So It Is Written, So It Shall Be Done...

Photo from http://www.breitbart.com

Unless you are New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, where, in his case, it was written and then UNDONE. Today, in an eleventh hour ruling, New York State Supreme Court judge Milton Tingling, slapped the fizz right out of Mayor Bloomberg's drinks ban. The proposed ban, in an effort to curb obesity, sought to limit the size of sugary drinks to 16 oz, while ignoring the more problematic causes of obesity. The ban was to go into effect tomorrow. Bloomberg says the ruling is "clearly an error" and says the city plans to appeal.

Judge Tingling wrote the ban was "arbitrary and capricious', which is exactly what was discussed here on this blog. He went on to say the ban would pose uneven burdens across different business owners, even on the same block. The judge added "the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of this rule", a point argued by yours truly last year; 

"The short-sided, narrow-minded 'ruling' of the appointed NYC Board of Health does nothing to address the obesity epidemic but certainly means I can still drink a 200 calorie soda with my meal. Like most other intrusive, far-reaching over-regulation, this resolution is born from the liberal mindset of government can cure all ills, including obesity." - from @DrinkPro, 9/18/2012

Do I feel vindicated? Not really. I was one of many voices of reason who argued for the pro-choice side about the ill-advised attempt by Bloomberg to dictate personal behavior. I was called names and my blog was inundated with hate email. I expect the very same thing again, but I don't mind. As long as you remain civil in discourse, you can win any argument. Just stick to the facts, remain professional and don't get personal, as I demonstrated here;

"Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough [reason] to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks." - from @DrinkPro, 6/20/2012

Professional and courteous is how I argued and the so many others who felt the Bloomberg ban was far-intrusive into the personal choices of free people. At the front and center of the debate was the American Beverage Association, a trade association that represents the non-alcoholic beverage industry. They helped the beverage companies speak with one voice and one message. Also, New Yorkers for Beverage Choices led a massive grassroots effort to bring attention to the ban. They formed a coalition of over 3,700 businesses, individuals and community organizations along with over a half-million supporters who signed up online (me included). Oftentimes, the unorganized side to a debate will most certainly lose the PR fight against a well-spoken machine. This PR fight is where this battle was won and lost. As misguided as the proposed ban was, I feel it was the city of New York and the appointed, not elected, Board of Health who was ill-prepared for the fight. It's as if they assumed New Yorkers were just going to lay down and take it just like the trans fat ban, the salt ban and the smoking ban. Well, I guess they were wrong. New Yorkers... people... Americans... are tired of being told what to do by their government. After recent legislation both locally and nationally that has gone against the will of the majority, Americans are tired and fed up with their voices not being heard by their elected officials. This time, it happened to be sugary drinks. Next time, it will be something else, but the message has been sent, loud and clear; the government can't push people around and not expect a fight.

In closing, I am not trying to toot my own horn because of my accurate, dead on predictions of the judge's ruling. Ok, yes I am... I pretty much nailed his decision! But, I'll leave the prediction business to Nostradamus. Instead, I prefer to simply educate through fact-based convincing.  A novel approach nowadays. However, I will leave you with a quote... one that, once you see who wrote it, you wont be surprised it rings as true today as it did back then;

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

-James Madison, a Founding Father in a speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the individuals or companies mentioned have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 27 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro

The SCOTUS Ruling Will Fuel More Government Reach Into Your Drink

Today's Supreme Court decision on The Affordable Care Act will go a long way in empowering those who feel they know what's better for you than you do yourself. It's been to the highest court in the land and came out on the other side, no worse for wear.

In cities across the country, we've watched small pieces of personal freedoms and choices get stripped away, down to the very core of basic things such as soda sizes at the movie theater. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg made news again last month with his recently proposed ban on sugary drinks over 16 oz in on-premise venues across the city. This far-reaching legislation caught the attention of those on the left who are always happy to levy a tax or a ban on people or things and then hide behind the populist theme of "if it's for the betterment of society as a whole, I'm all for it."

Social wins are to liberals what spinach is to Popeye. They squeeze open the can and slam it down their gullet, their muscles and veins bulging, they got their chests sticking out. They're pumped up, man! And they should be. But, be careful. What comes with this new found confidence is a brazenness to go further. It's a blood sport once it reaches SCOTUS level and they want to put their foot on your throats while you're down. They want to finish you off like a fatality in Mortal Kombat. 


The only way to fend off further far-reaching government intervention is to stay informed and stay active. Educate yourselves so you can debate a liberal. But don't stoop to the level of hysterics. They are really good at that. They will use terms such as "fair" or "equality" and other class-warfare buzz words to try to cloud the debate waters and fuel anger. Don't fall for it. Stay focused, use facts (they hate that) and keep your eye on the ball.

To keep up on the recent NYC soda ban, visit New Yorkers for Beverage Choices website. You can sign up for news alerts and even send a letter to Mayor Bloomberg. They are the local lead dog in the fight against NYC's proposed ban. Also, read the American Beverage Association Blog for more industry related news and data. You can also stay updated on beverage industry related topics and news on Twitter. Follow Kevin Perry from the Georgia Beverage Association, @GABeverage, for an in-depth view into the soda ban and other industry topics. Also, for an opposing viewpoint, follow @MicheleRSimon, a Public Health Lawyer who has been very vocal in her displeasure of big soda, big agriculture and big macs. It's important to know what the opposition is thinking, albeit misguided. Of course, you can follow me, @DrinkPro, for a little of everything. I'm kind of like a Long Island Iced Tea.

Remember, stay involved, stay educated, stay hydrated and stay polite.


This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the individuals or companies mentioned have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro

Nanny Nanny, Poo Poo

The recent debate over banning sugary drinks in New York City has predictably turned into name-calling on both sides. I was sucked in to this tactic in a recent article in which a reader replied by calling me an idiot and so on. No big deal, I've been called worse, as they say. I always remain civil during debate until the other side fires their salvo, leaving me with no option but to unleash a fierce, fact-based assault. I'm like the Hulk. Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry. Actually, I have fun at their expense and I enjoy reading their insults. At least their fingers are getting exercise, if nothing else.

NYC has proved to be an intense battle ground over the quintessential right of choice. The choice, being able to purchase a sugary drink in excess of 16 oz, is being taken away by Mayor Bloomberg in a far-reaching, autocratic move based on the notion that government knows best. Bloomberg said last week on CBS This Morning "if government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." That sentiment, right there, is what has long concerned people that government has lost it's sense of purpose. And that has led to average citizens voicing their opinions on things such as the soda ban, because they fear the slippery slope effect. And, it is those opinions that have brought out the other side, convinced it is in fact the government's role to protect us, cradle to grave.

There have been many comparisons made to the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco. My rebuttal to that argument is tobacco will harm the user, but some science suggests that it can also harm non-users through second-hand smoke. I don't know all the science about second-hand smoke, but, if smoking is proven to cause cancer, then I don't think it's a good idea to blow your smoke in my child's face. If science has already said is toxic to you, then it could potentially be harmful to others? Irrational, self-proclaimed subject matter experts, however, will get nasty and personal when data disproves or shoots holes in their defense. It's simple; my contention is the act of me drinking soda can not physically harm a child sitting in the same room. It's not the same as cigarettes, so don't go there. For that belief, I have been accused of being fat, lazy, an idiot, a moron, stupid, not caring about fat people and, last but not least, racist.

I was wondering about that last tag until I read a comment by someone about how "poor people" and "low-income" folks are basically forced to purchase large unhealthy drinks such as soda because they can't afford the "more expensive, healthier" drinks. That idea is just one step away from turning the debate on it's ear by claiming a higher percentage of blacks are poorer than whites, therefore, being against a large soda ban makes you likely to be "against" blacks. That is where the debate has shifted, unfortunately.

There are groups that are trying to defeat the soda ban because of it's broad and not very well thought out approach. Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks. The unintended consequences of the ban are merely collateral damage, as they always are, for the feel-gooders in our society who claim to know better than we do about what to put into our bodies. One group, New Yorkers for Beverage Choice, has taken up the fight against the ban. They claim to lay out what the ban will and will not do. They also place an emphasis on moderation, diet and exercise. How about that? Three seemingly forgotten pillars of personal responsibility when it comes to health. Other groups, such as The American Beverage Association (ABA), have also spoken out against the ban. Groups like this will be demonized for having companies such as Coke and Pepsi show their support. What would you expect Coke and Pepsi to do? Apparently, there are those who feel an industry under attack should just sit back and take it. A recent tweet by @MicheleRSimon warned her followers by tweeting "Big Bev astro-turf alert" seeming to infer that Coke and Pepsi's support for New Yorkers for Beverage Choice somehow makes the group a non-organic effort. Michele has an affinity for the use of the term "big" on her blog. That's a code word meant to identify a company as "greedy polluters". You know, big sugar, big tobacco, big oil, big agriculture. Pretty much any big industry that prefers to make a big profit. Michele, who holds a JD, says on her Twitter profile "I am a public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice. My book, Appetite for Profit, exposes food industry marketing and lobbying." Bam! What catches my attention are "advocate", "justice", "profit" and "exposes". That's all I need to hear to understand Michele's position. Call me short-sided, but I just read a book by it's cover. And you know what, I don't have a problem with her. She is using her experiences, education, knowledge and, presumably her money (I don't know for sure), to advance her agenda. I see nothing wrong with that. But, don't demonize corporations for defending their industry. In the spirit of full disclosure, Michele and I are now dating on Twitter.

However, the efforts of groups like New Yorkers for Beverage Choice and the ABA need to go beyond the ban's current theater of operations and fight an urban, house to house assault. We are fighting a much larger scale effort, brought on by those interested in simply penalizing a specific group at the behest of another by using class warfare as part of the debate. I ask the Bloomberg supporters this; Rather than making sure I can't buy a 32oz ice cold soda at a movie, why not focus on making sure the morbidly obese person in front of me gets a little exercise once in a while? Wouldn't that do more to combat obesity? Or, is that too mean of me to ask?

Who To Blame When Your Kid Is Fat

Summer is almost here and parents all around will be bringing their kids to the pediatrician for their yearly physicals before next school year. And your little 11 year old isn't so little anymore. He's 5'0" and weighs 165 pounds.

Source: Newsweek cover July 3, 2000

Last year, he was 140 pounds and the doctor told you back then you need to control his dieting. He also said he needs to get "more" exercise. This was the doctor's way of being nice. He knows your kid doesn't exercise, but he can't say it like that. He tells you to make sure he eats "more" vegetables and less sweets, but, he really knows your kid doesn't eat any vegetables at all, unless you count the lettuce on his two Wendy's burgers.

A few years back, when I pretended to go to college, I did a paper on childhood obesity. I wish my wife would have saved it like she saves all my two kids work, but, it's gone, so I'll have to just wing it from memory. I decided to research childhood obesity because that was right around the time when flunky lawyers started to pursue food and beverage manufacturers claiming they were contributing to an epidemic by creating and selling products which leads to fat kids, which, in turn, leads to fat adults, which in turn, leads to huge medical expenses later in life. This became the "new black" amongst tort lawyers who far exhausted the tobacco settlements and sought another revenue stream. (This is the full disclosure part; I make no bones about it, I think these types of lawyers are scum. At the time of my research, I also happened to work for one of the companies in the cross-hairs, Coca-Cola).

My paper was loaded with all kinds of quotes, statistics, data, parenthetical references, citations and footnotes. I had the usual list of MLA items I needed to include to get a passing grade in English 101. But, there is no need to bore you with something you already know; Fat+Carbohydrates+Calories-Exercise = Fatness. That was easy. I wonder what grade I would have gotten if that was my entire paper?

Beverage companies have been under attack for some while and have evolved as a result. The legal battle was picked up by state boards of education when they became influenced by the tort lobbyists. Soon, they began threatening to end contracts with beverage companies who supply their districts with products in campus vending machines, lunch lines and concession stands. Of course, that would have been huge. They went from a purely defensive posture at first to more of an "o.k., we can do a little better" posture later. And it's the later part that really shows how companies react to societal pressures. Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other beverage companies listened to the negative media, paid attention and worked to beat the tort lawyers rear ends. But not in a court of law, rather in the court of public opinion. They created healthier alternatives with less sugar or no sugar, shrunk package and serving sizes, made easy to read labels identifying calorie info, and, at the same time, pretty much took over the single serve bottled water market to boot. All while still offering their regular brands and continuing to innovate new ones.

You can read how many calories have been cut in school drink choices, something like 80%. Companies had to fight for their right to exist in the important school channel. And they had a lot of help along the way from unlikely sources; their competitors. While it is still entertaining to watch the old school trench warfare in the convenience stores and supermarkets, in this battle, they all wore the same uniform. Among other help were groups like the American Beverage Association www.ameribev.org , which consists of hundreds of companies in the entire beverage industry who employ over a quarter of a million people. A lot of people have a lot at stake.

Click here to watch the ABA's video

The fight isn't over though. There are special taxes being proposed which would do nothing to stop childhood obesity, but it makes a lot of liberal thinkers feel like they are making a difference. Right now, there is some creepy lawyer drawing up the next plan and the beverage companies are hard at work spending tens of millions of dollars a year trying to do the right thing.

None of the lawsuits or proposed legislation will do an ounce of good as long as little fat Johnny sits on the couch playing X-Box, eating Doritos, slamming Cokes and getting zero exercise. And there's a good chance mom and dad are porkers, too. One statistic that stood out during my research is if a kid's parents are obese, then there is a 64% chance the kid will become obese too. If the parents are not obese, the chance is reduced to 16%. And, it's not because of genetics. Kids eat what their parents eat. How many people have a secret snack cupboard for them but a fruit and vegetable cupboard for their kids? How many 300 pound parents make their kids go exercise? The answer is none and none. Speaking of exercise, another focus could also be the fact that P.E. programs have been eliminated in many schools in the past 20 years. Do you think that may have anything to do with keeping our kids physically active?

We have to watch and control what our kids eat. And we have to lead by example. Of course snacks are fine in moderation, but moderation often becomes the norm and parents act surprised when the doctor tells them their kid is fat and is going to have a lifetime of health problems unless they change. But, just because a kid is fat, I shouldn't have my choices affected.

Now, sure, the lawyers will say all they ever wanted was to force the beverage companies to make healthier products, but, we know better. I think it was Ronald Reagan who said it best about politicians, many of whom are lawyers: "The second oldest profession bears a striking resemblance to the first". Well said Ronnie, well said.

This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro