Today the New York City
Board of Health is holding a
public hearing on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s
proposal for a 16-ounce cap on servings of sugar-sweetened
beverages sold by restaurants, movie theaters, food carts, and
concession stands. In a conveniently timed letter to
The New England Journal of Medicine, three public health
researchers at NYU estimate that the restriction could reduce
consumption per meal in fast food restaurants by up to 63 calories.
That’s assuming everyone drinks a single 16-ounce serving, rather
than buying a second drink or taking advantage of free refills at
self-serve beverage stations. The smaller the share of customers
who stop at 16 ounces, of course, the smaller the reduction in
calories; if 70 percent disregard Bloomberg’s beverage boundary,
the researchers calculate, the decrease will no longer be
statistically significant, and at 80 percent it becomes a
statistically significant increase.

Deeming that kind of revolt improbable, the authors conclude
that “the policy appears to be associated with a decrease in
calories from sugar-sweetened beverages purchased at fast-food
restaurants.” Even if we accept that conclusion, of course,
the big beverage ban won’t necessarily reduce total calorie intake.
Diners deprived of their usual extra-large soda may be more
inclined to buy dessert, for instance, or they might make up the
difference at some other point in the day—not difficult to do, as
Bloomberg emphasizes, given all the loopholes in his plan (e.g.,
for milk-based beverages, fruit juices, and sugar-sweetened drinks
purchased from stores or vending machines, not to mention all
manner of fattening solid food).

The lead author of the NEJM letter, Brian Elbel,
is
scheduled to present his findings at today’s hearing.
Here are some of the people the Board of Health has heard from so
far:

• Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, who emphasized that the soda
  serving ceiling “is not a ban” but rather “a limitation on the
  container size.” Doesn’t that make it a ban on servings bigger than
  the prescribed size?
• Linda Gibbs, deputy mayor for health and human services, who
  described how the obesity “epidemic” is “ravaging” the city.
• David R. Jones, chief executive of the Community Service
  Society of New York, who condemned soft drink companies for selling
  “worthless items to poor communities.”
• City Councilman Dan Halloran, City Councilwoman Letitia
  James, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, all
  three of whom spoke against the plan. “When they came for the
  cigarettes,” Halloran said, “I didn’t say anything, because I
  didn’t smoke. When they came for the MSG, I didn’t say anything
  because I don’t eat it very often.” Yikes.
• Joy Dubost, director of nutrition and healthy living at the
  National Restaurant Association, who testified that “added sugars,
  including sugar-sweetened beverages, are no more likely to cause
  weight gain than other sources of calories.” She called Bloomberg’s
  proposal a “paternalistic” scheme that will produce nothing but “a
  false sense of accomplishment.” 
•  Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for
  Science in the Public Interest, who argued that “portraying a
  vitally important health initiative as an assault on consumers’
  rights is simply distracting.” Jacobson’s group was
  inveighing against “liquid candy” long before Bloomberg took up
  the cause.
• Vanessa Lockel of the American Beverage Association, who
  complained that the mayor’s pint-size prescription “is distracting
  us from real issues, from real programs that actually help with
  regard to obesity.”

The New York Times, the source of these quotes, is
live-blogging the hearing and has more
here. The board, which is supposed to vote on the proposed rule
in September, consists entirely of Bloomberg appointees, so the
outcome seems like a foregone conclusion. “Compared to smoking,”
Bloomberg
told reporters yesterday, “this is an easy battle to win, and
nobody’s going to stop this.”

More on Bloomberg’s big beverage ban, including
complaints from Board of Health members who say it does not fo
far enough, here.