Coke Fires Back at Mayor Bloomberg

In response to the effort of Mayor Bloomberg of New York City to ban the sale of sugary drinks over 16 ounces, the Coca-Cola Company issued the following statement:

May 31, 2012

The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes. We are transparent with our consumers. They can see exactly how many calories are in every beverage we serve. We have prominently placed calorie counts on the front of our bottles and cans and in New York City, restaurants already post the calorie content of all their offerings and portion sizes — including soft drinks.

New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate.

This is the question, isn’t it? Can New Yorkers make their own choices? Should they be able to? Or should the city limit the right of New Yorkers to buy a sugary beverage in amounts larger than 16 ounces?

I have a couple additional questions:

Will New York also ban “easy ice” on the grounds that you get too much sugary drink this way?

Will New York end up banning two-fisted drinkers (i.e., those who order two or more 16 ounce beverages at a time)?


"God Bless you! I am visiting South Carolina and had a bout with biting midges ..."

A Miraculous Cure for Bug Bite ..."
"It's a ritual for the stupid, ignorant, credulous and those indoctrinated into the delusional dysfunctional ..."

Ash Wednesday: Practice and Meaning
"Thank you so much. It worked on me! For minor bites, St. John's Worth oil ..."

A Miraculous Cure for Bug Bite ..."
"I tried for a solid three minutes in addition to several shorter attempts and I'm ..."

A Miraculous Cure for Bug Bite ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Creighton

    Gotta say, I’m loving Bloomberg’s idea more now that Coke went and said that.
    And it makes me think they agree — Bloomberg’s idea will cut into consumption.

    Sure, I hate that it has to be so heavy-handed. But we’ve got a major problem — and it will cause deaths, and ill-health, and higher medical costs for us all. So, this seems about as painless a way to start to attack the problem I know. And I’m for starting with painless.

  • markdroberts

    Are you at all worried about where this sort of logic might lead us? Or are you okay with that?