LARGE ISSUE: Soda-loving Bronx kid Sincere Gurley wouldn’t be able to get more than a 16-ounce sugary drink at a restaurant, if Mayor Bloomberg has his way. (James Messerschmidt)
(
)
Fat chance, Nanny Bloomberg.
State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday said he’s considering a plan to thwart Mayor Bloomberg’s attack on sugary drinks.
“We may be getting too close to Big Brother,” a clearly bothered Silver told The Post, adding that he’s considering legislation at the state level to stop the mayor’s plan to limit the size of sodas and other sugar-laden drinks sold in the city.
“I just think we ought to step back and look at the freedoms that we have been given in this country and reflect on them,’’ Silver said.
And sources said other foes would likely have an easy job killing the ban with a court injunction, anyway.
The proposal — which would do away with sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in many establishments — isn’t set to take effect until March 2013. That would leave foes enough time to stall it in court until Bloomberg leaves office at the end of that year, sources said.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn — a leading candidate to succeed the mayor — has already come out against the ban.
“Seems to me [the plan is] not about knowledge, empowerment or access. It seems to be more on the punitive side of things, and I worry . . . in the end, it won’t have the positive result,” Quinn said yesterday. “People will just get more, smaller sodas or refills.”
The council speaker, typically a Bloomberg ally, said it would be more helpful to educate people to make better decisions about what and how much they eat and drink.
During an interview with MSNBC yesterday, the mayor was clearly on the defensive, insisting that he’s not trying to take away people’s rights but only to force them to consider what they’re eating and drinking.
“We have an obligation to warn you when things aren’t good for your health,’’ he said.
“I would just like to . . . force the consumer to make the decision and move over to the less-fattening drinks, and everybody would be better off.
“They could still sell 32 ounces of the sugar drink to you, but they’d have to put it in two containers,” said Bloomberg, who compared sugary drinks to asbestos and cigarettes.
“In New York City alone, the number of deaths from smoking has declined so much and the number of deaths from obesity has gone up so much, those two are about to cross. We’re going to have more deaths from obesity than from smoking.
“We’ve got to do something about it. Everybody’s wringing their hands, saying, ‘Got to do something.’ Well, here is a concrete thing. You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum they’ll be able to serve in one cup.”
The proposal would limit the size of sugary drinks sold by eateries regulated by the city’s Health Department to 16 ounces.
One administration source involved with planning the ban said that some of the mayor’s advisers view sugary drinks as the “pot” of food because they’re a “gateway” to poor eating habits, referring to the belief that marijuana use leads to harder drugs.
But city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley and some of his senior advisers think it’s even worse than that, the source said.
“Pot? They view [sugary drinks] as heroin. Just look at this plan,” the source said.
The source stressed that this is how smoking bans started — with people finally acknowledging that cigarettes are not good for the smoker and then coming around to the idea that secondhand smoke is not healthy.
Farley yesterday blamed beverage makers for pushing sugary drinks on an ignorant populace with constant advertising and special pricing.
“There’s an aggressive promotion of the sugary beverages, an aggressive promotion of the larger sizes, price discounting and lots of advertising around the larger-portion sizes. So we don’t think people are individually deciding they want to have 64 ounces,” Farley said.
He said health inspectors would check on possible violations during their regular rounds of restaurants and would not conduct undercover stings.
Each individual violation would be subject to a $200 fine. Restaurant grades would not be affected if a violation is found.
Critics said the plan is just more of the same from a controlling mayor as he continues to try to create a nanny state with his smoking and trans-fat bans.
“Bloomberg should get an appointment with his New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make sure his head is screwed on straight,” seethed Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom.
“He seems to be on a never-ending crusade to demonize and regulate anything and everything that tastes good.”
Rob Bookman, a lawyer who has represented restaurant owners before city agencies for 25 years, warned: “If they can do this, why wouldn’t they have the legal authority to say a Big Mac is too big?”
Meanwhile, Hizzoner plans to proclaim today “National Doughnut Day.” But administration officials were quick to dismiss the apparent contradiction.
Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs called it a “celebratory event” and that “frivolities that are fun and an exceptional joy are quite distinct from a public-health agenda.”
Additional reporting by Fredric U. Dicker, Sally Goldenberg and Erik Kriss