New York soda ban proposal: Public hearing gets impassioned

Even though many consider the decision by the New York City Board of Health a foregone conclusion, that didn’t stop supporters and opponents from expounding Tuesday on the soda ban proposal.

Andrew Burton/Reuters
An eight-year-old New Yorker, sips from his Big Gulp while protesting Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's proposed 'soda-ban' outside City Hall in New York earlier this month. Under the proposed law, sugar drinks with no nutritional value would be banned from sale in New York City in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Both “soda ban” opponents and supporters packed the room Tuesday at the one and only public hearing held by the New York City Board of Health on the city’s proposal to prohibit food-service establishments from selling extra-large sugary drinks.

This was the final official showdown – before the legal challenges promised by the soda industry – between supporters and opponents of the proposal, all trying to sway the impassive-looking members of the Board of Health. That panel will make the final decision on whether to prohibit the city’s restaurants, arenas, and cinemas from selling sugary drinks in sizes greater than 16 ounces.

“The Health Department will be reviewing all the comments it receives during today as well as online and in writing, and will be presenting to the board in September the rule [for a vote], along with any modifications that the Health Department feels it should be making,” said Thomas Farley, New York City health commissioner, before the hearing.

“The board is a group of independent health experts, so they’re the ones with the final say,” Dr. Farley said, in response to a question about whether they would ever vote against the proposal, since they were appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who proposed the controversial ban.

The room for the hearing had a capacity limit of 200 posted. Between board members, beverage-industry representatives, public-health experts, doctors, police, and reporters, it must have been close to that point of “dangerous and unlawful” capacity – a sign of the broad interest in this debate.

Even though many consider the board’s decision a foregone conclusion, that didn’t stop anyone from delivering impassioned testimony, both for and against the proposal.

“When they came for the cigarettes, I didn’t say anything, I didn’t smoke. When they came for the MSG, I really didn’t care because I didn’t order it very often. I’m not a big salt eater, so I didn’t mind when you guys regulated salt,” said Daniel Halloran, a member of the city council representing parts of Queens. “But what will the government be telling me next?”

Many health experts disagreed.

“Soda in large amounts is metabolically toxic,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “Soda is indeed the right target,” he said, contradicting some who had testified against the proposal by saying that soda is just one product that contributes to obesity.

Health experts also called out the soda industry for what they described as a misleading campaign with rhetoric about freedom, when the real goal, they said, is protecting profits. They compared the soda industry to the tobacco industry and said that it focused its advertising disproportionately on youths and minorities.

“If you hold up the playbook and script from the tobacco companies and hold up the playbook and script for the beverage industry, they look remarkably similar,” said Kelly Brownell, a professor of public health and epidemiology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., referring to tobacco lobbying against smoking regulations.

Representatives from the beverage and restaurant industries criticized the science that links sugary drinks to obesity. They also argued that Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal unfairly singles out some businesses, because it limits restaurants but not grocery stores, since those are regulated by the state and not the Board of Health.

“It does not prevent consumers from going next door to where they are eating to purchase a large soda from a grocery store or bodega,” said Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito, saying the proposal could hurt small businesses in her district, which includes parts of upper Manhattan and the South Bronx.

The Board of Health will vote on the proposal Sept. 13. It would go into effect six months later.

For Farley, that can’t come soon enough. He compares this proposal to the city’s ban on trans fats.

“The restaurant industry called it ‘a misguided attempt at social engineering by a group of physicians who don’t understand the restaurant industry.’ I have not heard a single complaint about the ban on trans fats in New York City, and I fully expect the same will happen with this rule when it is all put into place.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.