Splashback: NYC beverage firms defend themselves against Bloomberg

For now, at least [Ira Stoll, earlier].

Related: “Soda Noir,” Owen Smith’s funny cover illustration for the June 18 New Yorker. And George Will reveals in his column that as part of its stimulus program the federal government spent millions of dollars on campaigns at the local and state level to crack down on sweetened drinks, a policy of dubious legality given that existing law “prohibits the use of federal funds ‘to influence in any manner … an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.'” [earlier here, here]


  • And let us not forget that as we spend “stimulus” dollars on lobbying local pols concerning the evils of sugar-sweetened soda, we continue to lavish money on farmers to grow corn, much of which is converted to the HFCS you find in Coke, Pepsi, and so on.

  • The issue really being fought is not the right to choose to buy your drinks in whatever size you as a consumer wish. It is the right of the bottle manufacturers not to have to resize their bottles. One popular size is 500 ml, which is 16.9 ounces. Had Bloomberg simply gone metric or chosen 17 ounces, the commitment to freedom of choice on the part of the bottlers would never have been mentioned.


  • The question of legality is clearly not on the radar of this administration. Refer to the “DREAM Act” executive order for a blatant example.

  • […] drinking healthy.” [Reason] Earlier here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. […]