Bloomberg must be so proud. His little plan is coming together. 1 oz over the 16 oz limit gets the restaurant a citation. They even have their little measuring cups all ready. No more 2 liter bottles of soda with a home delivered Pizza either.
How much soda is even in a 16 oz glass? The ice fills most of the glass. I usually get maybe four good sips from the straw before it’s empty. I doubt there’s 5 oz of drink in that glass.
Any thoughts on the soda size limit in NY? What will it do to restaurant sales and profits in NY?
I never expected Bloomberg’s ban to be implemented. I just assumed a court would stop this foolishness before it started.
I’m baffled what authority Bloomberg or the NY health department has over portion size in a restaurant. Does that ice cream sundae have more than 8 ozs of ice cream? Is that steak more than 12 ozs? Your soda is over 16 ozs? How can soda size legally be mandated by a city government?
Even coffee is affected. The rules aren’t even consistent. Note the special McDonalds / Dunkin’ Donuts rule. They can’t serve sweetened coffee. You have to add it yourself.
I feel bad for the restaurant workers implementing this bs.
And this is just idiotic. If you are buying a whole pizza you are obviously buying for multiple people (and if you are not then you have much bigger problems than soda!).
In the Dunkin Donuts flyer it says they will be selling “resized” small & medium drinks, yet lemme guess they aren’t going to reduce their prices. :rolleyes:
The drivers are gonna be lovin’ it, though. They’ll stock their trunks with everything under the sun and sell them for three times what they pay for them.
This law has got so many panties twisted up that I’m thinking it might turn out out to be a good thing. Either directly or by compelling more effective, “middle ground” legislation.
The really big Super size drinks are kind of ridiculous. I think they hold 32 or even 40 oz? But, government has no place in interfering with what a private business serves. imho
This may eventually be a moneymaker for some places. I want a quarter pounder and two medium drinks. That’s going to cost more than what McDonalds charged for the super size drink. Not to mention the extra trash that goes to the landfill.
It’s my understanding that city health depts regulate and inspect restaurants for public safety. The type of equipment, cleanliness of the kitchen, and how food is handled.
I have never heard of any health dept regulating what was sold in a restaurant except for booze. A liquor license is required to sell that and the ABC regulates booze sells.
I guess the up coming court battle will be setting some legal precedents.
Same authority they have for imposing a speed limit, or a law against using car horns in non-emergency situations. They probably also have a law about lids on trash cans.
I’m not in favor is this regulation, being a bit of a libertarian (small L). I do not, however, share the outrage. There are worse laws, by far.
Just because they have not doesn’t mean that they cannot. I know the US federal government has limited powers but I was under the impression that all of the other levels had broad powers.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a ridiculous law but I don’t see how the city doesn’t have a right to make it.
Do you think government should allow a private business to serve alcohol to anyone?
If I decided to sell brownies laced with arsenic, should the government stop me? Or should the decision be left to the unsuspecting or self-delusional consumer?
Sugar does not have the same toxicity as either alcohol or arsenic, but it nonetheless seems to be causing our public healthiness to plummet. Not just in terms of obesity, but also cancer, diabetes, and possibly other disorders.
If the government was completely divorced from public health, then maybe it could be argued that they’re overstepping their bounds. But government has a vested interest in making sure society doesn’t become comprised of a bunch of arthritic, demented, diabetics with congestive heart failure and riddled with cancer. At the basest level, these folks can’t work, can’t afford taxes, and can’t afford their own health care. Why should the government pay for the ill-effects of sugar but not exert its powers to regulate it?
I don’t know if this law is a good one, but it’s a step in the right direction.