales by volume in 2008, says Euromonitor, the data agency.

Although increasing their market share in emerging markets is the holy grail for many food companies, some caution against exaggerating the effects of regulation on sales in the developed world. 

“Imperial Tobacco doubled its profits in the UK in the last 20 years despite the tidal wave of regulation,” says Mr Deboo of the UK’s biggest cigarette maker. And, of course, Pooh eventually got out of his tight spot too – with a little help from his friends.

Diet plan stays off TV

Television networks are not likely to go on diets of their own following Walt Disney’s announcement this week that it was setting nutritional standards for food advertising on its children’s programmes, writes Emily Steel in New York.

While food and beverage companies spend an estimated $2bn a year in the US targeting ads at children, several of the country’s largest food and beverage companies, including Burger King, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, are already adopting nutritional guidelines to promote healthier eating to children.

“I suspect that [Disney’s move] is a moot point,” said Brian Wieser, a media analyst with Pivotal Research. “It is as if the TV networks were to say, ‘We’re not accepting tobacco ads’. Well, no tobacco ads are being created.”

The nutritional guidelines, set by the Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative, a self-regulatory group, aim to shift the products advertised to children to ones with more nutritional value. As a result, several marketers have tweaked their ads or their products to fit those standards.

Some of Disney’s competing TV networks, like Viacom’s Nickelodeon, have pledged to follow the guidelines. Other networks are not expected to follow Disney’s lead in adopting their own standards.

While Disney could receive a boost from positive public relations buzz, the effect on its ad revenues will be minimal, analysts say. Total ad spending from food, non-alcoholic beverage and fast food restaurant marketers on two Disney-owned networks with children-focused programming was $7.2m in 2011, according to Kantar Media, the ad-tracking firm. The estimate, however, is conservative because Disney said the guidelines would apply to other properties not tracked by Kantar. Advertising revenues for Disney’s media networks, including its international and domestic cable networks, were $7.6bn in 2011.

Some argue that Disney’s new guidelines go beyond industry standards, which they said were not strict enough. Only 16 food and beverage marketers have pledged to follow the standards, said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“The foods that the CFBAI considers healthy – SpaghettiOs, mac and cheese, sugary cereals – are not foods most parents would consider to be healthy foods,” she said.

Disney Junk-Food Ban Is Seen Costing It Less Than $7.2M

Edmund Lee, Bloomberg, June 5, 2012

Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s plan to bar junk- food advertising from children’s programming would have cost less than $7.2 million in television ad revenue if it were in effect last year, according to estimates by Kantar Media. 

That’s the amount that Disney generated from beverage and food commercials aimed at children in 2011, the New York-based research firm said. The figure is less a 10th of 1 percent of Disney’s total annual advertising sales. The company reported ad revenue of $7.6 billion for its media networks in its last fiscal year, an increase of 8 percent. 

Zenia Mucha, a spokeswoman for Burbank, California-based Disney, said the company doesn’t disclose ad revenue from individual networks or from particular advertisers. She said the Kantar figure was inaccurate, without elaborating. 

Disney announced today that the Disney XD cable network and its block of Saturday morning shows on ABC will bar advertising of foods and beverages that don’t meet its nutrition guidelines by 2015. The same restrictions also will apply to the Disney Channel and Disney Junior -- cable channels that feature sponsorships but no commercials and therefore aren’t counted by Kantar. 

Kantar’s estimates suggest that the change isn’t a big gamble for Disney, the world’s largest entertainment business. The company also stands to gain from promoting healthier Disney- endorsed foods. It’s developing a “Mickey Check” logo, which will indicate that products meet its nutritional standards. That will begin appearing by the end of 2012. 

The company unveiled the plan at an event today with first lady Michelle Obama, who has made healthy eating a signature issue of her office. Chief Executive Officer Robert Iger declined to comment on which products don’t meet the standards, beyond saying that there were “a lot.” 

“We hope to work with these companies so that they can continue advertising on our programs with a product that is nutritious and meets our guidelines,” he said at the event.

Giving parents assurance that Disney-branded products are healthy will ultimately will increase sales, Iger said. “We can create huge change without having the government step in.”

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

Michael M. Grynbaum, the New York Times, May 31, 2012

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity. 

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March. 

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall. 

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.” 

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause. 

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.” 

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday. 

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows. 

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings. 

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common. 

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items. 

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed. 

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows. 

The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available. 

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators. 

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants. 

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them. 

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.” 

But others said consumers should be free to choose. 

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side. 

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.” 

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

Added Sugars Pile Up on Children's Plates

Nicholas Bakalar, The New York Times, March 19, 2012

Older children consume more sugar than younger ones do, boys consume more than girls, and white children consume more than black or Mexican-American children, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics. And they all consume too much.

Multimedia

Graphic

Calories from Added Sugars

Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a continuous examination of a large cross-section of the American population. The survey includes interviews, physical examinations and laboratory tests of blood and urine. For this study, published on Feb. 29, researchers interviewed subjects about their food consumption over the previous 24 hours.

The scientists measured all added sugars — spooned on at the table or used as ingredients in processed and prepared foods like bread, jam, candy and ice cream. Added sugars include white sugar, brown sugar, corn syrup, honey, molasses and others, but not sugars in fruit or pure fruit juice.

Boys got an average of 16.3 percent of their calories from added sugar, and girls 15.5 percent. The older the child, the greater the intake of sugar calories — the diets of 2- to 5-year-olds had less than 14 percent sugar, but boys 12 to 19 consumed 17.5 percent of their calories as added sugar, and adolescent girls, 16.6 percent.

Non-Hispanic whites consumed the largest percentage of calories from sugar and Mexican-Americans the smallest. Family income made no difference in sugar consumption.

The numbers reveal two facts that may contradict commonly held beliefs. First, young people got 60 percent of their sugar calories from foods, and only 40 percent from soft drinks. And second, whether it was from food or drink, they got most of their sugar at home, not at school or elsewhere.

Cynthia L. Ogden, the senior author and an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that added sugars account for 27 percent of the calories in a chocolate chip cookie, 17 percent in a blueberry muffin, 42 percent in sugar-sweetened cereal and 91 percent in a can of cola. The C.D.C. recommends that no more than 5 to 15 percent of calories come from solid fats and added sugars.

“The important thing is reading food labels,” Dr. Ogden said, “and looking at what you’re consuming.”