Fans of the beloved 90’s sitcom Seinfeld will no doubt remember the words of the Soup Nazi which were quickly directed at any customer who did not strictly follow his no nonsense rules for standing in line, ordering, and payment at his popular New York deli.
“No soup for you! Â NEXT!” the Soup Nazi would shout at the red faced customers who would silently slink away in shame after being lambasted for not adhering to his standards.
New York Mayor Bloomberg has taken Soup Nazi’s tactics to a whole new level with his Administration’s banning of food donations to all government-run facilities that serve New York City’s large homeless population.
The nanny-esque ban, put in place in March 2012, still stands despite city resources stretched to the breaking point by the devastating effects of Hurricane Sandy on the City’s five Boroughs in October 2012.
Perplexingly, the reason for the ban is not the result of homeless getting ill from food contamination!
Rather, Mayor Bloomberg has become New York’s new Soup Nazi by insisting that because the nutritional content of donated food cannot be adequately assessed by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), homeless shelters are thereby required to turn away all Good Samaritans wishing to donate even such innocuous items as soup and bagels.
Seth Diamond, Commissioner of the DHS, defends the decision saying that the ban is in line with Bloomberg’s passion for improving the nutrition of all residents of New York City. Â The measure tightly controls what can and cannot be served at city run facilities for New York’s down and out including portion sizes and the amount of sodium, fat, fiber and calories per serving.
No exceptions to the strict ban are given even for established donation centers with a healthy track record such as Ohab Zedek, an Upper West Side Orthodox congregation which has donated freshly cooked and nutrient rich foods left over from synagogue events for over ten years.
Mayor Bloomberg’s relentless pursuit of a New York food utopia through implementation of his social justice agenda, while well meaning, is certain to fail (note the ban on all sugary sodas larger than 16 oz in September 2012 which head scratchingly exempted diet sodas which are arguably just as bad if not worse as diet drinks have been shown to trigger overeating).
The reason is that is removes all personal choice and responsible actions from the individual – be it positive or negative.  If people want to drink a Big Gulp, they should be free to do so.  And, if citizens like Glenn and Lenore Richter, who lead a team of food-delivery volunteers from their local congregation, want to donate fresh foods to homeless shelters in their neighborhood, they should have the freedom to perform such charitable activities as well.
Attempting to control consumer behavior with a socially “just” agenda cannot and never will accomplish health. Â It just creates a populace that becomes highly adept at circumventing the “rules” such as what happened in America during Prohibition.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Source: Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters
Kenny- it’s about freedom and loss of it. IF people choose to eat dog food they have the right. If they choose to have a tub of Pepsi then they have the right. It has nothing to do with food awareness, and everything to do with control.
Absolutely right and there will be more to come.
W O W ! ! ! that is so insane.
Interesting. So only items with nutritional labels can be donated? Ironically, these items are usually nutritionally inferior to fresh foods without labels. In my town in Alberta local farmers are not allowed to donate their farm fresh eggs anymore. The food bank has to buy the factory eggs from the grocery stores. Sounds like the same idea and it’s really quite sad.
Wow, that is shocking Christina. As Joel Salatin says, people have become afraid of the wrong things and comfortable and complacent about the things that will actually harm them!
Bloomberg gets a ton of crap for his attempts to raise consciousness in NYC about what people put in their mouths. I am one who believes that his heart is in the right place, even though his measures seem like droplets in the ocean.
How many politicians are making ANY effort to raise food awareness? I’d think that this community would welcome someone who cared enough to even talk about it. Most of them keep their mouths shut and/or bend over for the food lobbyists.
There was a huge uproar here in NYC over the large-soda-ban a few months ago. People were up in arms about him ‘taking away their freedoms’, but it was merely a restriction on cup size, NOT on the soda itself and not on the limit you can buy at one time.
If somebody still chooses to ingest a tub of Pepsi with their meal, they are still free to either:
A: Buy a 1 or 2 liter bottle of pepsi from any supermarket or corner store
B: Buy as many 16 oz. cups of Pepsi as they choose to
C: Bring their own tub of Pepsi
People feel the need to finish what they buy, but rarely actually *need* as much as is served to them, or is contained in the vessel sold to them.
Bloomberg raises awareness of a HUGE problem we have as a society — a problem that we, as members of the real-food community, rally against every single day.
Most people, sadly, are not visiting the traditional food websites the rest of us do. Bad publicity is still publicity, and I think Bloomberg knows this.
I agree that Bloomberg’s heart is probably in the right place. However, that doesn’t make limiting and restricting people’s choices, based on what a politician believes, a good thing. This is an extremely slippery slope!
What if Bloomberg, or another governor somewhere, decides that no one should be allowed to purchase full fat dairy because they think it contributes to heart attacks and obesity, and passes a ban on everything except fat-free dairy?
This is the can of worms that is opened when these sorts of bans become normal. No one, and I mean NO one has the right to decide and dictate what anyone else decides to eat or drink.
Exactly right ! Everyone is so busy minding everyone elses business.
That’s not what our country is founded on. Regardless of anyones political
leanings please care and support our incredible constitution. We are each
responsible for our own journey in life. Creating a state of dependency
handicaps all and hastens our doom
This istesting/slow boiling us towards getting us easily herded and groped (TSA), easily dictated to about good food/bad food (no Big Gulps, school lunches, donated food) all for the “common good” re: ObamaCare, herded into flu shots (healthcare employees must do this or lose their jobs) so there’s not much of a leap to herd everyone into flu shots for the “common good” re: Obama Care, etc. Even Fox News calls employees ‘workers”… words have consequences… Ready for the collective comrade ????
Reminds me of the movie “Demolition Man” with Sylvester Stallone – government control of what we eat, speak, etc.
WHAT?!
Just plain idiotic. They can’t assess the nutritional value of donations?? I guess they could throw it in the dumpsters and hungry people could get it there. What is wrong with this man? Everyone can’t eat organic arugula like Mr. Bloomberg.
You get what you vote for. Apparently most people are okay with living in a nanny state.
No, they aren’t. But it depends on what you are willing to live with. I think conservatives nannying of reproductive rights is wrong (and a very real and concrete threat) so I often vote liberal. But I ALSO don’t want this kind of nanny state but it’s far more nebulous. I don’t think we knew Bloomberg was going to go this far. We need more real options out there.
2012 – Colorado – marijuana use made legal. NYC – Big Gulps and leftovers made criminal.
LOL Mary – Good one! I “stole” that for my FB Status 😉