Beginning Tuesday in New York City, patrons of restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums and arenas would not have been able to buy a sugary drink in a cup larger than 16 ounces.
Called the 'beverage portion rule,' the new regulation, which would have been enforced by the city's Department of Health, gave all the establishments three months to comply and then they will begin to be fined. The city enacted the rule in the hopes of fighting the obesity problem, and is the first in the nation to do so.
But on Monday, a New York judge struck down the regulation, calling it 'arbitrary and capricious.'
Reported The New York Times: "In his opinion, Justice Tingling specifically cited a perceived inequity of the soda rules, which applies to only certain sugared drinks -- for instance, beverages with a high milk content would be exempt -- and would apply only to some food establishments, like restaurants, but not others, like convenience stores."
According to the latest Community Health Survey in New York, in each of the five boroughs, those neighborhoods with higher rates of consumption of sugary drinks tended to have higher obesity rates. Nine of the top 10 neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates city-wide were also the highest in sugary drink consumption.
Sugary drinks are defined as sugar sweetened soda, iced tea, sports drinks and fruit punch.
What do you think? Do you think government rules can make us healthier? Can you sit through a movie without a gallon of soda in your lap? Add your opinion in the comments section of this article.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger . In short those old studies counted "hits" that were not statistically significant and amounted to no more than chance. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/11/01/wheres-consensus-secondhand-smoke In fact, MOST medical studies have been found to be wrong due to a results-oriented bias; http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/ And, it is the EXACT same thing as soda. If you allow government to regulate personal health, then you allow it to regulate personal health, the whole kit and kaboodle. We all know that it is not the general tendency of government programs to shrink and disappear. It is the tendency for them to grow and explode. Just wait until ObamaCare really gets going to wait and see the overwhelming and omnipotent affect of government in our personal health lives. Just wait for the government health database gets up and rolling! They will be telling you exactly what you can and can't eat.
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low." http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on-a-cree-une-peur-qui-ne-repose-sur-rien-31-05-2010-943934.php
But after that it is up to the family to sustain the ideals taught in schools of nutrition, an active lifestyle, and moderation at home; and then it is up to the child when they become independent to make their own choices on what they eat/drink, or what they do in their leisure time. But for NYC, the problem of obesity isn't something that can be directly solved by banning the size of sodas available to residents/consumers. Families simply need to spend money on water filters attached to the faucet (assuming water quality/taste is sub-par), and promote drinking only water and/or fruit juice (which already has enough sugar in it). Most pediatricians recommend 5-9 cups of water for children per day, and 9-13 cups per day for adult women/men.
The Federal governments purpose is to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (and property), not to force us to eat this or not eat that. The solution is simple. Get government out of the things that don't deal with protecting our inalienable rights. The debate about chocolate milk or soda machines in school only exists because governments (by force) run our schools. The solution is to get them out of the education/chocolate milk/soda machine business. You can apply this across the board, with most controversial government-should-do-or-ban-this arguments. The solution to gay marriage has nothing to do with being gay or not, it has to do with government controlling (by force) the marriage business. The solution is to get government out of the marriage business. It's the same thing with healthcare benefits and healthcare and almost anything that government messes up. It's so simple, just allow private people in voluntary associations and voluntary contracts solve all these problems and GET GOVERNMENT OUT!