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?
Ashton D, Period 6 EDA, Mrs. Carr 3/15/13
ReplyDeleteThe soda ban law imposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, was refused by the court system after an 11- hour decision. Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling, concluded this law was unreasonable and would not become a new law. Tingling made his decision from finding the loopholes in the argument such as milkshakes, and how they would not be affected by the law. "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," states Tingling. He also argued that this allows the health board such sweeping authority and that would "eviscerate" the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature branches of city government. Small companies and citizens of New York were happy to hear the results on the court ruling. Dawn Sweeney, the CEO of the National Restaurant Association stated that this law would cost companies companies a lot of money in unnecessary costs. Tom Pirko of Bevmark Consulting in Santa Barbara said this ruling may backfire and the only way to truly stop this drinking epidemic is to raise taxes. It seems only Bloomberg and his associates were in disapproval of the judges decision, and everybody else was in agreement. I think this law will have no backfire or regrets about it, it seems solid and it was the best decision i can think of.
Jared Mc Cracken
ReplyDeletePeriod: 6th Mrs.Carr
Soda ban in New York Response
The judge has made a big mistake, in my opinion. it seems as if he’s calling this law a joke. This law would just limit the serving sizes of drinks, but it wouldn’t restrict anyone from getting a refill. The law was to cover all restaurants and public venues, but not grocery stores, seven eleven’s, and it would not get rid of a 64- ounce big gulp. Bloomberg is trying to create this law for all the right reasons. People need help overcoming obesity. With less portion-sizes and fewer calories in a diet, lives can be saved. These officials don’t really know what they are doing by vetoing this law. This law is not going to hurt business, or consumption in any way. So, what I don’t understand, is why they are not already enforcing this law in every part of the United States. It makes no sense why we think this is some kind of joke... It’s Obesity.Obesity is known to cause many problems such as heart disease, strokes, blood clots, and much much more dangerous and life-threatening illnesses. so why make it a joke. These people are real, not just people who are made up to show what could happen in the next twenty-five years. These are real lives at stake from obesity. Real lives that this Governor is trying to save. He wants the rest of America to follow, because of the staggering number of obese people there are in this country. We need to wake up and face the issue we have in front of us America. Bloomberg is serious about ending obesity, and we need to help him do it, America!
Brandon J
ReplyDeleteEDA Period 6
Mrs.Carr
Soda Ban Response
The courts decision to decide if Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban would go through or not ended with an 11th hour decision. The decision was that the ban would not pass. The judge said this was because it was “arbitrary and capricious”. Some companies say the ban infringes upon the consumer’s personal liberty to get whatever they want. Also the ban had its flaws like how it did not apply to grocery and convenience stores so people could still get huge soft drinks there if they wanted. It would also allow sweetened milk based drinks like milkshakes which are also unhealthy. This shows how uneven this ban is and thats why the judge didn't pass.
The beverage production companies and restaurants are in favor of this decision because it allows them to still sell more soft drink and they don't have to worry about the mayor putting a tax on soft drinks yet. They are surprised that this ban was struck down because they thought Blomberg would get this ban passed just like he had done with his other bans. Mayor Bloomberg was not in favor of this decision and vows to appeal it. He is also starting a ban on polystyrene foam as another initiative. The immediate backlash of this decision could be that restaraunts who had prepared for the ban to pass now have to re-set up their establishments. It also could convince citizens that the only way to slow down the consumption of sodas is to tax them.
Michael Clement
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban Response
The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg vowed on the ban on large sugary drinks over 16 oz. sold by the city's restaurants, movie theaters and other food service businesses.The judge of NYC called Bloomberg’s proposal "arbitrary and capricious." Bloomberg has almost made public health a necessity, providing laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars and parks, and requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts.
Mayor Bloomberg’s favorite person isn’t really the Judge, which kept his effort going to increase the awareness of obesity and how it causes diabetes and different types of heart diseases. Evidently, he has fought off the ban of smoking in certain areas and the ban of fast food restaurants having to do a calorie count on all of their products. People don’t know yet if whether the case will be resolved by the time Bloomberg's term ends which is at the end of this year
Mayor Bloomberg has been warning people by saying “This is not a joke. This is about real lives.” Apparently people aren’t taking his words seriously and are continuing to disagree with his proposal. Luckily,s the mayor advised health board who approved the policy last fall. A beverage major consultant named Tom Pirko of Bevmark Consulting in Santa Barbara, California, said the idea could backfire if people convince that the only way to reduce soda consumption is through higher taxes. Many people were confused over whether the rules applied to popular sweetened coffee drinks, underlining the ban's uneven applications.
Meghan S. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteAs of Monday March 11th, the 11th hour decision was made that the ban on sodas larger than 16 ounces has been blocked. One of the judge’s main issues with this proposal was the fact that the ban did not apply to every food establishment in the city, and excludes other beverages that have significantly higher sugar concentration and are worse for your health. Also, there is of course the issue that this ban would infringe upon people’s personal rights and responsibilities. The judge also claimed that Mr. Bloomberg was exceeding his authority because he sidestepped the City Council and proposed the ban to the city’s Board of Health whose members were all appointed by Bloomberg. It is to be assumed that all restaurant and food establishment owners were pleased by the blocking of this ban because they are allowed to continue to sell whatever sizes they like. It seems that many of these owners though, are now worried about taxes being implemented upon these larger drinks-and sodas in general- to encourage people to buy them less often. Many mayoral candidates it seems were in opposition to this judgement and wished for the bill to be passed; but overall the city was split, with 53 percent opposed to the ban and 42 percent in favor of it. Because of this judgement some companies are upset because they have already replaced their larger sized cups for smaller ones, and the rest of the people are either disappointed or content with the judge’s decision.
Chris M. per.6 Mr.carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban
The mayor of New York put together a case to ban any soda over a 16 oz. The overall judgment they made was overruled by the in the last hour of the case. the overall reasoning for the decision was made because the judge said that the mayor was wrongly going about the problem by placing the problem before the city's Board of Health. Some people that were happy about the ruling were mostly the chain stores and movie theaters. They said if the plant to ban sugary drinks over 16 oz they were going to just give people as much sugar and cream they wanted when they would buy a drink that was sugar free. the people who were mad was the mayor and the food and health people because they just wanted to save lives they said. The mayor plans to fine research on what soda does to you over a long period of time and to show people the real effects.the major says that people are going to keep dieing because this ban did not pass. And some other effects it had was people were upset because it did pass and they threw out their glass cup and already bought the glass cup that were aloud.And one person from the movie theater said that he was glad it did pass while he was drinking a 44 oz soda.
Hannah W P6 Carr
ReplyDeleteNYC Soda Ban Judgement Blog Response
Mayor Bloomberg, of New York City, got his proposition quashed on the ban of the sale of sugary drinks in cups or containers no greater than 16 ounces. Mr. Bloomberg states that “people are dying everyday. This is not a joke.” When in reality people aren't just dying from drinking large quantities of soda, which is one fault in his proposition. He believes that banning the sale of large sodas can somewhat lessen the amount of health related deaths to drinking lots of soda. Also Mayor Bloomberg believes that this ban will get the city on a track to combat diabetes and other health related disorders.
One group that is in favor of this argument is a group of other mayoral candidates. Public advocate Bill de Blasio endorsed the proposal. Many of these democratic figures believe Bloombergs proposition is “a cosmic solution to a complex problem.” Their response may be the slightest bit surprising because considering that many businesses won’t be making as much money on the sale of soda because of the ban. I think this is surprising because these mayoral figures may not be taking in as many taxes as they did before.
However, many people disagree with Mr. Bloomberg. For example, beverage manufacturers, restaurant owners, and other business people believe that this soda ban is somewhat an invasion on the state of liberty of the consumers.Those in opposition to this argument don’t necessarily have future plans following the argument, other than just taking a stance in a different way other than banning large quantities of sugary drinks. Lastly, a few immediate consequences following this proposition would have been for all the restaurants to have the proper cup sizes and to limit the sugar they put in their drinks.
Sean A,Per 6 Carr Soda Ban Judgment
ReplyDeleteI think the judges decision was very smart and well thought out. I think it was a great thing that Bloomberg is running mayor for 11 years. I also thought it was a great thing that he has been trying to help people for many years by doing things like banning smoking in most areas of New York, he also banned a certain type of trans fat.
I agree with the judge because he knew that the citizens weren't ready for a law as big as the soda ban. It might have seemed like a revolutionary thing but I think it would have turned into too big of a problem with the citizens mainly because they thought it was a big as a deal as losing their freedom or as equal.
In few very few ways this could be a bad thing on the judges side because Bloomberg is creating that law with good reason and if the judge believed that it was arbitrary and capricious maybe he should have told Bloomberg beforehand and they could have tweaked the law or even have made it less of a law and more of a strict guideline.
As for Bloomberg I don't think he should have taken the soda ban just to the health board because he could have gotten the councils side as well. I think that its good that Bloomberg will still take the law to court and do his best to make it go through he could possibly have a chance.
Riley K., EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban Defeated
Recently Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban, which was to take effect Tuesday March 12 in New York City, was defeated by Judge Tingling. Judge Tingling stated that the soda ban “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." Those who are in favor of Judge Tinling’s ruling are restaurants, beverage companies (namely Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co., and Dr. Pepper), and other small food related businesses. Also, a poll was taken of New York City adults for their position on the soda ban, which turned out that 53% were against the ban, whereas 42% were in favor of it. The groups against Judge Tingling’s ruling were New York Cities Board of Health, and various public health officials. There is currently no plan of action for those who are against Judge Tinglings judgement, except to re-appeal to him for the soda ban. Some immediate consequences coming from this judgement are some restaurants not having a beverage size larger than 16oz., and fast food restaurants offering sweetener on the side of the unsweetened beverages, though the latter can easily be adjusted at a later date. But, all in all, Judge Tinglings final decision made little to no change in the daily lives of the New York City citizens.
nina u.period6 EDA Mrs.carr
ReplyDeleteMichael Bloomberg was at a press conference talking about his soda banned law that he has created. as will to this he is also saying that “people are dying every day”. this banned only applied to the business that are under the health department. These places that are selling soda like restaurants and other business groups had called the so-called “soda ban” and illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers’ personal liberty. With the soda banned it also his rights and the right of the state Supreme court justice milton tingling. A spokesman named Chris Gindlesperger he was for the American Beverage Association, which brought lawsuits on companies such as coca-cola, pepsico, and dr pepper and snapple said that the ruling was a “ sigh of relief ‘ for the New Yorkers and small business throughout the city. Dawn Sweeney,CEO of the National restaurant association ,which joined the lawsuit as plaintiff, said the decision would save thousands of restaurants and the suppliers from the unnecessary cost.The only way to reduce soda consumption is through higher taxes.Fast food restaurants and cafes had been scrambling on monday to comply with the looming declined. They are saying that the supreme court and he also had right to help with the soda banned. The right that he has could help and the right that the supreme court will help with the soda banned. So more or less that he and the supreme court get to pick what is happening with the soda banned because he going to talk to the supreme court if he should pass the bill or should he not pass the bill.
Chloe Y. EDA period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe New York City mayor was trying to ban the amount of large sugary drink sizes that people can purchase. In the 11th- hour decision the judge called the ban “arbitrary and capricious”. The opinions were clear the mayor was all for going healthy he had also passed other health laws like no smoking in restaurants and not allowing trans-fat. While on the other hand the judge though his soda ban was a sudden and random choice. We are not yet sure if the soda ban will ever pass soda companies argue that it goes against people’s rights to drink what they want when they want it. But the bigger question is that are the soda companies just saying this because they want business or because they actually care about the people and their rights? The mayor claimed that the judge’s statement about the soda ban was incorrect. The mayor promised to pursue the sugary drinks ban. Some officials agreed with the statement while other strongly disagreed. It showed later when a vote was cast that 53 percent disapproved while 42 percent were for the ban. Judge Tingling stated that he thought the mayor was over stepping his boundaries on the whole ban. While other people believe there is no different between the trans-fat ban (which has already been accepted) is no different that the soda ban. The soda companies are very displeased by the soda size ban. Of course why would they be happy about it they don’t care about the people’s health as much as they do about profit. Their lawyers are pressing the rights of the people. But the bigger question is that are the soda companies just saying this because they want business or because they actually care about the people and their rights?
Andrew N.
ReplyDeleteCarr period 6
The judge decided not to allow the ban on large soda and sugary drinks to be put into effect. He believed that the ban was "arbitrary and capricious" and stopped it at shortly before it was to be implemented.
One of the reasons it was not passed is that the judge believed that mayor Bloomberg was exceeding his authority by not passing it through the City Council, and instead going straight to the Board of Health, which is made up of people of his own choosing. The ban would also not affect convenience stores and grocery stores, because they are controlled by the state government, not the city government. There would also have been many ways of getting around the law. Many restaurants would have the customers put in the sugar themselves. Finally, unlike smoking, for example, where everyone who does it will have numerous health consequences, you can still drink large sodas and be fine.
Most restaurants and beverage manufacturers are against the ban. Also, 53 percent of New Yorkers are against it. One interesting response from them is that they’re more afraid of taxes than the soda ban law.
One person who is in support of the ban is the mayor. Bloomberg is the one who created it, and he wants to appeal the judge’s decision. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also supports the soda law. Also, Jennifer Pomeranz, the director of legal initiatives at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, disagreed with what the judge did. These people’s future plans are to appeal the judge’s decision.
One immediate consequence is that the restaurants don’t have to worry about complying with the ban.
Hannah W P6 Carr
ReplyDeleteNYC Soda Ban Judgement Blog Response
Mayor Bloomberg, of New York City, got his proposition quashed on the ban of the sale of sugary drinks in cups or containers no greater than 16 ounces. Mr. Bloomberg states that “people are dying everyday. This is not a joke.” When in reality people aren't just dying from drinking large quantities of soda, which is one fault in his proposition. He believes that banning the sale of large sodas can somewhat lessen the amount of health related deaths to drinking lots of soda. Also Mayor Bloomberg believes that this ban will get the city on a track to combat diabetes and other health related disorders.
One group that is in favor of this argument is a group of other mayoral candidates. Public advocate Bill de Blasio endorsed the proposal. Many of these democratic figures believe Bloombergs proposition is “a cosmic solution to a complex problem.” Their response may be the slightest bit surprising because considering that many businesses won’t be making as much money on the sale of soda because of the ban. I think this is surprising because these mayoral figures may not be taking in as many taxes as they did before.
However, many people disagree with Mr. Bloomberg. For example, beverage manufacturers, restaurant owners, and other business people believe that this soda ban is somewhat an invasion on the state of liberty of the consumers.Those in opposition to this argument don’t necessarily have future plans following the argument, other than just taking a stance in a different way other than banning large quantities of sugary drinks. Lastly, a few immediate consequences following this proposition would have been for all the restaurants to have the proper cup sizes and to limit the sugar they put in their drinks.
Haley Lowe, EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban Judgement
After Bloomberg's attempt to ban soda sizes, in order to have people consuming less soda and try to make the country a little healthier, his proposition was denied. The day before it was supposed to take place, the judge decided to veto it because he called it "arbitrary and capricious." He said, "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."
“Claire Wang, assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's
Mailman School of Public Health, said she was "disappointed" by the ruling.” People who are related to the health department and Public Health were very disappointed that this ruling did not go through, because they thought that maybe this could really help the world move forward and make healthier choices. Their response may have been surprising because all they were was disappointed but they didn’t try to help change the verdict.
The companies were not in favor with the judgement. Tom Pirko of Bevmark Consulting in Santa Barbara, California said, "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."
Their future plans are to still aid to the customers request. Some immediate consequences to the request would be taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes. The economy is bad enough already, so adding more money to pay would even worse. It would also cost the companies more money so they might have to close from going out of business.
Ailyn A,Per.6,Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteThe judgement of this is that the judge is not approving Michael Bloomberg’s law on trying to ban soda in city restaurants and other venues.The judge called Michael’s soda ban a ‘’arbitrary and capricious”.He said that because it would only apply to some but not all food establishments in the city. The judge also mentioned that there are other higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and calories on suspect ground.Judge Tingling also thought that Michael exceeded his authority by sidestepping the City Council and placing the issue before the city’s Board of Health.A man named Chris Gindlesperger agreed with this decision because he said it would save a lot of small businesses throughout the city.A beverage industry said that the ruling could backfire because it could convince others that the only way to reduce soda is through higher taxes.I was surprised with that because their a beverage drink industry i would expect them to be happy if it had past. Jennifer Pomerantz says that there is no difference between the trans-fat ban and the sugary soda ban.Therefore she does not see why the law is not being passed and she says that the judge got it all wrong.Some immediate consequences might be that obesity might go up.Also maybe people might look at this as a big wake up call and not drink anymore soda or they might drink less of it.
Andrew J. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteNew York state Supreme Court judge Milton Tingling stopped Bloomberg’s soda ban from becoming law. The ban did not pass because of major loopholes in it that would exempt milk-based drinks that are just as unhealthy and allow grocery and convenience stores to continue selling large sodas, including 7-11’s 64 oz. Big Gulp. The judge also believed Bloomberg did not have the authority to impose this ban by himself; he should have submitted the bill to the City Council, and not doing so violated the separation of the powers between the executive and the legislature. Restaurants and the soda industry are relieved the ban did not go into place, and they can continue with business as usual. However the large corporations expressed concern that the ruling would convince Bloomberg and other mayors that the soda industry could only be controlled by imposing widespread taxes. Prominent figures in law, health, and politics had widely varying views on the decision. Bloomberg and his Board of Health, who imposed the ban in the first place, oppose the ruling and promise to appeal the decision. The majority of the city didn’t like the ban; a recent poll showed 53 percent of New Yorkers opposed the ban, while 42 percent support it. Since the judge’s ruling came only the day before the ban was to pass in into law, several restaurants had already begun preparations to comply with the ban, such as replacing 24 oz. glasses with 16 oz. ones.
Odalis P, EDA Per.6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteIn both articles it states that Bloombergs proposal on banning oversized sugary drinks
Bryn T-B, EDA period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteJudge Milton Tingling of the New York Supreme Court overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to ban the sale of sugary drinks 16 ounces and over. The judge and opponents of the act cited many reasons for this decision. First, Judge Tingling decided that the mayor “exceeded his authority” by passing the bill by the City Council to put it directly to the Board of Health, all of whose members were approved by him. The judge also stated that the bill’s uneven enforcement of sugary beverages was reason enough to scrap it (the bill banned sugary drinks, but not milk-based ones like milkshakes; nor would it discontinue sales of large sodas in convenience stores and supermarkets). Finally, he decided that the lack of a limit on refills seemed to “gut the purpose of the rule.” The beverage companies and some law professors are in favor of this ruling. Some surprise results from the law professors’ backing of the decision; it seems logical that they would have found nothing wrong with a bill to help people to be more healthy. Mayor Bloomberg and lawyer Michael Cardozo do not agree with this decision and are planning to file an appeal. Bloomberg will also continue in his campaign for a healthier city through different laws. This last-second ruling will have consequences. Businesses who have ordered or gotten rid of cups to comply with the law will now find themselves unequipped to serve customers how they normally would; the wasted supplies will also cost small businesses money they may not have to spare.
Zane W. EDA#6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Law
Mayor Bloomberg fought to limit the amount of soda purchased at restaurants and fastfood joints. Bloomberg brought his proposal in front of a judge to be approved as a bill. After 11 hours of consideration, the judge had declined Bloomberg’s proposal. The judge called the ban "arbitrary and capricious" in an 11th-hour decision that dealt a serious blow to Bloomberg, who has made public health a cornerstone of his administration, with laws prohibiting smoking
in restaurants, bars and parks; banning trans fats; and requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts. Some companies that were in favor of this judgement would be McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts. Their response to the bill wasn’t so much shocking as it was predictable. There were many ways around this bill, and these to fast food joints found some. Claire Wang, assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, was strongly against the ruling. Her plans for the future would probably be to continue fighting. Bloombergs social power had to have dropped after being denied.
Paige B. EDA period 6, Carr
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Soda laws should be approved in New York, because of the major health and drink choices that people have been choosing. The companies and government should be helping the consumers make better choices when buying sugary drink products. Making the the Soda Laws would help the people realize what they are consuming and how it as a major effect on their body. These sugary soda drinks are making the people of america become obese and creating a bigger chance for them to have Type 2 diabetes and many other disease related to people consuming these different kinds of sugary drinks. Banning the sugary drinks will make a better outcome in peoples health, if they do not have it available everywhere. However the people against this ban will, sue and find loopholes in banning sugary drinks in public venues. People that usually order drinks won’t be able to have access so they will find loophole to get their sugary drinks somehow. Public venues that will serve non-sugary drinks will have customers that will add in their own sweetened supplements. Also if the law is passed then the only way for reducing soda consumption is through higher taxes. This law will prohibit people consuming high sugary drinks and may decrease the Obesity epidemic, well as other health related problems. However this law also has loopholes and economical problems that are attached.
Leonard Warren, EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion on this soda ban law, I think that is a good thing that they are going to pass the law because people are becoming obese and diabetic. It is good that they are going to allow this law because so many people are getting obese/fat and then spending so much money on healthcare. People are also becoming diabetic and obese and spending even more money on healthcare and also having to spend money on insulin which you have to take everyday and that can get annoying sometimes. The prices are also decreasing for the price of sodas and that is making people buy more soda instead of healthy drinks such as water and tea and this is why our country is getting so obese/fat. First of all, people are spending about $3.00 on a large drink and getting free refills, so why don’t people go and buy a small drink for only about $1.50 and also get free refills. This will prevent people from spending so much money on fast food, so it doesn’t really matter if they get rid of the larger size drinks because people will just keep getting free refills all day long and they will still get the same amount of soda for a cheaper price, which will attract more customers and this is why our whole country is obese.
Leilani Wiggins
ReplyDeleteP.6 EDA
Soda Ban in New York
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is dealt with the supreme court judge squashed his plan to ban large sugary soda’s in the city’s resturants and other places. It was Milton Tingling declared that selling soda in cups and containers larger than 16 ounces. I think it might be a good thing that they didn’t ban this because the government should stop being our mother and stop telling us if we can’t drink no more than 16 ounces but i don’t think people need the 64 ounces because that’s a lot. Like people are expose to have half their body weight in water not soda. They sell the 64 ounce at 7 eleven and those little stores. If they abandoned the rule about the over 16 ounce thing then all they would alow would be milkshakes. People are ordering large coffee’s now and like big energy drinks like Redbull and Monsters.
Adrian L. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteSoda Ban Judgement
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban large sugary drinks in restaurants, movie theaters, and other food service in the city before it becomes a big problem. He wants to ban large drinks because he cares about other people and the problem it will result if people still keep on eating these bad sugary drinks. I like that he does not want anybody else to get sick for eating the bad sugary drinks that are sold everywhere. He is doing a right thing trying to get rid of sugary drinks because other people don't care and would rather 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 what he is doing until he achieves his goal on banning large sugary drinks. Lots of people don't like Michael Bloombergs idea of banning of banning sugary drinks because the consumer will still buy large drinks, no matter how much it cost, just as long as it tastes good.
Jacob F. EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe judge ruled that the ban was illegal in the 11th hour because there were too many loopholes. The judges reasons were because the ban only prohibits restaurants from selling over 16 ounces but not 7 Eleven or grocery stores. Also because the regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," noting how there would be uneven enforcement within a single city block.
Also because "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," he wrote.
The groups in favor are 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, said the ruling was a "sigh of relief" for New Yorkers and small businesses throughout the city.
Dawn Sweeney, CEO of the National Restaurant Association, which joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, said the decision would save thousands of restaurants and suppliers from unnecessary costs. 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. It might have been surprising because they were expecting Bloomberg's plan to go through and were probably surprised that they were ruled in favor of. some of the people against this judgement were beverage industry consultant Tom Pirko of Bevmark Consulting in Santa Barbara, California, who said the ruling could backfire if it convinces municipalities that the only way to reduce soda consumption is through higher taxes. Also 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. they plan on having the city get this ban passed by the decision to make an appeal. The immediate consequences are that people who already bought new 16 ounce glasses will not be able to comply with demands for the old bigger glasses. Also people will still die from obesity because no one is doing anything to combat it.
Micah P, EDA 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the soda ban was shot down is a good thing in my opinion. It was too much on the extreme side. Sure "It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives." -Mr. Bloomberg. Yet I don’t think that the most effective way to would be to just ban all sodas over 16 ounces. You have to take it slow in my opinion. Or just not be so closed minded and single out soda as the main contributor to obesity, there are other foods involved too that have a huge impact on society. The fact that he singled it out also helped lead to the judge just shooting down and squashing his proposition for the ban. In my opinion the soda ban was a big mistake. The courts decision to decide if Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban would go through or not ended with an 11th hour decision. The decision was that the ban would not pass. The judge said this was because it was “arbitrary and capricious”. Some companies say the ban infringes upon the consumer’s personal liberty to get whatever they want. Also the ban had its flaws like how it did not apply to grocery and convenience stores so people could still get huge soft drinks there if they wanted. It would also allow sweetened milk based drinks like milkshakes which are also unhealthy. This shows how uneven this ban is and thats why the judge didn't pass.