Bloomberg Soda Ban: 11 Foods New York's Mayor May Want To Ban Next

By now, you've probably heard about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial decision to ban the sale of large sodas in New York City restaurants, theaters, stadiums and street carts. Reactions to this announcement were widespread and ranged from favorable to -- well -- indignant. This proposed ban will outlaw the sale of sweetened drinks over 16 ounces that contain more than 50 calories.

This got us thinking (yep, we think about food all day, folks): are there other foods even more health-averse that Bloomberg might try to target next? Are there not additional abominations to our cholesterol levels? To our calorie counts?

At Tuesday's meeting of the New York City Board of Health, who must approve these decisions, board members also indicated an interest in enforcing limits on other large, high-calorie foods like movie theater popcorn, coffee drinks and milkshakes. "The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," board member Bruce Vladeck proclaimed, and we can see his point.

We certainly don't want to give them any more ideas, but these 11 foods -- most at 30-40 times the calorie count of the typical banned soda -- could very well now be on Bloomberg's radar:

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

Keep it legal!

Ban it!

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

Comments

[bobbyar410]

12:08 AM on 03/12/2013

How, dare you PEOPLE criticize EMEROR bloomberg? lol

The BOOOO him on St. Patrik's Parade, because he is holding on to the Sandy aid money while

families still need to rebuild. He is working hard on very important issues, like styrofoam or the

size of your soda. You people be careful, or he will outlaw the parade and limit every N.Yorker

to X amount of breathes a day.............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Marcus Sjafiroeddin]

02:49 PM on 09/15/2012

its always ok until they ban something you like

i'm not from NY, can they buy a beer bigger than 16 oz?

since when can we tell private business what they can and can not sell that is not illegal?

[bobbyar410]

12:10 AM on 03/12/2013

He is the new EMPEROR he worths hmmmm 78 billions ........that makes him think he is GOD

[ExtremeRickman]

11:32 AM on 07/02/2012

dafuq? But I can drink as much liquor as I want and smoke as many cigarettes as I want? I wonder what philosiraptor would say about this

[captainindustry]

10:06 PM on 06/24/2012

I just visited a restaurant where smoking is still allowed. (Here in Dallas) OMG!! My eyes were burning and my throat hurt after a few minutes!!

Let's not forget that ALL restaurants and movies and bowling alleys and most offices were like that not so long ago.

Government intervention?? I'm all for it.

[Darlene Webb Castro]

09:45 AM on 12/19/2012

If a restaurant has a smoking section then just don't go. Why should the government tell us what to do. So you are all in favor of the government telling us what we should do, when we should do it and how we are to do it? Sounds like prison to me and I am not for that. If I don't want to go to a restaurant that has a smoking section then I won't go. I will go somewhere else. Nobody held a gun to your head, you could have just walked out and chose to never go again. Freedoms are being lost every day. It starts with the little things and then one day you wake up and have no freedoms at all.

[bobbyar410]

12:11 AM on 03/12/2013

So if I have a gl. of soda in my hands your stomach will make GRRRRRRRRRRPPPP noises?

[Mystiewolf]

10:04 PM on 06/24/2012

The government needs to stop telling people what they can and can't eat. It's absolutely ridiculous that people sit by and allow the government to become the Parent in this society. What about everyone who drinks a pint or more of beer, bottles of wine, glasses of cocktails? Let's face it, most people don't stop at just one. Maybe only allow a shot glass worth of alcoholic beverages to cut back on all those who will most certainly develop beer bellies, diabetes and liver failure? What cost has/will be placed upon the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for all the liver transplants and medical care/rehab of the alcoholics who are uninsured? EVERYONE who drinks an alcoholic beverage WILL become an alcoholic, right? They will ALL develop cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease, right? It's obvious that these folks need to pay their own medical bills, and stop depending on me, a taxpayer, to foot their bills. Their poor choices are driving up MY insurance premiums. Why not cut them all off, and save us all from going bankrupt from their idiotic, uneducated and extremely unhealthy lifestyle choices? Removing all alcohol and tobacco will have a hugely positive result in cutting back on type II diabetes, cancers, liver failure, heart disease and obesity. Ban alcohol! Ban Tobacco! Ban all Carbohydrate foods, because carbs ARE turned into sugar by the body...so NO carbs for ANYONE! BAN IT ALL! SAVE AMERICA!!! ..seriously.

[dr0berts]

10:20 AM on 06/20/2012

I am not a fan of Government meddling; however, if you're walking around with a quart of soda in a cup then you sure do need someone helping you with your choices. Many will argue personal rights but until those folks pay their own medical bills and decouple their poor choices from my insurance premium, then I have to say "ban". What drove the "quart cup" to market anyway? Increased dehydration in the population? Uh huh. We wouldn't even be arguing this unless some bean counter in a beverage company thought to capitalize on an addiction.

[Darlene Webb Castro]

09:50 AM on 12/19/2012

So if a person chooses to have a 40 ounce soda once a week that's bad? Tell me what are your food choices? Do you eat only healthy foods, no sugar, no hormones and not processed? Do you eat out at fast food restaurants? Even Subway can be a bad choice. Your insurance premiums are being increased partly because of Obama. It's not all because of other people's unhealthy choices.

[dr0berts]

07:57 PM on 12/20/2012

I don't think anyone is advocating a draconian ban on one's right to consume sugar over some amount. I believe it is a statement to the restaurant community that the notion of a super-duper-size soda sets a poor example for everyone, especially our youth, and can encourage an addictively damaging lifestyle. Just curious, would you be okay with having your kid consume a 40oz soda in a sitting? Well, when a kid sees all the grown-ups doing just that in a public place it becomes a validated act. Do a search on 60 Minutes and sugar - frightening stuff. You can call this a rights issue but it's much bigger than that. It's the same card that smokers play.

To be fair, I can't argue your point on the insurance side, what a mess that all is...

[xBeth]

02:20 PM on 06/18/2012

The decision to sell one 32 ounce soda versus two 16 ounce sodas is an expression of individual preference. Government interference with freedom of expression requires a compelling public interest be served. In this case it seems doubtful the Mayor could justify his single container ban on public health grounds given there is no demonstrable health benefit of drinking two 16 ounce sodas over a single 32 ounce soda. I am eager to see the First amendment challenges to this law.

[Patient Zero]

10:41 PM on 06/17/2012

Yes, well, all of those foods are revolting, and he's right anyway, you should not drink soda at all.

[bobbyar410]

12:12 AM on 03/12/2013

Old man, you look obese, you sould follow your own advice.

[Patient Zero]

12:38 AM on 03/12/2013

That is not a picture of me.  

[William Brock]

02:30 AM on 06/15/2012

I agree with Bloomberg. When corporations throw away responsibility in producing products that they know are dangerous to the health of humans, all in the name of “profit“, then they lose the right to free market that item without severe consequences. This business ideology that it's other's responsibility to monitor their own "risk factor", is a total con game with the public. We have to save and protect the un-sophisticated consumer at every chance....The Business community cannot be trusted to do the best thing for the consumer. Often twisting the message or failing to disclose possible dangers is criminal and needs to be treated as such. Profiting from another’s innocent ignorance or worse, a possible death, is evil……Flat-out.

[Proflambert]

05:32 AM on 06/15/2012

So the government is more trustworthy than the "business community" when it comes to our personal choices? You are saying the consumer is "un-sophisticated," which is another way of saying "the consumer is stupid." Why not let Americans choose what to eat and what not to eat?

[streettalk]

08:10 PM on 06/14/2012

if he is not getting aback hander surely he has a right to bann these foods because you voted for him and you gave him and his cohorts free range to do this the same with all the utilities so let him and his cohorts bann these foods for themselves and if the foods make you happy eat them unless thier going to put you in prison for eating them. but be aware the is some thing else on his mind is it that they are going to create a food shortage to they can put up the prices while they beat the fat off the table and leave you the crumbs.

[tiamo]

05:04 PM on 06/14/2012

How about stopping the corn subsidy, you know the corn in high fructose corn syrup ?

[cibersatan]

02:45 PM on 06/14/2012

Bloomberg impressed me when he sat on TV and figured down what minimum wage was

[Emily Groth]

12:15 PM on 06/14/2012

@ Greg DiRito ... that's just the thing, Bloomberg ISN'T telling us what not to drink [& eat]. He is implementing a move that will hopefully suggest health concerns to Americans. If you want more soda, it doesn't exactly require a rocket scientist to tell you that you could just, um buy two smaller ones! And for those of you crying about that, sure its a teensy bit pricier, but its on A SODA! We're talking maybe 50 cents max. Look at our economy today and you'll see that 50 cents is tiddly-winks monetarily.

[MyaWords]

05:10 PM on 06/14/2012

It's done in parts of Europe and no it's not just 50 cents more, you get tiny glass of the drink you ordered and you pay in full for another which is around 2 dollars or more including water. I'm petite, healthy and workout daily, I think it's ridiculous to treat adults like children and tell them what they can or can not do even if they act like children. That is their right. The drinks in the end add up to the food we paid for here where I live.

[William Brock]

02:42 AM on 06/15/2012

Most “average” adults, unfortunately in America, are a “quart low” in the intelligence department. Therefore it takes greater seasoned minds in our society to step up for these hapless beings and protect them from themselves and to promote the betterment of their health and safety and the society that must interact with them daily. It’s a safety issue.

[Sean Kruz]

12:52 AM on 06/15/2012

It adds up... Besides that, who do you work for? Plant

[Greg DiRito]

10:58 AM on 06/14/2012

This guy should have watched Demolition Man a few less times. No one obviously told him they were making fun of the government and not setting up a political agenda. The idea that your government can tell you what to eat and drink...yikes! Next a fine and tax on swearing!

[srpw0903]

01:25 PM on 06/14/2012

Funny you should say that because residents in a town outside Boston voted Monday night to make the foul-mouthed pay fines for swearing in public. At a town meeting, residents voted 183-50 to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity. So the time has come!!!!! Large sodas should have never been banned, they should have just put a HUGH tax on high sugar and high fat products. That way the tax $$ would pay for the diabetes and obesity related diseases. I do not want MY tax $$$ to be paid for the people with no sense enough to eat properly.....Not my problem, it's theirs....

[JonLINY]

11:53 PM on 06/16/2012

You mean to say you want NYC to add MORE taxes? Is that possible?
Anytime Bloomy needs money, he usually just raises the bridge tolls.

[srpw0903]

10:13 AM on 06/14/2012

They should never have banned any foods. Instead tax the high sugar and high fat foods the same way they did cigarettes. Many people stopped smoking.... If people continue to purchase the food then use the tax $$ on the care of the people with diabetes and obesity related diseases. Do NOT use MY TAX $$$ to help these people. Use theirs...........