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?
Ellen M.
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 4
Carr
3/15/13
Soda Ban Judgment Response
Not too long ago, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proposed a ban on selling sugary beverages, namely soft drinks that exceed 16 ounces in serving size. This proposed law was supported by the health department, but argued against by the beverage companies, private vendors, and restaurant owners. Convenience stores and grocery stores would be exempt from this, due to the fact that they are regulated by state, not city. In 2006, the same people banned the use of trans-fats in foods, and that ban was widely supported, and yet, this ban on oversize beverages was struck down in court. The judge (Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling) shot it down, saying that it would violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Chris Gindlesperger, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association, then took it upon himself to file a lawsuit against the Mayor of New York City, on behalf of companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Dr. Pepper Snapple. A representative of Bevmark Consulting in California states that the Judge’s ruling could backfire should they be convinced that the only way to reduce soda consumption would be to raise taxes. McDonalds Corp had stated that when customers order coffee, they would be handed as many packets of sugar as they want, so they would be able to add the sugar at their leisure. On the other hand, Dunkin’ Doughnuts had taken to giving customers unsweetened coffee beverages, and directing them to a counter where cremes, sugars, and flavored syrups are kept.
Maddi B. EDA Period 4 Carr
ReplyDeleteCourt Judge Milton Tingling decided to not pass the soda ban law proposed my mayor Bloomberg. Judge Tingling wrote that the regulations would "not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it." The judge ruled that the regulations were "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences." A few people in favor of this judgment are the ones that work with the cup sizes. They think it is a good thing that we are trying to do something to stop obesity, but they think that people should make that their own choice, and not have it forced upon them. Their response was surprising because one would think that they would want to help stop or lower obesity rates. The companies that sell the cup sizes would be in favor of this because they get more money from the cup and the quantity in the cup. Some people that would be in opposition of this judgment and want larger sodas banned would be people that really want to fight obesity and help. I think their next act would be to get better reasons and claims. Some immediate consequences of this judgment would possibly be that the obesity rates keep on rising and getting worse. Although most people do not actually fill the 32 oz. soda with actual soda, they fill a good proportion of it with ice, which is another possible reason the ban was not passed. I think it is up to the people on how they choose their soda proportions.
EDA/Jay M.S/Period 4/Mrs.Carr/
ReplyDeleteWell Michael Bloomberg it says he vowed on Monday to appeal a judge’s ruling that struck down his pioneering ban on large sugary drinks sold by the city’s restaurants, movies theaters and other food service businesses just a day before it was to take effect. Well that means that his not giving his full trial to help the enforce to pass the law of soda band. Well at the press in the conference Bloomberg said the judge’s ruling was “totally I an error” and promised to keep pressing his effort to combat a growing obesity epidemic linked to heart disease and diabetes. He is backing out first and the Bloomberg just says never mine the judge is wrong and I am going to help the soda bad law to pass and I am going to do whatever it takes. In another conference Mr. Bloomberg and the city’s top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, said they believe the judge made a mistake in his ruling and vowed to appeal. The decision was both lauded and criticized by city officials and others. What does he mean by other, hope to not be the judge because in his first trial or his first conference he vowed down and the now he is trying to get the law to pass, I don’t think so. Then Mr. Bloomberg said at the news conference he has no plans to bring the measure before the city council. Now sense Bloomberg has and imperial disdain for the city council, and rick hills who is professor at New York University “There’s a sense that Bloomberg has an imperial disdain for the City Council, and this ruling says ‘no more rule by mayoral decree He is against it like the judge.
Dalila G
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 4
Mrs.Carr
An immediate act of stopping the soda ban from New York was stopped by a judge who says that banning of large soda drinks should be more thoroughly reviewed. He believes that it shouldn't be a necessity to ban large soda drinks. During the press conference many were debating the fact that sugary drinks like soda are causing many of the health diseases that consumers are having. They believe that banning large soda drinks will help improve the way people are living and how it will change America in the future, but the judge says that they should have this soda-ban issue taken a second look at. He said that the ban would only apply to companies of sugary drinks, because restaurants and food places would still have things such as milkshakes that would still contain sugar in them. Company owners are speaking up and supporting him by saying that taking away soda drinks would mean we would have to raise tax for many people. Many restaurants are saying that the consumers are the ones asking for the sugar in their drinks, which basically means that its the consumers choice on saying what they want. The people in the conference room were arguing against the judge saying that people are dying in America due to the fact that people are being badly affected by the large sugary drinks offered at many restaurants. They also argue that by taking this act in consideration it would save a lot of money for the consumers when buying their drinks. They need to view this ban carefully and think about what would happen if they did change the soda laws, how much sugar people are drinking, and what will happen to the companies producing the product.
Sachi T. Period 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided not to pass NYC mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban. In his ruling, the judge mentioned the serious loopholes in Bloomberg’s solution, like the fact that the ban only applies to business that the health department are aware of and do business with, such as chain restaurants. However, places like 7 Eleven and other grocery and convenience stores are not affected by the controversial ban, and the ban would not limit refills either. In addition, the ban does not address other fattening beverages that contribute more to the obesity epidemic, such as milkshakes. Tingling also mentioned that allowing this ban to pass would give the health department too much power and authority over the other branches of the government. Furthermore, the judge claimed that Bloomberg had cheated to get his ban passed, placing the issue in front of the Board of Health, all members of the group people whom he hired himself, instead of the City Council. Democrats were mostly in favor of the ban which was surprising because I thought Democrats would be more in favor of keeping personal freedom. Many fast food restaurants and cafes were relieved that the ban didn’t pass, which was no surprise and most of the people interviewed supported the ruling. Bloomberg obviously opposed the ruling and plans to continue to fight to help make America healthier. An immediate consequence is that the overruling of the ban saved the restaurants that were going to be affected a lot of money.
NYC Soda Law Judgment Blog Response Oswaldo R. EDA: Period #4
ReplyDeleteMichael Bloomberg vowed on Monday to appeal a judge's ruling that struck down his pioneering ban on large sugary drinks sold by the city's restaurants, movie theaters, etc. The judge called the soda ban “arbitrary and capricious”, and Bloomberg said the judge’s ruling was “totally in error” and promised to keep his effort to fight the diseases. Manhattan Democrat who is running for mayor said that the Board of Health of Health had the right to impose the regulations on the sugary-drink issues. Jennifer Pomeranz said the “judge got it all wrong. It doesn’t make sense to me that the trans-fat ban is legal, and they struck this down.” Michael Cardozo said they believed the judge erred in his ruling and vowed to appeal. He wants the soda ban to pass, and wants America not to have lots of people dying every day because of one can of soda every day. Bloomberg said that, "People are dying every day. This is not a joke. This is about real lives." I personally believe this is not a joke and we have to do something about this, as soon as possible. The people who are against of banning sodas are the companies that make the sodas. They had this company for so long and now they are able to sell anymore? They are going to find a way to make their sodas look healthy to be able to sell again, which have people drink it and have people die daily.
Last week, a New York State Supreme Court judge Milton Tingling struck down New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of large sodas in restaurants, movie theaters, and other venues in the city. The judge made this ruling because he thought it ignored the idea of separation of power and that the law was “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.” He also made a point that since supermarkets and convenience stores are controlled by the state that those types of places, especially 7-11 with their 64 oz. “big gulp” would still be sold all over the place. Another argument he made was that the ban excluded other sugary drinks, and was limited to sodas. There is also no limit on refills, which would be an easy way to get around the ban.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest supporter of this ban was Bloomberg himself, who has pushed for healthy laws his entire administration as mayor, and has a lot of concern for the raising rates of diabetes and heart disease. Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University says there is no reason for this to be struck down when Bloomberg’s 2006 ban on trans fat went through just fine. Claire Wang, an assistant professor of health management at Columbia university said she was “disappointed.” On the opposition was, obviously, most of the restaurants/ fast food joints. One supporter I found surprising was Dawn Sweeney, CEO of the National Restaurant Association, who said it would save the restaurants unnecessary costs. Another person in opposition was Tom Pirko of Bevmark Counseling, who thinks instead of a ban a tax would do better. However, most people don’t want a tax increase, which could be a consequence of the judgement.
Daisy M. EDA Period 4 Carr
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided to deny Mr. Bloombergs law of no drink could be sold over 16 oz. Judge Tingling stated that the mayor was exceeding his right to overpower what people are allowed to do. The judge thinks that people should have the right to control what they’re drinking, and if they choose to drink the bigger drink then they can. Rick Hill and the department of health are in favor for the soda ban, but judge Tingling still doesn’t like it. With the department of health on their side they have more of a chance to have the judge to the side of letting the ban pass. This won’t be the first law/ban that Mr. Bloomberg has created. In 2002, Bloomberg created a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Citizens were easily adapted to that law, but if they end up having to try to adapt to the no 32 oz. soda it might be harder. Not everyone fills the whole 32 oz. with soda, a majority of people put ice in there soda, taking up some/most of the space in the cup. Claire Wang, assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University, is disappointed in the ban, because she thinks that New York is being pushed on what they can and can’t do. I think that if the ban/law passes then they might have a problem with the stocks going down. Taking away the right to have whatever size soda they want wouldn’t be fair.
Conard W. EDA Period 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteIn this trial the mayor voided the soda ban law. The judge repealed this soda ban law because he thinks that people should have the right to choose and drink what they want to drink, not what the government or the mayor wants to them to drink. The judge said, “This law is totally in error”. There were fifty three percent of New Yorkers that voted against the soda ban law and forty two percent of New Yorkers voted in favor of the soda ban law. Large soda companies like Coca Cola said there was an enormous “relief” when the soda ban law didn’t pass. One of the owners at a movie theatre said that it was a victory for personal freedom. An assistant president at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health said that she was in favor of the soda ban and was very disappointed about the ruling on the soda ban when it was vetoed. The mayor of New York is going to keep on trying to pass this soda ban law until his time in office is over which will be at the end of this year. Some immediate consequences of this judgment are that the obesity rate in New York is not going down in the time and the obesity rate is not going down unless the soda ban law is made into law. Some other problems there might be is that there will be more taxes because of the soda ban law not going into effect.
Luis R. EDA Period 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban Judgement
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban large sugary drinks in restaurant, movie theaters, and other food service in the city before it becomes a big problem. He wants to ban large sugary drinks because people are dying by diseases or diabetes from soda and he wants to stop that. A lot of restaurants or stores that have a oversize cup that people get and are always refiling it, which is bad. He wants to ban large drinks because he cares about other people and I respect that because he does not want anybody else to get hurt or see a love one die. No other person does not do this kind of stuff because other people want to be fat and not have a healthy life. "The mayor took a bullet and now we'll wait for the next big Bloomberg health initiative," said Professor Douglas Muzzio of Baruch College. "He's not going to stop." Professor Douglas knows that he is doing the right thing and he should continue until he achieve his goal on banning large sugary drinks. There was not a lot of people in favor with Michael Bloomberg because the other people know that people will still buy large drinks, no matter how much it costs. People will get mad about this and probably start a boycott and the people will win. Jennifer Pomeranz from Yale University "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. There was a lot of people who were against this and that was a big problem for the mayor. That he has to have the people with him to pass this law and make it for the sodas won’t hurt people.
Blake M. EDA period #4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the soda ban the Mayor’s resolution to ban large quantities of soda was not passed. Mr. Bloomberg wanted to try and cut down on the sugar that people were consuming and so a bill was proposed to limit the size of soda to only a 16 oz. cup size. In his ruling, state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan targeted in on the loopholes, noting it would only have applied to businesses that are under the purview of the health department, like restaurants, and would allow sweetened milk-based drinks like milkshakes. Public sentiment on the ban had appeared divided, with a Marist University poll last summer showing 53 percent of New York City adults against the ban and 42 percent in favor of the bill being passed. One of the groups who didn’t want the bill to go was the Restaurants and businesses that make money from selling the larger sizes. Duncan Doughnuts was a company that was happy to hear that the resolution was not passed that way they could avoid all of the extra trouble of providing an alternative to sweeten their coffee. A company who wasn’t happy was Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "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," Some immediate consequences of the judgment are the fact that people are not going to stop drinking sugar filled soda.
response to soda ban judgement, by Kyle C., Period 6, Carr, 3/15/2013:
ReplyDeleteMayor Bloomberg has been going to extremes to make sure that people eat healthier, but little does he know how harmful these decisions really are. He plans to ban all sodas and specified sugary beverages in restaurants, movie theatres, and other food establishments. $200 fines will be enforced towards those who disobey. His judgment failed to pass when, at the eleventh hour, the judge stated that the law was “arbitrary and capricious.” He also stated that the bill would “not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it.” Bloomberg fought back by saying that his judgment was “totally in error.”
With the health department on his side, however, Bloomberg is dominant over many other opinions that are thrown his way.He states that it is only justified to want to save lives. Many people are in favor of this because of the effect that the 2006 trans-fat ban had--however, some believe that this new soda ban is more unfair. Then again, the Board of Health disapproved of the trans-fat ban. Those who are for the ban can’t see the difference between Bloomberg’s proposal and the ban on smoking indoors. Research shows, however, that smoking is bad for the consumer in a number of ways--with soda, it is less clear: people who smoke suffer dire consequences, but not all people who drink soda suffer health problems.
The beverage companies that are against the soda ban state that it is a violation of personal freedom. They find it interesting that Bloomberg only targets sodas, but not cover all sugared beverages. This, however, is not their greatest concern; they are wondering how many corporations this ban would put out of business. They realize that taxes could rise, and that America will go into depression. Many food companies and restaurants say that it is not Bloomberg’s place to ban drinks. If these drinks stimulate the economy (America’s biggest asset), they think that any sugary drinks should stay where they are.
Alex R,Period 4,Carr
ReplyDeleteThe judge turned down Mr. bloomberg's plan to ban large sugary drinks in movie theaters and other venues. The regulation prohibited sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces. Judge milton found that the regulation would allow sweetened milk-based drinks like milkshakes. He also stated that it applies to some but not all food places in the city and there is other beverages that have a higher amount of sugars/calories than soda. Mcdonalds and dunkin donuts said that they would leave the substance unsweetened and leave the consumer to decide how much sugar and syrup they want. A city council speaker, Ms.Quinn said she preferred education instead of restrictions but she would not stop the mayor. I agree with her because when you take away something from a person that is their choice to make then it is wrong. Its not anyone elses decision, it's your. If you want to put suagry beverages down your throat then go right ahead.By banning something it wont stop people from finding other ways around it. Also the proposal had said nothing about refills. With banning sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces people would just go and get refills. Thats why they should tax the refills. After the Mayor accomplishing many bans such as the trans-fat, smoking bans, and requiring restaurants to show the amount of calories he went too far by taking away soda that should be the consumers choice. He states that people are dying every day because of this but really it is not the only cause due to diabetes and obesity.
Pat H. EDA Period 4 Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteThe judgment was that the ban was going to take place but the judge shut it down a day before the law was going to go into place. The judge says the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.” Mr. Bloomberg said that the judge has made an error. He also stated that if his bill would not be passed, that "It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives." All the people for the ban to pass are his side and the Board of Health, which he appointed their positions. Mr. Bloomberg is using ("People are dying every day," "This is not a joke. This is about real lives.") this statement to help his bill pass and have the soda ban.
This ban only applied to certain business such as grocery stores, convenience stores and corner stores such as 7-11 and their Big Gulp which is 64 oz. The judge says there was a lot of loopholes, not covered aspects, and uneven terms for the ban such as the companies unsure whether sweetened coffee drinks applied to this rule or not. Companies, such as McDonalds are getting around this ban by giving their customers packets of sugar to add to their coffee. The bill only states large SUGARY sodas, Dunkin Donuts plans on giving a customer unsweetened soda then direct them to where the flavored syurps. We are now waiting on Mr. Bloomberg to respond.
Nathalie H. Per 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe judge ruled that the ban that was to take action the next day was “arbitrary and capricious” due to many reasons that he bought up in the Supreme Court. these reasons were because the ban contained many loopholes and it didn't affect every store the sold drinks higher that 16oz. So for instance, as The Wall Street Journal stated, “ The regulations did not affect the Big Gulp at 7-11 because supermarkets and convenience stores are regulated by the state, not the city.” The people that are on Mayor Bloomberg’s side say that the judge made an error yet amazingly they are from the City’s Health Department which were appointed by the mayor himself. Even most of the city’s citizens are in favor with the judges judgement, including some people going for mayor this next election, they state it is an infringement of the first amendment. They think that Bloomberg's idea is too small to try and fix a huge dilemma, they consider it more of a “cosmetic” to cover it up. Most of the immediate problems with this judgement are that people will still be able to buy big drinks, yet the main problem is that this is step that might have people realize that there should be a taxes on sodas because this idea has been strewn across national news making it an idea for the US to take a step towards a healthier nation but that would mean really high taxes for everyone’s favorite sugary drinks, soda.
Kat H EDA pd 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteMayor Bloomberg proposed a law to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants, theatres, food stands, etc. This law did not pass. I am not in favor of this law. Taking away large sized drinks from places will make consumers angry. Banning something that has already been accessible to people for a long time is ridiculous, it is like taking a bone away from a dog. The mayor claims that sugary drinks are one of the main reasons america is so obese. This may be true, but then again there are plenty of other factors that contribute to our nation's obesity problem. When most people buy a 32 oz cup, they fill at least half of the cup with ice. So in fact, you aren’t getting 32 oz of soda in reality you are probably getting around 16 oz. Also, this law would have only affected places that are controlled by the city and not the state, so supermarkets, convenience stores, etc. would not have to discontinue large sugary drinks. Therefore, people can still purchase them, and they still will. In my opinion this law is unreasonable. A solution to this law could be, having large drinks, but no free refills.
Another solution is instead of having people fill the cups up themselves, you can have workers fill them up and have to put half ice in large sodas. There are plenty of solutions to this proposition. in my opinion it is a good thing that this law did not pass.
Bailey Carretino
ReplyDeletePeriod 4 EDA Carr
3-15-13
Soda Ban Responses
A judgment was made to stop the banning of soda cups that were over 16 ounces; this decision was made by the judge of the State Supreme Court while the Soda ban was made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The judge says this, “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.” While the judge is saying these things Mayor Bloomberg stated this, “It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives.” Clearly both of them are on a whole different page, I mean one wants the other doesn’t. There were many different groups involved in this specific situation some agreeing on Mayor Bloomberg’s decision and others disagreeing and going for the judge’s decision on appealing the soda ban. What was very interesting to me is most of the groups that agreed with the soda ban, were people that actually worked at all the places that sold these large sugary drinks, and they were just all in favor with the soda ban saying it was great and finally someone does something. Consequences are more on the unfair side, because restaurants and cafes don’t know whether or not if some other things may apply, like the Mcdonald's corporation is giving out as many sugar packets to people that order coffee.
Klio M. EDA period 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteMayor Bloomberg was in a court case to ban the selling of large sugary drinks. The Mayor was successful in banning many other previous health issues like trans-fat and smoking, but this outcome to his proposal to ban sugary drinks was rare, the judge turned it down. The judge decided that Bloomberg didn't have the authority to ban this without the consensus of the City Council and the Health Authority. The judge argued that this law would “not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, but it would eviscerate it.” There were many holes in Bloomberg’s proposal; the ban wouldn't have affected some stores because stores like 7-11 and supermarkets are ruled under the state not the city so there was nothing that Bloomberg could do about it anyway. Nutritionists were surprised by the decision because they felt that the judge had misunderstood what Bloomberg was trying to do. The Nutritionists know that this has a linked affect to obesity and since Bloomberg had so many other proposals passed this was a huge surprise. School Health Advisers were disappointed with the decision because they see what happens to the kids every day at school. The people who chose not to pass it weren't affected by it as much as the others. People who love soda were against this plan, in the articles claimed that the decision was a “victory for personal freedom.” I was surprised that Bloomberg was able to pass all of the other things, and not this one.
Evelyn S, EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteNYC Soda Law Judgment Blog Response
There was a proposition that was going to be put into effect on Tuesday. On Monday, there was a court ruled by Judge Tingling, who was against this proposition and shut it down at the “eleventh hour.” This proposition was to install a ban on serving sodas sizes 16 ounces or larger. This applied to establishments such as cinemas, street vendors, delis, and restaurants. Many people thought it was unfair because it did not apply to big corporations and convenience stores such as 7 Eleven. This is so because stores such as these are regulated by the state, not the city.
I think that the judge chose what he chose because he believed that the proposition should have included something such as “no free refills” or something along the lines of that; versus just a certain size where the majority of the time you can receive free refills. He believed that the bill was silly, random, and “capricious,” in other words, impulsive or wayward. He probably thought this because it didn’t apply to all of the vendors of soda; the vendors I mentioned earlier are excluded from this ban.
I think that it was surprising that the CEO of the National Restaurant Association, Dawn Sweeney, was in favor of this judgement. He thought that it would benefit the restaurants with the avoidance of of unnecessary costs to restaurants.
Mayor Bloomberg, Chris Gindlesberger (a spokesman for the American Beverage Association,) and Tom Pirko are definitely in opposition to this judgement.
It was a last minute decision. An immediate consequence to this that all the work that had been done in advance for the proposition was all for nothing.
Yash N. Period #4 Carr
ReplyDeleteLast Monday, Mayor Bloomberg’s bill of banning large size cup drinks was blocked by the judge’s ruling. It was considered an 11th hour decision, because it happened on day before the banning would take place. After reading about what Bloomberg has done in the past and what he really wants to do for America (he wants to solve obesity issue, he has already successfully required major restaurants to post calorie counts and banned trans. fat), I thought and have changed my opinion on the soda ban. A few weeks ago, I was against the soda ban, but now I love the idea because it will contribute to loss of the rising obesity in America and that’s what Bloomberg and many people in America do want. Companies like 7 Eleven are arguing that the soda ban is an illegal overreach, but when Bloomberg said “People are dying every day, this is not a joke. This is about real lives”, I was amazed and shocked, I realized that Bloomberg is right and nobody can argue that america isn’t fat and needs change.
In conclusion, I have changed my mind on the soda ban, support Bloomberg and want it to occur in the US.
Danny G
ReplyDeleteEDA, Period 4 Carr
NYC Soda Law Judgment
The “NYC Soda Law” is banning large sodas, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the one in charge. Mayor Bloomberg is saying that we really do not need to have a large soda. If everyone gets a medium soda and one refill it will be equivalent to a large soda, but if everyone gets a large soda and gets a refill its going to be bad for them, and it could cause obesity.
Mackenzie M.
ReplyDeleteEDA period 4
Carr
The judge clearly was not for this soda-ban and Mayor Bloomberg was surprised. Bloomberg says the judges decision was “totally in error.” The reasoning for the judge standing negative on this ban was that he thought Bloomberg exceeded his authority by sidestepping the City Council and placing the issue before the city’s Board of Health. Judge Tingling wrote that the regulations 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 wrote. One person in favor of this judgement is Doug Muzzio, a professor at Baruch College, said the large sugary drink ban wasn’t as simple as the smoking ban to understand and support. Christine Quinn was also in favor of this judgement but said she would not try to stop the mayor from moving forward. One opposing this judgement would be Jennifer Pomeranz, she agreed with Mayor Bloomberg saying that the judge got it wrong. Claire Wang said she was disappointed of the ruling and said, “the city has been on forefront of trying to push the envelope of what we can do for population health and from that standpoint it's very courageous.” Some immediate consequences for the judgement is that some will be angry with the judge, the mayor, the city council, or the board of health for what did and did not become successful with this soda-ban. Another consequence could be that this “ban” could not work, as in people will start doing crazy things to make sure they get there big gulp and that is just unnecessary foolishness.
Rachel S, EDA Period 4, Mrs Carr
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Judge Tingling’s judgement on the soda ban. Yes, I also agree that our cup sizes should be smaller, but the consumers will still be able to get refills. Like the judge said, it’d be excluding the “Big Gulp” from 7-11 and a number of supermarkets and convenience stores in NYC. To me, I feel that the soda ban would be useless if people can just keep getting free refills whenever they want. It would defeat the whole purpose of the idea. Regarding what Bloomberg said "Anytime you adopt a groundbreaking policy, special interests will sue, that's America.” I think that he just doesn’t get that his ban would have a lot of results. Maybe some, but not a lot. He needs to make a better proposition, like charging people to get refills. Bloomberg said that the judgement was “totally in error” and that he’d “keep pressing his effort to combat a growing
obesity epidemic linked to heart disease and diabetes.” I agree that we do need to battle this growing obesity epidemic, but with a better plan. Obviously the health department was against the judgement. I was surprised that Mr. Muzzio said that “Not everyone who drinks 16 ounce sodas has a health problem." It increases your risk of getting a heart attack, it’s linked to asthma, it could shorten your lifespan, etc. It’s been PROVEN that soda is bad for your health, so I don’t know what Mr Muzzio was talking about.
Corinn C. EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteNYC Soda Law Judgment Blog Response
There was a judge ruling against the ban of large sugary drinks sold by the city's restaurants, movie theaters and other food service businesses. The judge called the ban "arbitrary and capricious" after an eleven hour decision. The judge wrote "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.” I think it is good that something like that was caught. Jennifer Pomeranz the director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity thinks that the judge got it wrong and that it does not make sense that the trans-fat ban is legal, and they struck this down. Christine Quinn, who is running for mayor, said the Board of Health had the right to impose the regulations. Other mayors have different views. Some think the ban would be a good thing and that the judge made a bad decision and then some think that the ban is a bad thing and the judge made a good decision. "I don't have a problem with the mayor telling us to be more healthy, but I don't think it's his place to ban certain sized glasses," said Matt Hayek, 28, a bartender there. I think what Matt said is true, yes it is a good thing to get health but we have a right to have what size drink we want even if it is unhealthy.
Jessi Pacheco
ReplyDeleteEda pd 4
Carr
A judge stopped a law that would ban 16 ounce drinks in theaters, arenas, stores etc. Michael Bloomberg mayor of New York City passed a law that banned 16 ounce sodas from restaurants arenas and other places. But judge tingling (Supreme Court judge) determined that Bloomberg exceeded his authority by sidestepping the city council and placing the issue before the city’s board of health whose members were appointed by him. The judge also called the ban “arbitrary and capricious”. Mayor Bloomberg vowed to appeal the judge’s ruling. But people that are against it say it’s a violation to liberty and their choice to eat whatever they want. The health department says their disappointed that the judge stopped the law. While people that were against the law celebrated. But this can bring consequences as taxes may go up.
Trevor Markley EDA period4 mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban #2
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban large amounts of soda in areas where they serve large servings like restaurants and movie theatres to decrease the percent of obesity in our community. I respect why he wants to do that so he can save peoples life but honestly its none of his business of what I drink and what other people drink. If those people are happy with who they are you should just let them be and just stay out of their life’s. Everybody knows there’s no point in it because people will just go to 7-11 and buy the mega gulp and all the other people will just stop selling soda because they’re not going to get any money from it. So then the people that go to that restaurant will get mad because they cant have a drink they want with their dinner. So that is why they passed this law. There was no reason for it and it has consequences for it. The one that aimed for this not to be passed the most was Bloomberg himself. "People are dying every day," Bloomberg said. "This is not a joke. This is about real lives. “Although some people were for this law, A lot of people were against it and says its not Bloomberg’s business to ban something that makes their profit. This law will have people lose their jobs by making a restaurant lose money and then even more people will die. Am I the only one who is seeing this? That is not a joke. The law is a joke.
Brilliana G. EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteA Supreme Court judge struck down the ban of the sale of large sugary drinks in New York City’s eateries. The judge stated that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious” because it only applied to some food establishments in the city and there were several loopholes in the ban. The judge was also concerned that allowing the health board to have so much authority, it would "eviscerate" the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature branches of city government. The judge also said that there is nothing to stop consumers from getting refills so the ban would not really have a purpose. Forty-two percent of New York adults were in favor of the bill which is surprising because most felt violations in their own personal freedoms. Those who are against the ban are still trying to find ways to improve public health without infringements on personal freedom.