NYC Department of Health Approves Super-Sized Soda Ban

In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, the New York City Department of Health rubber stamped Mayor Mike Bloomberg's proposal to ban sugared beverages that exceed 16 ounces. The vote was 8-0 with one absention.

The regulation passed Thursday puts a 16-ounce size limit on cups and bottles of non-diet soda, sweetened teas and other calorie-packed beverages.

The ban will apply in fast-food joints, movie houses and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias and most other places selling prepared food.

It doesn't cover supermarkets or most convenience stores.

City health officials say the ban is necessary to combat a deadly obesity epidemic.

The ban would take effect in March 2013. Health experts claim that the limit would help fight the obesity epidemic, and that soda is nothing but empty calories.

Never mind that this becomes an indirect tax on those who purchase the oversized beverages rather than a multitude of smaller beverages (sharing among multiple cheaper because it's cheaper per ounce to do so).

Setting aside the nanny-state aspects of the ban, which are numerous, there are practical problems with the ban.


The ban ignores that there are other more dangerous food products that are just as likely, if not more so, to cause adverse health effects.

No one is calling for bans on sales of steaks larger than 8 ounces, even though beef products can contain more fat and calories that can pack on the pounds and lead to obesity.

Here, the focus appears to be on the "empty" calories, and nothing more.

There are carve-out exemptions for milk-based beverages, such as iced coffees, and juices, and that too ignores that those beverages contain far more calories than the now-banned products.

The restrictions would not affect fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; no-calorie diet sodas would not be affected, but establishments with self-service drink fountains, like many fast-food restaurants, would not be allowed to stock cups larger than 16 ounces.

Only establishments that receive inspection grades from the health department would have to obey the rules, a group that includes movie theaters and stadium concession stands. Convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its king-size “Big Gulp” drinks, would be exempt, along with vending machines and some newsstands.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said the plan does not limit consumers’ choices, since customers can still purchase as many 16-ounce drinks as they would like. The soft-drink industry, which has spent more $1 million on a public-relations campaign opposing the plan, argues that the policy restricts consumers’ freedom to buy beverages as they see fit.

Six in 10 residents said they thought the plan was a bad idea in a recent poll by The New York Times. But the measure easily earned the approval of the health board, whose members were appointed by the mayor. The board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to approve the measure just after 11 a.m. Thursday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made curbing obesity a top goal for his administration, citing higher rates of diabetes and fatalities among the city’s more overweight neighborhoods. More than half of adult New Yorkers are obese or overweight, according to the city’s health department.

Bloomberg seems to have targeted those products that he thought he could ban without a stiffer fight - rather than following the science.

This wouldn't appear to ban refills, which is yet another way to circumvent the ban on portion size.

And, as I've noted before, the soda makers could rebut the empty calories claims by adding vitamins and minerals to the soda products. It also ignores that obesity isn't the product of drinking more soda - if anything consumption of soda has declined, but obesity rates have continued to increase.

Obesity is a product of a sedentary lifestyle and consumption choices. Bloomberg seems to think that hiking the price of soda (which is what the ban on super-sized beverages would have) will result in reduced consumption and lower obesity levels. I expect that people will simply choose other alternatives and continue consumption of all calories at existing levels. Substitution will occur - not reduction.

If the New York City ban takes effect as scheduled, expect other cities to follow suit.

Soda Ban Proposal Gets Health Department Public Hearing Today

The New York City Department of Health will be holding a hearing today to allow comment on a proposal to ban certain kinds of sales of sugar-containing beverages.

A just released study by New York University found that the ban as proposed would cut caloric intake by 63 calories, but the results may be negligible as customers simply buy more of the beverages:

Mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban caps a maximum size of 16 ounces for sugary drinks - sold in cups or bottles - at food establishments under the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's jurisdiction. That includes restaurants, fast food chains, delis, street carts and movie theaters. Drinks sold at grocery and convenience stores - including two-liter bottles and 7-11's "Big Gulp" fountain drinks - would be exempt from the ban.

New research led by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, analyzed what impact Mayor Bloomberg's proposal would have on a typical consumer's calorie intake.

Elbel and fellow NYU researchers pooled data from two studies that included 1,624 sales receipts listing a non-milkshake beverage (dairy products are excluded from the proposed ban), which were collected from diners at three different fast-food restaurants in New York City, Newark, N.J., Philadelphia and Baltimore from 2008 to 2010. Their research is published in a correspondence to the editor in the July 23 online issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the receipts and corresponding survey information collected from the studies, the researchers determined that 62 percent of beverages bought at these restaurants would be over 16 ounces and subject to the mayor's new proposal. Elbel explained to HealthPop in an interview that if 100 percent of fast food consumers switched to a 16-ounce drink from their previous order, the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant.

However that's assuming nobody opts to purchase an additional 16-ounce beverage - people can buy as many as they like at these establishments under Bloomberg's proposal - which Elbel conceded may not be likely. His research found that if only 30 percent of consumers reduced their intake to a 16-ounce beverage, the decrease in calories would be negligible.

I've repeatedly stated my opposition to this ban on several grounds, including that it arbitrarily creates a class of banned beverages, even though there are other beverages that contain far more calories per ounce and that other lifestyle choices can have a far greater impact on public health (many a Starbucks beverage will often have more calories than a soda as would many of the iced beverages sold at McDonalds and other chains).

In other words, the class of beverages affected is arbitrary and will not have any appreciable effect on obesity, but it would pave the way for far more intrusive changes imposed by health departments around the country.

Sedentary lifestyles play a significant role in obesity and getting more exercise needs to be considered. Cutting soda portion size isn't a panacea, particularly when soda consumption has been down even as the number of obese people has increased. Something else is at play when soda consumption is down even as the percentage of obese people has increased. That something happens to include a sedentary lifestyle and oversized food portions.

Mayor Bloomberg's proposals are about what he thinks the Department of Health can get away with as far as limiting portion sizes, not based on actual science or greatest impact on public health.

It still comes down to personal choice, and a person will take in far more calories than they need, which is why so many people try and fail on diets to eat sensibly and within their caloric needs as determined by nutritionists or diet experts. The failure to exercise makes things all the worse.

After all, someone who eats a 16 ounce porterhouse or other similar steak will take in far more calories than someone drinking a 16 ounce soda, but there's no limiting the restaurant from serving even bigger portions of steak, even though a serving size is a fraction of that amount.

This is just a misguided effort by a nanny stater to impose a ban that will have a negligible effect on public health.

If He Can't Tax It, Bloomberg Hopes To Ban Big Gulp-Sized Soda Sales

Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues his nanny-state ways. His latest proposal is to ban sales of super-sized sugary beverages:

The man behind calorie counts is set to announce a new public health initiative to battle obesity, taking aim at super-sized sugary drinks.

In other words, it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks, CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis reported.

“That’s okay,” one person said.

No it’s not, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city.

“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.

It's one thing to require calorie counts so that people can have the knowledge to choose products that may be healthier and lower in calories.

It's quite another to ban an entire size category - anything larger than 16 ounces. Nothing stops those who are already buying those products from simply buying two of the smaller size - and increasing the costs to the purchaser (which might be part of Bloomberg's strategy).

However, soda and sugary beverages aren't the sole culprit, or even the main culprit in an obesity epidemic. Consider that most folks aren't getting enough exercise. A sedentary lifestyle plays a far greater role than soda.

Then, there's the caloric intake due to super sized meal portions or even portions at high end restaurants that blow the scales on calories. Consider that a famed restaurant like Junior's in Brooklyn is notable for their desserts, including cheesecake. Those portions aren't small. In fact, a single serving could feed two or more people in many cases. We're not talking an insubstantial calorie count either.

How about the steakhouses around the city (either sole locations or chains). They offer up huge steak portions - thousands of calories, tons of fat, protein, and other nutrients. Those aren't even being considered.

So, does this in fact turn out to be a "tax" on those who are least able to afford food cost increases? Since many vendors charge far less for the largest sizes of beverages per ounce than those with the smaller sizes, sharing among family members or friends would be out of the question with Bloomberg's ban, and it would mean that customers would incur higher charges to get the same amount of product.

Moreover, there's no reason to single out sodas and sugary beverages from other products - like juices or milk-based products (like milk shakes) if we're talking strictly calorie counts - the basis of Bloomberg's premise behind the proposed ban.

It appears that the only reason that juice and milk-based products aren't included in the ban is because they have other nutrients. Yet, juice and milk shakes can contain as much or more calories per ounce than soda - and the fact that soda doesn't have any other nutrients could be altered if the soda manufacturers add other nutrients to them - to get around a proposed ban.

If Bloomberg goes ahead with this ban, watch soda manufacturers consider lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, as well as consider adding vitamins or minerals to show that these aren't merely empty calories (and undermining Bloomberg's premise). UPDATE: To give you an idea of how asinine Bloomberg's proposal is, consider that a T-bone steak - 8 oz worth is 448 calories. That compares to 8 ounces of Coca Cola that runs 98 calories. It would take 32 ounces of soda to equal the steak, and the steak has other issues (namely fats that contribute to obesity, although there is protein and other nutritional value to steak in moderation.

Cut the Fat, Cut the Gas Consumption?

In the past few days, there have been a series of reports about the costs of obesity on the American economy. The study attempts to quantify how much obesity costs for health care, transportation, and other factors.

Because obesity raises the risk of a host of medical conditions, from heart disease to chronic pain, the obese are absent from work more often than people of healthy weight. The most obese men take 5.9 more sick days a year; the most obese women, 9.4 days more. Obesity-related absenteeism costs employers as much as $6.4 billion a year, health economists led by Eric Finkelstein of Duke University calculated.

Even when poor health doesn't keep obese workers home, it can cut into productivity, as they grapple with pain or shortness of breath or other obstacles to working all-out. Such obesity-related "presenteeism," said Finkelstein, is also expensive. The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female. Total annual cost of presenteeism due to obesity: $30 billion.

Decreased productivity can reduce wages, as employers penalize less productive workers. Obesity hits workers' pocketbooks indirectly, too: Numerous studies have shown that the obese are less likely to be hired and promoted than their svelte peers are. Women in particular bear the brunt of that, earning about 11 percent less than women of healthy weight, health economist John Cawley of Cornell University found. At the average weekly U.S. wage of $669 in 2010, that's a $76 weekly obesity tax.

MORE DOCTORS, MORE PILLS

The medical costs of obesity have long been the focus of health economists. A just-published analysis finds that it raises those costs more than thought.

Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

One aspect that seems to have currency is that a nation of overweight people driving and flying costs more - a whole lot more - than a nation that would weigh at recommended levels. Reducing obesity levels could save up to a billion gallons of gasoline a year.

The Atlantic reports that the amount of fuel we're using is on the rise as well, as heavy occupants need more fuel to get from Point A to *insert drive-thru joke here*. A 2006 study shows that Americans weigh so much more than they did in 1960 that we're using up almost an additional billion gallons of petrol every year.

That's about $4 billion a year at today's gas prices, and nearly one percent of overall fuel usage. And that was back in 2006 – as we continue to plump up, the dollars continue to pile up. Inside Line reports that each pound we gain as a population adds up to another $39 million. It's too bad we can't get stop/start tech for our appetites.

Regular readers might remember a similar story about the 2006 study that claimed the U.S. is using an extra 153 million gallons a year. That was an estimate based on actual fuel deliveries. The new number, 938 million gallons, comes from engineer Sheldon Jacobson of the University of Illinois.

Considering that automakers are spending billions of dollars trying to shave just a few pounds off their automobiles to make them more fuel efficient for EPA testing (and the Consumer Reports real world driving results that factor into purchasing decisions for many consumers), the fact that so many people are overweight negates the fuel economy measures that automakers are putting into their vehicles.

People have to realize that their weight costs them considerably. A sedentary lifestyle helps no one, least of all those who lead them.

At the same time, taxing sugar or fast food isn't the solution either - not when so many people simply don't exercise or when you see all the millions of people struggling with diet plans and exercise plans.

Responsible eating habits help, but it comes down to exercise and the need for people to actually motivate themselves to get off the couch and do something - anything - that gets them moving.

The Absurdity of the Battle Over School Lunches

The battle over school lunches, or more precisely, what goes into a school lunch, has veered into the absurd with two separate stories today.

One report indicates that a school has banned brown bag lunches because parents aren't providing kids with the kinds of nutritious meals that the health experts believe should be included.

One Chicago school has banned lunches brought from home, the Chicago Tribune reports. Administrators at Little Village Academy, a public school, say the policy is all in the name of good health. Principal Elsa Carmona told the Tribune she created the policy after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" for their lunch.

"It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke,” Carmona said.

Some kids and parents at the school beg to differ about the food quality, saying it doesn't taste good, and the Tribune reported that dozens of kids threw food in the garbage, uneaten. We don't know what's on the menu at Little Village, but these photos of "an enchilada dish" are less than appealing. And really, when is the last time you sampled delicious fare in a school cafeteria? (I am forever haunted by the glue-like yellowish thing my elementary school called lemon pudding.)

Recipes aside, the policy leaves a bad taste in the mouth for plenty of other reasons.

Unless a student has a medical excuse to bring food from home, the only option other than eating cafeteria food is to eat nothing. (Think those kids will ace a quiz on an empty stomach?) And does something like glucose intolerance merit a medical excuse? What about vegetarianism?

Cost is another matter. What if parents don't want to spend money on school lunch because they can send less expensive food from home?

When you actually review what meals are provided by these schools, you see lots of mystery meat and milk (or chocolate milk, which I'll discuss in a moment).

I always brown bagged meals throughout public school and refused to eat whatever was being served in the schools in part because it looked so incredibly distasteful. Then, there's the religious exemptions - will these meals be halal or kosher? I doubt it, particularly when you're mixing meat and milk products at the same meal (or included in the same dishes if you're kosher).

Then, there's the ongoing battle over whether chocolate milk deserves a place in school lunches (and see here and here).

At the center of these battles are complex public health calculations: Is it better to remove sugary chocolate flavorings at the risk that many students will skip milk altogether, missing out on crucial calcium and Vitamin D? Or should schools instead make tweaks — less fat, different sweeteners, fewer calories — that might salvage the benefits while minimizing the downside?

However schools answer these questions, protest inevitably follows. When Fairfax County and D.C. schools banned chocolate milk last year from elementary lunch lines, officials heard not just from parents and students. They also received letters and petitions from a slew of nutritionists and influential special interest groups.

Most accused the districts of acting rashly, robbing students of a tasty drink and the vitamins and minerals that fuel bone and muscle growth.

“We got 10 to 20 e-mails a day,” said Penny McConnell, director of food and nutrition services for Fairfax. “It was a lot of pressure.”

This month — and partly because of that pressure — Fairfax officials announced that they would reintroduce chocolate milk in school cafeterias. The newer, low-fat version includes sucrose, which is made from sugar cane or beets, instead of high-fructose corn syrup, which some critics say is more heavily processed and, as a result, less healthy.

Such reformulations have satisfied some of chocolate milk’s critics. But most scientists and nutritionists, including those employed by local school districts, say that changing sweeteners makes little dietary difference if the total calorie content stays the same.

With nanny staters looking to ban soda all over the place, the next step has been to push for banning products that contain more sugar, as these nanny staters believe that anything that provides more calories than they like should not be provided.

Instead of battling over whether parents have a right to determine what their kids eat in brown bag lunches or whether chocolate milk should or shouldn't be provided as part of the lunches, the focus should be on portion control, exercise and moderation. That's the best way to reduce the obesity epidemic in the nation - and that also goes to how so many parents just don't recognize that their kids are overweight according to BMI or other statistical measures). Pointing out that your kid isn't any bigger than other kids in his or her class doesn't cut it particularly when so many kids are now obese and will likely suffer the effects of being physically inactive the rest of their lives.

Restaurants Propose Even More Insane Food Options

As if the super-sized portions that already contribute to ever expanding waistlines aren't enough, two restaurant chains are introducing even larger burgers.

The fast-food world has proof positive that size matters: a foot-long cheeseburger.

A cheeseburger sold as a foot-long sandwich, with three burgers and three cheese slices, is being tested at 50 Carl's Jr. restaurants in Southern California and 50 Hardee's units in Indiana. That's the same chain that introduced the world to the 1,400-calorie Monster Burger and the Monster Breakfast Sandwich, with 47 grams of fat.

The move comes at a time fast-food chains are focused on concocting more items intriguingly low in price but large in size. This summer, there's serious foot-long-on-the-cheap mania.

The Carl's foot-long fetches $4 without lettuce and tomatoes, $4.50 with.

Sonic just added a $2.99 foot-long hot dog this month. Subway, the king of the $5 sub, will roll out a line of spicy foot-longs in mid-August. Quiznos is eyeing a line of premium foot-longs early this fall — one made with prime rib — for $5.

"We live in a society that's fascinated with all things big," says Scott Hume, editor of BurgerBusiness.com, an industry trade site. "It's inherently American to push for something bigger and better than anyone else has."

Who the heck needs that much food (1,400 calories) at a single sitting? It's more than half a daily recommended intake and unless your name is Michael Phelps or competitive eater Kobiyashi or Joey Chestnut, there's no reason to eat that much (and even then - I wonder about those competitive eaters).

Restaurants continue pandering to who exactly with these huge sandwiches and heart attacks on a plate?

Portion control should be a given for the individual, but that doesn't mean restaurants shouldn't try exercising portion control as well. They could make money selling reasonably sized portions at a lower price while still feeding the bottom line. However, since most people seem to attribute value with size, restaurants continue to supersize portions, even when they aren't healthy.

Foot long sandwiches aren't necessarily a bad thing - if you're sharing them between two people. These new burger concoctions aren't meant to be shared.

And if you think that fast food restaurants are bad, consider the fast casual restaurants like Chili's, Red Robin, and others, who dole out monstrous burgers with eye-popping sodium counts:

Last month, Adams Reynolds of thehealthyboy.com released a list of the Worst — as in unhealthiest — Burgers in America. The Worst Healthy Burger: Ruby Tuesday’s Veggie Burger, with 1,007 calories and 53 grams of fat. The saltiest burger? Red Robin’s A1 Peppercorn Burger, with 5,784 milligrams of sodium.

Worst Burger in America, according to Reynolds? Chili’s Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burger with Jalapeño Ranch Dressing, which is a mouthful to say, much less eat. The burger packs 1,901 calories, 138 grams of fat and 4,201 milligrams of sodium, with more saturated fat than 15 large orders of McDonald’s french fries and more calories than 19 sticks of cotton candy.