(KJM-427/Flickr)

A judge struck down New York City’s ban on sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces on Monday, less than 24 hours before the law was scheduled to go into effect. In a decision [PDF] from the state’s Supreme Court in New York County, Judge Milton Tingling found that the Board of Health’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.”

New York City’s Board of Health had approved the rule [PDF] last September, a significant public health effort from Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In his ruling Tingling also said the rule violated the separation of powers, that this type of action should be determined by the city council, not the New York City’s Board of Health. “The Rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” Tingling wrote. “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages.”

A lawsuit challenging the rule was brought by a coalition of groups including a statewide coalition of Hispanic chambers of commerce, New York’s Korean-American Grocers Association, several unions and the American Beverage Association.

City officials immediately stated they would appeal the ruling. (Note that the Supreme Court which issued this decision is a trial-level court in New York.)

Harold Goldstein is executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy. He said he wasn’t terribly surprised by today’s ruling and acknowledged the public education value of Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts.

“New York City’s proposal did as much as anything in the country to raise awareness that soda is the biggest source of sugar in the diet and the largest contributor to obesity and diabetes,” Goldstein said.

He believes that portion size restriction on sodas by local and state governments are coming. “The tide has turned across the country against sugary drinks. People now know about the harmful effects of sugary drinks,” he said “It’s because of initiatives like Mayor Bloomberg’s that are informing people about these products.”

In a 36-page decision Tingling detailed the history of New York’s City Charter going back to 1686, as well as the history of the powers of the Board of Health. Tingling acknowledged the authority of the board to “prevent and protect against communicable, infectious, and pestilent diseases.” But he questioned the board’s authority to “limit or ban a legal item under the guise of ‘controlling chronic disease.’”

(poolie/Flickr)

Richmond voters may have crushed an effort to pass a soda tax last fall, but that’s not stopping one lawmaker from trying to tax sodas statewide.

State Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) tried to pass a statewide soda tax two years ago that failed, but with Democrats expected to hang on to supermajorities in both houses, Monning thinks this time is different.

“The political train has changed in 2012, but it’s still not going to be automatic by any means,” Monning says. “Any tax is going to be an uphill fight.”

Monning’s bill would slap distributors of sugary drinks with an excise tax of a penny-per-ounce, the same amount that was proposed in Richmond and El Monte, in southern California. The bill would further create a Children’s Health Promotion Fund which would then split all revenue between the State Department of Public Health and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

A recent Field Poll showed support for a tax if the money went to children’s nutrition and physical education.

Still, American Beverage Association spokesman Chuck Finnie says the industry isn’t worried. “Sugar-sweetened beverages are not the major source of added sugar in the American diet,” he says.

Finnie says the industry will educate lawmakers on how the drinks are being unfairly targeted.

(Rex Sorgatz: Flickr)

The people of Richmond will decide in November whether businesses should have to pay a fee for every ounce of sugar-sweetened drinks they sell. In other words, a soda tax is on the ballot November 6th. If voters approve the measure, Richmond would be the first city in California to impose such a fee.

“The city of Richmond has the opportunity to make history,” Harold Goldstein of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy told me today, adding that the campaign will be closely watched nationally. “Cities and states will be watching this across the country. … They too want to put a small tax on sugary drinks and use those funds to mitigate the harmful effects that all these sugary drinks are causing.”

Debate stretched more than four hours at last night’s City Council meeting to determine whether to put two related measures on the ballot. In addition to the penny-per-ounce business license fee, a second measure asks voters if they wish the money to be directed to obesity prevention programs. The measure is an advisory one. If voters approve the new fee, the money it generates goes into the general fund. Richmond’s finance director estimates the fee will generate from $4 million to $8 million for city coffers.

People on both sides turned out in droves. Many people spoke of deep concern about children’s health. About one-third of children in Richmond are obese, according to a report by the Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS). Tracey Rattray, Director of Community Wellness for CCHS attended last night’s meeting. “Sugar sweetened beverages are making us fat,” she told me today in an interview, “and we know that sugar-sweetened beverages are leading cause of empty calories in teenagers’ diets.”

Others worried that the fee could threaten Richmond businesses. Many speakers pointed out that people could easily shop in neighboring cities. Bob Achermann is executive director of the California/Nevada Soft Drink Association. “It’s a substantial tax, and it will have a dramatic impact on businesses in the Richmond area,” he told me in an interview. “It will drive people to buy their beverages outside of Richmond and possibly loss of purchases in other areas. It’s $3 per case and that’s what people will be looking at price-wise.”

But Harold Goldstein believes people will continue to buy locally, but will switch to diet beverages or juice instead of their sugary counterparts. “People are still going to be thirsty,” he says, “They’re still going to be buying those products in their neighborhoods. They’re not going to drive 20 miles to buy some thing. It’s all a charade the beverage industry is using to try to scare people.”

City Council member Jeff Ritterman is a co-sponsor of the bill and acknowledged the campaign will be tough one, noting that last night’s debate highlighted a “real strain” small grocers are feeling. He promised a public education campaign about the harmful effects of sugary drinks. “That’s our strong suit, is our ability to do grassroots organizing. We’re deeply rooted in this community,” he says. “Those who are funding the opposition are coming from the outside and that works against them, but they have a lot of resources. Money doesn’t talk, it swears.”