After reading the two articles linked to the EDA March Agenda for March 14/15, please post your response below using our usual guidelines.
To earn all participation points:
- Start your entry with your first name, last initial, EDA period # and EDA teacher name.
- Write in complete, well-constructed sentences.
- Use proper capitalization, punctuation, language and spelling throughout.
- Build paragraphs with a clear beginning, supporting evidence or detail statements, and conclusions.
- Your entry should be 250 words in length.
You should type and save your response in a Google or Word document, then copy and paste into the comment section below - these programs can show word count.
- State the judgment clearly and specifically in your own words.
- Describe in detail the judge's reasoning for the judgment - find and state as many reasons/arguments as possible between the two articles.
- Identify what groups were in favor of this judgment. There is some surprise to their response - explain as best you can why the response might have been surprising.
- Identify those who are in opposition to this judgment. What are their future plans?
- What are some immediate consequences of the judgment?
Gavin Lee
ReplyDeletePer.1
The judge ruled against the law because the mayor did not take it up with the city council. he also did not pass it because he thought it might affect small businesses to the point where they may not be able to continue to stay in businesses. He only took it up with the board of health who of course thought it would be a good idea. also the mayor was the one who appointed them in the first place. the groups that liked the judgment included the companies. they said that it would cost a lot of money to not be able to sell those drinks. they would have to make a lot of changes that would cost them a lot of money. this is surprising because they should be more concerned about peoples health then losing a few of their millions of dollars. the people that were in opposition of this ruling included the mayor and the board of health. they plan to try and push the bill so that we can become a fit nation again as opposed to the fat nation that we are today. a few immediate consequences include the ever growing health problem that is growing in america to continue to grow with nothing in the way to stop it. the other thing is that small businesses and other businesses can continue to grow without having to deal with the setback that would be caused by this bill.
Cliff D. Period 1 Ms. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe ruling of the Soda Ban bill was not to pass it. Judge Tingling said the bill was “arbitrary and capricious”. The judge also refused to pass the bill because of its loopholes; the main one being that the bill only applied to restaurants and not grocery stores. Also, the bill didn't limit sweetened milk based drinks such as milkshakes. The judge also was concerned about the Health Department possessing these “sweeping powers” and the Soda Ban would "eviscerate" the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature branches of city government. Tingling ruled that Bloomberg exceeded his authority by bringing the bill directly to the Health department and not the City Council. Groups that were for this ruling include the American Beverage Association, Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, Snapple, National Restaurant Association, and many citizens. Some companies with restaurants were scrambling to change the layout of their soft drinks to comply with the law which they thought would take effect Tuesday. So when the bill is overruled, they might have been surprised. There were groups who were unhappy with the ruling, such as Bloomberg’s administrators and other citizens. Jennifer Pomeranz, who is the director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said there is no legal difference between the trans-fat ban and the soda limitation. She thinks the Health department has the same authority here. Mayor Bloomberg does plan on bringing this to appeal and hopes to win there. Some immediate consequences might apply to the restaurants who have already reworked their beverage system.
Alex Beamer
ReplyDeletePeriod 1 EDA
3/14/13
Mayor Bloomberg’s “health plan” was gunned down on Monday by Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling. Tingling stated that Bloomberg’s plan was based on a whim. Bloomberg’s stance on his notion is that lives are lost due to sugary drinks, and believes that they need to be sold in smaller portions.
Judge Tingling described Mayor Bloomberg’s plan as “arbitrary and capricious.” Tingling believes that Bloomberg’s opinion is based off of random, faulty information. He also states that Bloomberg’s notion had many loopholes, like allowing sweetened milk products such as milkshakes and other sugar sweetened beverages, like Starbucks coffee and milk products.
Many small businesses and restaurants are in favor of the verdict, as it helps out their personal sales with thirsty customers. The National Restaurant Association states that it will save businesses and suppliers unnecessary costs. Unsurprisingly, companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola are in favor of the decision against the ban.
However, there are also groups against this ban. It is safe to assume that Mayor Bloomberg and his team are one of these groups, and that they will continue fighting their “health war.” However, it seems as though Bloomberg will be taking a different direction by fighting fast food packaging.
For every decision there are consequences. In this instance, the consequence is that Bloomberg will come back fighting, and that New Yorkers will continue to drink their Big Gulps as they please, to the horror of Mayor Bloomberg. However, we can count on Bloomberg returning with a new health plan.
Mary Lou W
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 1
Mrs. Carr
The judge struck down the ban, and said that is was based on a personal whim rather than on reason.The judge thought the mayor Bloomberg was exceeding his authority by going past the city council and placing the issue in the hands of the city’s Board of Health. The judge said "not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it." It was said that the ban would not apply to drinks with more sugar or calories such as milkshakes and coffee and it does not regulate the amount of refills. The ban only applied to businesses under the law of the health department, so stores such as 7-eleven and their 64 ounce Big Gulp were not obligated to take to the ban. Beverage manufacturers, restaurants and other businesses are opposed of it because it is an “Illegal Overreach” and it would break the consumers’ personal liberty. The people weren't afraid of the soda ban, but to carry out the ban raised their taxes. This was one of the downsides if the ban were to pass. A director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said that there was no legal difference between Bloomberg's earlier ban of trans-fat and the ban of sugary drinks. She was in favor, and said that the ‘Judge had it wrong’ and that she didn't understand why the trans-fat ban was legal but not the soda ban. Mayor Bloomberg says, “Anytime you adopt a groundbreaking policy, special interests will sue,That's America."
Andrew W.
ReplyDeleteEDA period #1
Mrs.Carr
The judgement day for this largely spoken of “Soda Ban” in New York being pushed by mayor Michael Bloomberg has come and gone and the decision has been made. The soda ban has been taken out and dismantled by Supreme Court judge Milton Tingling and will not be put into action as it otherwise would have this Tuesday. Judge Tingling’s reasoning for cancelling the soon to be ban on soda was that Bloomberg didn’t speak to the City Council, only the City’s Board of Health, all of which were appointed by Bloomberg and it was not right.
Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy said that the Board of Health has the same amount of the authority as the council and thinks the judgement is unfair. Christine Quinn, a city council speaker, also believes that the Board of Health has the power to impose the ban regulations.
However, there are some people who are in favor of the judgement such as the restaurants and other places that sell the sugary drinks. They the ban would conflict with the consumer’s liberty. The consumers of New York are also happy that the ban did not go into action. Although some are happy and some are sad or mad about the ruling, there are some immediate consequences of it. one huge immediate consequence is the fact that more and more people are dying everyday from eating these unhealthy foods, but in the end I guess that is just their own decisions and bad choices.
Kevin H., EDA Period 1, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteMayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City declared a soda ban that banned sugary drinks over 24-ounces in food places in NYC. When brought to court, the judgement was disapproved by the judge. The judge thought that the law excluded other beverages that possibly had a higher number of sugar than soda, the law doesn’t restrict citizens of getting refills, the law would not have affected 7-11 and it’s 64-ounce Big Gulp because it’s run by the state and not the city, and there would be wouldn’t be enough enforcement in each city block to enforce the laws. The judgement could have consequences because one article already said that there are loopholes in the ban. Also, all the judge’s points are valid and true. After the information about the loopholes has been posted to the public, everyone would be aware that they can get refills and make the laws ineffective.
One supporter of the judgement is Dawn Sweeney, CEO of the National Restaurant Association and she said she’s glad that the judgement went the way it did because it would rescue restaurants and fast food places of wasting their money on new supplies that is required to adapt to the ban’s laws. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City was 100% against the judgement. After the judgement he said that he was going to keep fighting for the soda ban, but the question is: Is the soda ban going to get approved before Mayor Bloomberg’s term expires? Is the next mayor going to fight for the ban like Bloomberg did?
Czionne M
ReplyDeleteEDA P.1 Carr
New York City’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, attempted to pass a law stating that all sugary beverages above 16 oz. were to be banned from New York’s food-service establishments. On March 11, 2013 Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal was crushed by New York Supreme Court Judge, Milton Tingling. Judge Tingling shot down Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal because he saw that Bloomberg was exceeding his authority by taking the subject to the city’s Board of Health, who all people were appointed by him, instead of taking it to the city council. Judge Tingling also stated that Bloomberg’s proposal was “arbitrary and capricious”.
A large number of people are in favor of this judgment, most of which are consumers of large sugary drinks. One person stated that the judgment was a “victory for personal freedom” while sipping soda from a 44-oz. cup. Those in favor of this judgment include food-establishments, who believe that the ban on oversized drinks would interfere with their businesses. A bar owner said that he is fine with Mayor Bloomberg telling people to be healthy, but limiting soda sizes is not okay.
There are those who believe that the judgment was wrong. Claire Wang, an assistant professor in health policies was “disappointed” with the decision. Jennifer Pomeranz, a director of legal initiatives at Yale University says that the Mayor’s proposal was the same as the trans-fat ban that the mayor succeeded in passing, while Judge Tingling thinks otherwise.
In the end, Mayor Michael Bloomberg disagrees with Judge Tingling’s decision and is still trying to pass his proposal.
Spencer Malone
ReplyDeleteeda period 1 Carr
the way I interpret the ruling the judge stated that mayor bloomburg was abusing his power as mayor by going around the city council and going directly to the board of health which he appointed. The reason the judge over ruled mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is because it was an abuse of his power, and it was an infringement on personal freedom. Some groups in opposition of his ruling include the mayor who wanted it to pass because he believed it would actual do something to stop people from being fat. Another group is Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy who said "The judge got it wrong," she said. "The authority of the department of health is the exact same authority [in both cases]. It doesn't make sense to me that the trans-fat ban is legal, and they struck this down.” A group that was for this was Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, said the large sugary drink ban wasn't as simple as the smoking ban for the public to understand and support. "There was irrefutable statistical evidence that smoking is bad for people in innumerable ways,"Mr. Muzzio said. "With sugary sodas, the causal chain is less clear. Everybody who smokes suffers some adverse consequences, basically. Not everyone who drinks 16 ounce sodas has a health problem."
Drew Garbe
ReplyDeleteMrs. Carr
EDA period 1
3/14/13
Soda Ban Judgement
On Monday 3/11/13 Mayor Michael Bloomberg soda ban was prohibited by Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling. Judge Tingling made this judgement because the ban was “arbitrary and capricious”, and he also stated that “Mr. Bloomberg has exceeded his authority”. Many people were in favor but many more were in opposition.
Those in favor in the Mayors law were Jennifer Pomeranz. She is the director of Yale University’s s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity she said the soda ban is just like the trans-fat ban and it did not make sense that they stopped the ban. Claire Wang assistant at Columbia's University was very disappointed about the ruling she said that New York was one of the leading states in public health and was hoping it would pass so other states would follow. People were in favor but many more were not.
Those not in favor of the ban were Saul Farber, who works at a movie theater, said it was “victory for personal freedom”. Dan Sweeney the CEO of the national restaurant association said it saves restaurants unnecessary costs. Doug Muzzio, a professor at Baruch College also opposed it saying that it was more complicate than the smoking bill and not all people suffer from drinking. Even though Bloomberg was stopped he still may have another idea.
Mayor Bloomberg mentioned a ban on polystyrene foam, because it can not be recycled. It would not be surprising if he tried to pass a ban on that too.
1. For a number of reasons, this bill is irrational. Furthermore, to approve it on such unreasonable basis might mean giving too much power to the Mayor. The bill is relatively unsupported logically. It also has a few obvious loopholes, so it cannot be passed.
ReplyDelete2. The soda ban did not apply to everyone, which would make it unfair. It targeted only soda while there are worse things available (i.e. milkshakes). There is less sense in this bill also because people would still be able to get free refills. With this, it could be argued that this bill would just be a hassle for business owners. Dunkin’ Donuts said they would just have to hand over an unsweetened drink, and then direct the person to the sweetener dispensers. Furthermore, this bill would give too much power to the health board and thus dissipate the separation between the legislative and executive branches of power since Mayor Bloomberg could avoid dealing with the city council.
3. The denial was relieving for many of the large beverage companies, New York citizens, and small businesses, and the many people who work in serving America food/drink-wise.
4.NYC Mayor Bloomberg plans on appealing the case thinking that the judge made a mistake. He is going to keep pressing his case. Jennifer Pomeranz believes that this ban is not legally different from the ban on trans-fats. People whose work has to do with keeping America healthy also disliked the judgement.
5. The people who were going to be affected by the soda ban thought that the ban would take effect, but then was stopped the day before. There is lots of conflict because, on one side, Bloomberg is fighting for the city’s healthful well being while others are in favor of the inertia of America’s refreshments system.
Mary H
ReplyDeleteEDA period 1
Mrs. Carr
In 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a Soda ban law that would prohibit the city’s fast food establishments from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. But unfortunately for Bloomberg, the ban was not passed. The Judge’s ruling stated that “It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other
Beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the Loopholes inherent in the rule ... serve to gut the purpose of the rule,” The Judge also stated that “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages,". The regulations would do more than just violate the separation of powers; he said it would eviscerate it.Because it excludes other beverages that have a higher sugar concentration, it would be worthless, since people could still get refills. Most of the companies like, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper were glad that that the ban was overruled, even saying that it was a “sigh of relief” small businesses, and New Yorkers throughout the city.
"What the industry is very worried about is not measures like Bloomberg's, which is local and easy to walk around. What they’re worried about is taxes," Tom Pirko said. And then there are those who actually wanted this ridiculous ban to pass saying things like there is no legal difference between trans-fat and sugary serving size restriction. Or that The Judge was wrong because the authority of the department of health is the exact same authority in both of the cases (soda ban, trans-fat ban). Jennifer Pomeranz thought that it made no sense that they rejected the soda ban idea, but were okay with banning trans-fats. Mayor Bloomberg was the most upset out of everyone of course, and he plans to try to have the ban appealed again because he feels that the judge was in error.
Rachel W.
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 1
Carr
The supreme court judge of New York, Milton Tingling declined the soda ban the day before it was set out to occur because he believed Bloomberg’s idea was sudden and unreasonable, and he didn’t take the consideration of the public into it first. He said the proposal was invalid. Bloomberg believed the judge’s ruling was “in error.” Beverage companies and restaurants thought the soda ban was illegal and took away consumers’ personal rights. Bloomberg has passed bans on smoking in certain areas, trans fats, and required chain restaurants to post calorie counts. He wants to keep fighting against the obesity epidemic, but I think he needs to take a bit smaller steps before he tries to ban everything unhealthy. I understand that Bloomberg is just trying to help, but I believe being healthy is a choice, and people just need to be aware of all the dangers the world has mislead us to.
53 percent of adult New Yorkers voted against the ban and 42 percent voted in favor. This shows that even if the ban was passed, It wouldn’t be very effective. People would just buy more sugary drinks, or add how many packets of sugar they desired, as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts was promoting.
We will not know if the case will be resolved before the end of Bloomberg’s term this year. It appears Jennifer Pomeranz agrees with the ban because it basically does the same thing as the trans fats ban, but with a different subject. Judge Tingling also said there would be an uneven enforcement of the ban, since 7-11 has the 64-ounce “Big Gulp” and is regulated by the state and not the city. Matt Hayek, a bartender at Brother Jimmy’s, disagrees with ban because it bans certain sized glasses. Some consequences include people drinking more large sodas, knowing that they have the freedom to do so; and some people are disappointed that the ban did not pass.
Matthew M.Mrs.Carr.Period 1.
ReplyDeleteNYC Soda Law Judgement Blog Response
NYC has made a law that bans any type of sugary drink larger than 16 ounces. There are people trying to stop the ban from going through but they have not been able to complete this task. The supreme court judges have the final say as of if the ban is going to be put into play or if it is not an adequate law. Yet so far the judges are not liking the idea of letting this law go through. The two articles that i have read seem to me that only one of the judges wants the ban to go through because he thinks that it will help the health of the city. Yet the other judge in the second article thinks that the bill should not be passed because it is not a reasonable or adequate bill to be passed. I do not think that the ban should go into effect because it is not fair to the New York citizens. The courts should have a vote from the citizens and ask them what they think about the ban. I will bet you that most of them will say that the ban is not reasonable because 16 ounces is too small and i would say the same thing. In fact they should do this for all of the bills and bans that are trying to be passed. see how the american people like it. People do not like changes, people get angry sometimes when there are changes and they will take drastic measures and even do crazy things to get things back to the way that they were.
Bea C.
ReplyDeleteEDA P1
Carr
The judgement for banning sugary drinks larger than 16-ounces was that it was based on a personal whim and that it wouldn’t change people’s behaviors. The judge was saying how people could get refills, go to convenience stores and supermarkets, and that it didn’t ban high concentrations of sugar sweeteners and calories. It wasn’t going to be a big impact in New York.
Some people who were in favor of the judge’s ruling were Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, aides to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat who is running for mayor, Bill Thompson who attempted to be mayor in 2009 and is trying again, Saul Farber from AMC Loews Village 7 theater, Matt Hayek a bartender at Brother Jimmy’s, Chris Gindlesperger, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple, Dawn Sweeney, CEO of the National Restaurant Association, and also New York City adults took a Marist University poll last summer said 53% were against this ban. It was surprising on how some of the people who were in favor of the judge’s ruling were people running for mayor. It would seem like they would approve of this to try and make them look like they really care about the obesity, diabetes, etc. rates.
Some people who were opposed to the judge’s ruling were Claire Wang, assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, who endorsed the proposal, Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. The city is going to do an appeal and the people who are all for this ban aren’t going to stop fighting for it.
Immediate consequences of the judgement are rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. still going up, but the soda ban doesn’t really make that much of an impact in that or anything for that matter.
Uriem F.
ReplyDeleteEDA,Per:1
Ms.Carr
Response to Soda Ban Judgement
In the NYC soda ban, Mayor Bloomberg wanted to ban oversized sugary drinks over 16 ounces to the city’s food-service establishments (city’s restaurants, movie theatre, and other food serving businesses). However, state Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled against his proposal for many reasons. Mayor Bloomberg and Michael Cardozo(the city’s top lawyer) vow to appeal this issue.
The reason why Judge Milton was opposed to his proposal was because he didn’t believe it was well thought out about and as effective. He believed his authority was sidestepping the city council by placing the issue before the city's Board of Health and that it would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate them. And that was much more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages. He also said it would be a fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences because it would not affect other store like supermarkets and convenience store like the Big Gulp at 7-11. It also didn’t stop people from getting refills.
The groups that were in favor with this judgement are beverage manufacturers, restaurants and other business groups, they say it takes a persons personal freedom away. Mr.Muzzio, who is a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, said that there really wasn’t enough evidence to show people could be badly affected from sugary drinks as much as cigarettes.Christine Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat who is running for mayor, said she prefers to education people instead of restricting them. A surprising response I found is when McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts and have customers self serve themselves with separate sugar packets or stands with syrups. This was surprising because if the oversized sugary drinks did become a law, in a way they would help break it.
There were quite a few people that were in opposition to this judgement. Jennifer Pomeranz, the director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, thought that banding the oversized sugary drinks isn't any different from the the banding of trans-fat in food. Bill de Blasio, a democrat, wants to appeal this issue. Claire Wang, an assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, stated that she was disappointed. Their future plans is to appeal the decision.
Some immediate consequences of the judgement are that some people that are trying to be healthy will not be happy about this. People who are overweight or have too much sugar in their diet will also continue to do so because if the city doesn't think its bad to drink sugary drinks then they won't because it won't be seen as a serious matter. It would also confuse some people because they are always telling them to eat healthy but they contribute to their unhealthiness.
Danyella T
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 1
Mrs. Carr
Mayor Bloomberg took a stretch in public health for the “Soda Ban.” The ruling came to an end a day before the ban was supposed to take place. Supreme Court Judge Justice Milton Tingling, ruled against the soda ban. The judge felt that the Mayors ban was based on personal choice, rather than a reliable reason. The ban also had too many loopholes, that would exclude other drinks with possibly higher concentrated sugar. Mayor Bloomberg felt that the judges ruling was not fair.
Some groups of people were happy with the ruling and others were not. Beverage manufacturers, restaurants and other business groups had called the "soda ban" an illegal overreach that would take over customer liberty. The spokesman for American Beverage Association, Chris Gindlesperger, brought a lawsuit on the behalf of, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple, saying that the ruling was a “sigh of relief” for the people of New York, and all small business throughout the city. Claire Wang, said she was "disappointed" by the ruling. Jennifer Pomeranz, said she believes there is no legal difference between the trans-fat ban and the sugary beverage serving size restriction.
Honestly, I am on the fence with the Soda Ban. It would have been a very good thing, to help influence Americans to become more healthy. The ban also could have helped reduce numbers in diabetes, and obesity rates. It was interesting to read that, 43 percent of New Yorkers were for the ban, and 57 percent were against it. Hopefully some day soon, it won’t take a Soda Ban to help motivate Americans to become healthy.
Julian M.
ReplyDeleteCarr, Period 1
I personally understand why the other people in the city would go against the soda ban. One reason is probably they didn't even like the mayor in the first place. Like it said some person who had run for mayor a couple years before against Bloomerang and didn't win is suddenly in this dilemma and is against it. I think that most of this has to do with disagreeing due to jealousy and also because you kind of are taking a right away from someone. What people don't understand is that this is a great opportunity to get people to be more healthy and stop drinking so much sugary drinks. If only this could happen in more states in the United States our country’s obesity levels would definitely go down some percentage. Some people just don't understand and want to make themselves look better, and never think about others people's real needs. Some pedestrians who were against the soda ban and Mr. Bloomerang feel happy for the people that were on their side. What they didn't think about is that they made them an unhealthy choice that in the future is going to cause more diseases such as diabetes. The judge said the ban was "arbitrary and capricious." Bloomerang felt strongly against the judges, and said this at the press conference , Bloomberg said the judge's ruling was "totally in error" and promised to keep pressing his effort to combat a growing obesity epidemic linked to heart disease and diabetes. I also disagreed with all the people who went against it, and was on Bloomerangs side. It is unfortunate because other laws were passed but not this one.
Veronica R.
ReplyDeleteEDA Per.1
Mrs.Carr
In by Michael Bloomberg's law,he wants to ban all sodas from theaters and restaurants and any other local business, by selling Coca-Cola, Dr.pepper, Snapple Juice.By his word he said "People are dying every day,"Bloomberg said."This is not a joke.This is about real lives.", now its true how its not a joke that they are dying,but we do have to support our community by not banning ALL sugary drinks.Now it states that Bloomberg has the power to sue, well i mean he banned smoking and now he wants to ban all sugary drinks in America.Will this be a success.?One of his top arguments were having health regulations in restaurants or in any businesses,he offered to keep milk based drinks like milkshakes,but people rarely get milkshakes.
As for Mcdonalds and Dunkin Donuts,they may be having trouble with the whole ban thing, it seems the results against the ban are in 42% in favor.But i am against this law because its not our fault that people don't take care of themselves,others have limits on drinking Coca-Cola once or twice a week.Bloomberg should not ban sodas because that will not be fair for the other people who like soda.Also not constantly drinking it,others need to how to manage their limit on sugar.It would be a bad idea if he bans soda,obese people everywhere would riot demanding back their soda and any other sugary drink
Jessica P.
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 1
Ms. Carr
Judge Tingling rejected Mayor Bloomberg’s request of banning 16 oz sodas from restaurants and other venues the day before the ban would take effect. The judge’s reasoning for the judgement/his decision was that the soda ban would "not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages". He also stated that the ban would not included refills or the purchase of other drinks that are higher in sugar and calories, so that itself would out rule the purpose of the ban. Some people agreed with the judge. Bill Thompson was one of the many people in favor of the judgment, which was surprising because Bill Thompson was running against Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009 but lost and is running for mayor again this year. This is surprising because it could be that Thompson is just in favor of the judgement because he might want Bloomberg to look bad(because he lost the argument).
There were also people that were in opposition if the judgement. Obviously Mayor Bloomberg was is in opposition of the Judge, and since that law didn't pass, he is now working on the ban of polystyrene foam, which is not recyclable. Some immediate consequences if the judgment were that many places felt relieved and more sugar packets and syrup are starting to be offered to unsweetened drinks. they started doing this in the first place to prepare in case the ban was accepted, that way they could still feed their customers sugary drinks without breaking the law.
Gabriel Castaneda
ReplyDeleteEDA per. 1
Mrs. Carr
I think that it wasn't fair that the soda ban article did not pass because it would do good for the community of New York. New yorkers have a problem with obesity as it is, so the judge not passing the soda ban law is not helping the epidemic. A lot of people don't see the fact that Bloomberg is banning large quantities of soda for the sake of the New Yorkers health.
I do not understand why Judge Milton banned the resolution, he merely called it “arbitrary and capricious”. Even though i don't know what either words mean, I DO know that the mayor’s decision to refuse this ban was a wrong move. I agree with the mayor when i say that the judges actions were” totally in error”, and I also support the mayor in his further attempts for his ban.
One reason why the ban should be adopted is because the health of the average new yorker is at stake with every soda or sugary drink, and or fast food item sold to each civilian. With this ban, the amount of soda sold to the civilians can be limited to a considerable level.
Veronica R.
ReplyDeleteEDA Per.1
Mrs.Carr
The supreme court noted that they quashed Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan of banning sale of large sugary drinks in the city’s restaurants and other values.The Mayor does not quit.Until one afternoon they said the judge had made a mistake and vowed to appeal.Bloomberg said he’ll pretty much do anything to help and save lives.In fact the surpreme court did not declared invalid Mr. Bloomberg's plan to prohibit restaurants,delis,theaters,food markets,arenas from selling cups or containers larger than 16 ounces.It seems that the surpreme court did not want to be against it, but the reasons that Bloomberg have good reasons on to ban sugary drinks.
First, he wants to save lives,Second drinking soda is bad for our health, although drinking soda larger than 16 ounces is too much and its serious for our conditions such as people obese,diabetic, etc.But what if,I wonder what would happen if Bloomberg ban all sugary drinks in America?Would people start a riot?many people can't drink water for their rest of their lives, neither as coffee.Coffee is bad as much soda.right?I don't have a problem of Bloomberg telling us to be more healthy but instead of banning all sugary drinks, why not figure out a way to drink less.Although he did not get to ban Big Gulp at 7-11 because supermarkets and convenience stores are regulated by the state, not the city.But he did say something about the servings but no more refills.
Sunset F Carr P1
ReplyDeleteJudge Tingling did not let this law pass. Tingling did not let it pass because he said Mayor
Bloomberg did not send the issue to the City Council, he sent it straight to the city’s Board of Health. Every member of the Board of Health was placed on it by Bloomberg himself. This made things look suspicious for Bloomberg. Some of the groups in favor of this movement were companies like Seven Eleven. This may be surprising because they sell very large sugary drinks, but this law does not affect them. It doesn’t affect them because they are not City owned, they are a national business. A restaurant named Brother Jimmy’s has already put in smaller cup sizes. The largest they have now is a sixteen ounce. “I don’t have a problem with the mayor telling us to be healthy, but I don’t think it’s his place to ban certain sized glasses.” Said Brother Jimmy’s. Other groups that were in favor of this law were health groups. This wasn’t very surprising at all. They were “disappointed” by the outcome. "The city has been on the forefront of trying to push the envelope on what we can do for population health, and from that standpoint it's very courageous," said Claire Wang. "New York City has done a lot of things in public health that no one has done before, but everyone follows suit. Small business were relieved by the outcome, because it would greatly affect them. They would have loss a bit of profit.
Jennifer R, EDA Period 1, Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Law Judgement Response
The outcome of the soda ban was announced on March 11, 2013. After 11 hours of discussing, Judge Tingling determined that the soda ban was not to be carried out. He also said that Mayor Bloomberg was “exceeding his authority by sidestepping the city council”. Many people felt the need to comment on the decision and the Mayor’s actions. The judge’s reasoning for this argument was explained. The judge called it “arbitrary and capricious” because it would only extend to some but not all food establishments in the city and excludes beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners. He also explained that to allow the health board such sweeping authority would deprive the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature branches of city government. Some groups were in favor of the soda ban such as Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. Claire Wang was also in favor of the soda ban, but was disappointed by the ruling. What was surprising was that Bill Thompson, who unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Mr. Bloomberg in 2009 said that banning sodas over 16 ounces is “ a cosmetic solution to a big problem”. It’s surprising because maybe he says what the people want and that way he will be voted as the new mayor. Some immediate consequences were that some restaurants already threw away soda cups bigger than 16 ounces by the time they announced that the soda ban was rejected.
Anthony Gonzalez, EDA Period 1,Carr
ReplyDeleteWhat i think of the soda ban is that its not really necessary.Most people know that sodas have lots of sugar and are unhealthy so obviously the larger the size the more unhealthy.What i think they should do is make water cheaper than soda and make it more accessible.Most people purchase soft drinks because it's usually cheaper and tastes better than water or other healthier beverages.Banning larger serving sizes won't do anything because customers will still buy the normal sizes and can get as many refills as they would like.So it won’t make a difference really.
Cristian R
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 1, Mrs. Carr
3/14/13
The judgment was that, Mr. Bloomberg’s bill to ban sugary drinks that were over 16 ounces was not passed. The judge decide not to pass this bill because he thought that Mr. Bloomberg was overstepping his rule by trying to pass this bill. The judge also said that the regulations would be violating the separation of powers doctrine and it would also eviscerate it. The judge also said that the ban was arbitrary and capricious.
There were a couple of groups that were in favor of his bill, one of those groups was a bar called “Brother Jimmy's.” This bar has already thrown out all their glasses that were 24 ounces and now only have glasses that hold 16 ounces. It was surprising to see that a bar was in favor of this bill because I would think that they would want to have bigger glasses so they could serve customers drinks that have of the beverage in it so they could charge them more. Also I found it surprising because usually bars have big glasses and people might not want to go there anymore because they only have small glasses.
A couple of people were against the bill that Bloomberg opposed. Someone that was against the bill was Judge Tingling, he didn’t pass the bill because he thought that Mr. Bloomberg was exceeding his authority by sidestepping the City Council. Another person who was against the soda ban was Christine Quinn, she said that she personally preferred education on restrictions. Some immediate consequences are that people will still be drinking large sugary drinks.
Elizabeth M.
ReplyDeleteEDA period 1
Carr
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to ban soda drinks over 16 oz. for he has already put up laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars and parks. He has also banned trans fat and requires chain restaurants to post calories. The judge, however, believed that the ban was "arbitrary and capricious"
The judge decided this because the law had many holes such as the Big Gulp from 7/11 would still be sold and most fast food eateries offer free refills.
Mayor Bloomberg originally was never going to bring up the law in court but instead was going to go straight to the city's Board of Health, a panel whose members were each appointed by Mayor Bloomberg himself. Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said she believes there is no legal difference between the trans-fat ban and the sugary beverage serving size restriction. She believes that the judge is wrong and that to her It doesn't make sense to me that the trans-fat ban is legal, and they struck this down." Christine Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat who is running for mayor, said she personally didn't back this approach, saying she preferred education over restrictions.
Misael G.
ReplyDeleteEda Period 1
Mrs. Carr
I believe that the law being put into place by Mayor Bloomberg to ban large drinks over 16 oz, is a good idea, but I believe he should start by trying to get healthier food to his communities, and or taxing fast foods more, with the sole purpose of providing healthier foods to his people, and more access to fresh produce especially in poorer areas. I believe that the Mayor should not focus so much on the sugary drinks, as much as the unhealthy foods. Of course, I do not support sugary drinks, and I completely understand how unhealthy they are for your body, I just think there is more unhealthy options in a city for food, than sodas. The judge has ruled against the law, mainly because it would not have made a huge impact with people's drinking habits. I think if you are determined to get a certain drink you would get around the law and find a loophole, such as free refills or buying more small drinks.
Jaden N.
ReplyDeleteEDA Per 1
Carr
The judgement was that the bill was not passed. The judge though Bloomberg would be overstepping his rule if he would have banned the sale of sugary drinks.”Judge Tingling determined that Mr. Bloomberg exceeded his authority by sidestepping the City Council and placing the issue before the city's Board of Health, a panel whose members were each appointed by the mayor.” it was stated in the one of the articles. He also stated that the bill was"fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,"
There already has been some immediate consequences. Some people who were in favor of the ban were Claire Wang, assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University were already drinking soda. one bad thing that could have happened was that the consumer would start to put extra sugar in things because the big companies would no longer have sugar in there drinks. Those were the consequences that happened or would have happened if the soda ban was passed.