Public Health Policy in New York City Zachary Adler Christina Cho Charles Maniego Bonnie Rose Jonathan Tepp

Taking Care of New York  A shift in focus: From contagious disease to chronic  Protecting the public from adverse effects of health problems: Health care expenditures, second hand smoke  Caring for those who may not be able to care for themselves  The natural consequence: A focus on tobacco and obesity

Taking Care of New York  The criticism : “Nanny-in-chief” who is babying voting-aged adults  The praise : It’s worked! Obesity has been reduced by 31% while only 14% of New York City residents smoked in 2010 (lowest percentage in history)  The bottom line : Bloomberg’s policies can lay a promising road for New York City if he will attempt to mollify the public and drum up support

New York City Smoke Free Act of 2002  All businesses and establishments with employees, and public spaces of the sort, are required to be smoke free  Removal of ash trays and the addition of “No Smoking” signs.  “…killing more than 440,000 people nationwide each year… As a result of passage of the SFAA of 2002, 150,000 fewer New Yorkers are exposed to second-hand smoke…”

A Hike in Prices: Don’t Lose Your Breath in the Process Tax increase of $1.42 on a pack of cigarettes New York State increase of $0.39 per pack 32% increase in retail price of approximately $6.85

Results of Smoke Free Act of 2002 and Increased City and State Tax  11% decrease in NYC smokers between among all demographics  21.4% of smokers reported an actual decrease in cigarette consumption  Nearly half of NYC smokers had “attempted” to quit  15.8% of smokers have quit or attempted to quit due to the increase in cigarette tax; 4.2% responded to SFA

Bloomberg on Cigarettes: The Opposition  “Too intrusive and symptomatic of a busybody attitude on the part of city officials.”  “Once we pass this, we will next be banning smoking on sidewalks, and then in the cars of people who are driving minors and then in the homes” - Councilman Halloran III of Queens  Why are singling out cigarette smoke?

Calorie Labeling Law (2008)  Bloomberg’s fight against obesity  Fast food and caloric intake  Opposition?  The law

Source: nyc.gov

Results  Conflicting data  Awareness of the public and restaurant industry  The Calorie Labeling Law – a success?  Plans for the future

Sugary Drinks “Mike Bloomberg: Combating Obesity.” Mikebloomberg.com

Sugary Drinks Policies  Soda tax (2010)  Food Stamps Soda Ban (2010)  Soda ban (2013)

Sugary Drinks Policies: Any Other Ideas? ALTERNATIVES:  Individual Counseling (limited resources, too expensive)  Social Pressure (immoral, ineffective) OPINIONS:  Sugary drinks policies mostly efficient and effective  Would be better if reasoning was explained to avoid accusations of autocracy

Trans Fats Ban in NYC  History  Success  Shortcomings

Decrease in trans fat content in fast food meal purchases, NYC Source: Angell, S., Cobb, L. K., Curtis, C. J., Konty, K. J., & Silver, L. D. (2012). Change in Trans Fatty Acid Content of Fast-Food Purchases Associated With New York City’s Restaurant Regulation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(2),

Increase in Other Unhealthy Ingredients? Source: Angell, S., Cobb, L. K., Curtis, C. J., Konty, K. J., & Silver, L. D. (2012). Change in Trans Fatty Acid Content of Fast-Food Purchases Associated With New York City’s Restaurant Regulation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(2),

Some Concluding Ideas  Modify rhetoric  Offer incentives to companies  Actual bans should be on chemicals, not products, with a focus on discouraging use of already-made products  Get the people involved !