-
-
re: Rmis32
linguafood
Jun 24, 2012 12:21 PM
I over-estimated almost all of them. I cannot fathom how one person can drink 40 of soda (diet or otherwise0 in one sitting. Ick.
-
-
-
If the ban on supersized sugary drinks actually goes into effect, it won't stop people from drinking the stuff, or even from guzzling as much as before. They can buy the same quantity, just not in one container. But this could have the salutary (literally meaning healthy) effect of slowing us down. If we drink one pint of soda and are still thirsty, we can buy another pint - but the odds are that we won't be thirsty, and will skip the seconds and save our wallets and our waistlines.
›1 Reply -
-
scubadoo97
Jun 12, 2012 05:09 PM
How can a city that is proud of their mile high corned beef and pastrami be so schizophrenic and outlaw a big soda? It's easy to hit the little guy and get away with it than an icon.
›6 Replies-
-
re: GH1618
scubadoo97
Jun 12, 2012 05:24 PM
Sorry yes it's Bloomberg, I got carried away and those sandwiches are loaded with fat and sodium.
-
-
re: Just Visiting
And now you know what people eat every day? So sugar is the only culprit? Should we sell cigarettes individually rather than in packs? Cigars? Alcohol? Or perhaps hit Mayor Bloomberg where it hurts....limit the amount of jet fuel a private jet owner can buy at one time. would love if he had to make four stops to refuel to get to Bermuda.
-
-
-
-
deet13
Jun 12, 2012 04:17 PM
Granny Bloomburg is a wuss...
If he were really brave, he'd write a law which would give the NYPD the power to randomly ticket all of the people with a higher BMI index than the US military standard.
Then New York would really shape up...
And I'll bet Mr. food fascist Bittman would jump all over that train.
Now if Granny Bloomburg would deal with those bedbug, snow plow, and the rat problems he'd be awesome...
-
Rmis32
Jun 12, 2012 02:00 PM
New York Magazine: How do you feel about Bloomberg’s push to ban soda?
Jerry Seinfeld: I don’t think I’m in favor. I’m in favor of continuing the accelerated Darwinian process of early death and weeding out most of the population through sugary drinks.
›6 Replies-
-
re: acgold7
Bloomberg is the hypocrite. In his world, poor people are not smart enough to make proper health decisions so Burger King and KFC need caloric information and Peter Lugar's does not. Should an New Yorker really be allowed to eat a 24 ounce steak? Or three pound lobster drenched in butter?
-
re: cstumiller
People don't eat 24 oz steaks or 3 lb lobsters every day. But they do drink huge buckets of soda every day.
And apparently all the education and public health messages are just not reaching them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/nyr...
Watch that Jamie Oliver series on the town in West Virginia where people apparently did not know that eating greasy fried food and drinking sugary drinks was causing their health problems.
Sad to say that education and persuasion and even incentives just don't get the job done.
-
re: Just Visiting
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/18/...
"Huntington first made its way into the national consciousness in 2008, when The Associated Press named it "America's fattest city," citing unmatched rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes, and rates of toothlessness among older residents."
"The health statistics here are some of the most crippling and scary in the world," Oliver says in a show promo, calling Huntington "a dark place."
I'm wondering, is there a "Britain's fattest city"? Oh, me oh my, Jamie.
-
re: Rella
Ask google - and you shall receive! Apparently in 2011 it was Glasgow. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scots...
-
-
-
-
-
-
crowmuncher
Jun 12, 2012 06:49 AM
..."we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion."
This clearly has not worked and I think it never will. The only one we need on our side is YOU and ME. Some will say that the government is you and me, but who decides what we (the majority of us anyhow) put in our bodies? We do. I believe it is a waste of energy to focus on those profiting from our unhealthy choices or what the government is or isn't doing (although I find the concept of banning even unhealthy food creepy). The energy should be directed at "brainwashing" our children (as those profiting do) into not making unhealthy choices.
And I don't mean to start another thread here, but I do not believe all soda is bad for you. I do not buy the argument that too many like to sell that HFCS is just sugar and sugar is sugar. It is NOT the same thing. And don't even get me started on Artificial sweeteners... ;)
›6 Replies-
-
re: MGZ
crowmuncher
Jun 13, 2012 04:51 AM
MGZ, i believe it depends on the soda; for instance if one drinks a real ginger soda- i personally find that soda to be beneficial to my health (improving circulation, digestion, etc.); however i experience the same effect just chewing on piece of raw ginger w/out the empty calories :)
-
-
-
Personally I don't think banning soda size is that big of a deal, merchants will simply package two sodas on discount or similar other ways. You can see this pricing policy in some gas station in CA already.
If you want real action TAX soda/sugary drinks by the oz, as purposed by Richmond CA on a November ballot measure.
I like and drink soda but totally support a tax. Same logic as tobacco tax, to fund smoking cessation and education programs except it would be obesity and health programs.
›4 Replies-
re: ML8000
-
re: choctastic
Eliminating corn subsidies would level the playing field between sugar and HFCS and consumers would likely see more sugar used, which I like but I still think a soda tax used to fund health education is a good thing, if for no other reason than to provide an alternative to billions spend on marketing.
-
-
-
-
alkapal
Jun 10, 2012 11:01 AM
while soda consumption has gone down in our culture, obesity has gone up….
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
›4 Replies-
re: alkapal
MGZ
Jun 11, 2012 06:19 AM
I'm not sure from where you drew that fact. I have seen studies that show the contrary - an increase in soft drink consumption since the 70s. See, e.g., http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
-
re: MGZ
linguafood
Jun 11, 2012 06:30 AM
Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts. Facts just get in the way of our convictions.
-
re: MGZ
Carbonated soft drink consumption has dropped a bit in the US in recent years:
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/soft-drink-consumption-continues-decline-107218
but the US is still way ahead of the rest of the world:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo...
But despite the drop, alkapal's implied conclusion is simplistic, for several reasons.
-
-
re: alkapal
Rmis32
Jun 12, 2012 01:32 PM
"Soda was once considered an occasional treat, but consumption has steadily increased over the last three decades. Many Americans drink soda every day. Demand is so great that manufacturers produce enough soda to supply the average man, woman and child in America with more than 52 gallons each year.
From the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2010-mc..."
-
-
alkapal
Jun 10, 2012 10:59 AM
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis›13 Replies-
-
-
re: alkapal
linguafood
Jun 11, 2012 06:28 AM
When people run out of legitimate arguments to make their point, they start quoting other people who only very peripherally have anything to do with the matters at hand.
What's next, Ayn Rand? Hilarious.
-
-
-
re: Chowrin
retirement and pensions also cost you in more taxes and less other services. If someone doesn't take their insulin..they will not live very long..will only have so many emergency visits. But someone living into their 80's..90's will also cost you with their long years of treatments and hospital visits. Die at 60..live till 80/90 it's a wash financially in my opinion in terms of medical bills. You don't make much sense to me either.
-
re: rochfood
The long-term health effects of obesity are NOT that people die in their 60s - it's that they require increased medical care throughout their lifetime. A child or teen diagnosed with type-2 diabetes is not at risk of dying at 60, it's that they're going to need prolonged health care intervention over the course of their life that a non-obese person would not require. For obese 40-60 year olds, a lifetime of stress on their joints makes them especially prone for knee replacement surgery on both kenes. However, the the surgery can only be done on one knee at a time and if the proper rehab (which is essentially exercise) is not done, then the knee replacement surgery is essentially useless. Such people become even less mobile and more in need of walking aids (scooters, wheelchairs, etc.), which by 60-70 often makes them in even greater need of assisted living facilities. Obesity is a leading component of heart disease which increases the likelihood of heart attacks and subsequent surgeries to remove blockages as well as prolonged medical treatment.
All of these things can lead to earlier deaths - but more often than not, these things lead to increased healthcare expenses over a lifetime that is shouldered by the government and private insurance companies who then increase the rates for everyone. There are countless studies done by healthcare professionals, economists, and other academics that show the expense of obesity on all of society. It's not just a case of dying by 60 and saving the government social security.
If such a topic you find interesting, here is an economic study from 2010 http://www.nber.org/papers/w16467.pdf...
-
re: cresyd
So what do you feel about Wisconsin ? Public employee benefits stress the entire state budget and increase taxes for all..and reduce services. My point is partrly..it is strange people don't want to support others health care (if that is even true), but don't mind supporting people pensions and benefits.Also..what do you feel about welfare. Working people support those who do not work. Healthy people support those who are not. The soda ban kinda reeks to me of discrimination..with a healthy dose of self righteouness. fat people are OK to "fix" but not poor people or government employee benefits/stresses. I won't pay for fat people..but I will for those who will not work and I will pay for those who work for the government, but are killing the budget and raising everyone's taxes.
-
re: rochfood
Ruth Lafler
Jun 13, 2012 11:56 AM
I don't think the situations are analogous at all. The problem with pensions that no one talks about is that when the economy crashed, all the actuarial models the pension agreements were based on (which were overly optimistic in the first place) became completely invalid: if you base your pension plan on a 10 percent return, and you lose ten years of growth and replace it with 1-2 percent return, you're going to have huge shortfalls! So basically, when you're talking about pensions being a stress, it's really because the during the Bush years Wall Street ran wild, promoted unrealistic economic models that pension estimates were based on, and then crashed the economy. Why should the people who worked in good faith have to pay for the excesses and tax policies of the rich?
-
re: Ruth Lafler
linguafood
Jun 13, 2012 12:26 PM
Seriously. And totally OT, but I know more than a few folks who lost 20-40% of their retirement plans thanks to the reckless games those unregulated dick wads on Wall St. were playing.
-
-
-
re: rochfood
If the subject is going to expand to address a philosophy on government as a whole - then that's a larger can of worms based in ideology, philosophy and value judgements.
My point on the cost of obesity on not just the State but on healthcare costs in general (and thus individual consumers) - is that in response to comments of "hating on fat people", there are other, fiscal, reasons for the State to be involved. If the complaints towards restrictions and taxes on cigarettes and alcohol was to "hate on smokers/drinkers" - the argument would be about the subsequent cost to society.
Ultimately, I am someone who feels that obesity does have a negative impact (including fiscal) on society. And thus for government to take a role to attempt to curb obesity is positive. I prefer NYC's initial proposals to tax sugar based sodas and prevent food stamp's from being able to purchase sugar based sodas - but other government agencies (NY state and federal) declined those attempts.
-
-
re: cresyd
scubadoo97
Jun 13, 2012 02:58 PM
80% of Medicare is spent in the last year of an elderly individuals life. We spend an extraordinary amount of money to prolong life for a few months.
What's good for society? Do advise we cut them off?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
re: rochfood
You can still buy a liter of cola (or any size that's made) at grocery stores, bodegas, etc. It's just restaurants/food carts where they will be banned. So I think even the language of "ban" is misleading - it's just restricted. Is there a point of ever drinking soda? Health wise, no - but that's not the point. People like it, people will put in their bodies what they will.
If you really want to drink 16/32/64 oz of soda when you're at a restaurant/base ball game - you can. You just need to buy multiple smaller cans/bottles. If I want a liter of beer at a baseball game - I have to achieve that volume by buying multiple smaller containers.
For people who say that there's no science to show that consuming less soda assists with not gaining more weight - I'm not sure what kind of science they expect. There is a direct correlation between more calories and weight gain. There are multiple studies that show that high fructose corn syrup is a significant culprit in weight gain. And there is science to show that if someone is presented with a larger portion size that most people will eat the entire large portion size and not part of it. Will these restrictions end obesity - no. But it is a piece of a holistic problem.
-
re: cresyd
Ruth Lafler
Jun 13, 2012 12:05 AM
And there is science to show that if someone is presented with a larger portion size that most people will eat the entire large portion size and not part of it.
**********
To me this is the most important argument. Portion size is very psychological. If the 32 ounces of soda appears to be more attractive than the smaller sizes (it's a better deal -- why should you buy 16 ounces of soda when for a few cents more you can get twice as much?), then people will buy it and drink it, regardless of how thirsty they are and whether they really want 32 ounces of soda. Sure if you restrict sizes some people will just buy a second portion, but some will realize that 12 ounces of soda is really all they wanted.That said, I'm all for personal choice -- as long as it's *educated* personal choice. So I like the idea above of putting the calorie count in big numbers on the container. You can still choose to drink it, but at least you know what you're drinking.
-
re: Ruth Lafler
I agree about the psychological effects of portion size.
But putting large calorie counts on the container is almost a waste of ink.
Most people just ignore them -- or rationalize them away (well, I will enjoy this now and cut back on something else later or do a little exercise tomorrow).http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/07/Fast-food-calorie-counts-on-menus-prompt-cuts/49678316/1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/c...An outright ban gets around that psychological stumbling block and will dramatically curb consumption in 90%. Calorie counts will slightly reduce consumption in 10-20%.
-
re: Ruth Lafler
Rmis32
Jun 13, 2012 07:05 PM
"Supersizing was the idea of David Wallerstein, a McDonald's executive who worked for a chain of movie theaters in the 1950s and 1960s. While working at the movie theaters, Wallerstein was tasked with boosting sales of popcorn and soda. Wallerstein discovered that it was very difficult to persuade customers to purchase more than one soda or bag of popcorn.
"I soon discovered that Darren Johnson could be persuaded to pay for more up front. Although McDonald’s executive Ray Kroc was initially skeptical of Wallerstein's proposal to supersize McDonald's meals (believing that people who wanted more fries would buy two bags), he eventually agreed to try Wallerstein's idea. The sales results led to the program being rolled out in the 1990’s throughout McDonald's restaurants."
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Super-...Experience has shown that it is much easier to sell one large size than 2 small sizes.
-
-
-
-
Many a softer approach could work. We reduced littering and smoking in the seventies with ad campaigns.
Or maybe required labels - large-type calorie counts on the cups.
An ad campaign against sugar would really get some good battles going between the sugar lobbiests and the politicians - could be fun watching.
›5 Replies-
-
re: sandylc
Imposing a refundable tax on bottles and cans was even more effective than any ad campaign at reducing littering of those items.
And calorie counts would have absolutely no impact (think warnings on cigarette packages).
Rather than banning supersize drinks, the proposal should have been to tax them at a high rate, like with cigarettes.
-
re: sandylc
<...large-type calorie counts on the cups.>
Or mirrors. The cups are big enough that you'd be able to see a fair portion of your reflection, and perhaps ask yourself, "should I really drink this massive quantity of carbonated sugar water?"
I think the ban is pretty stupid, but not because I'm opposed on principle to setting limits on what people can buy. I just doubt it will have any real effect beyond riling up the portion of the electorate that likes to get riled up about such things. I'd like to see a tax on sugared sodas instead. In fact, I'm a little mystified that Bloomberg was able to impose (what I see as) an insanely high tax on cigarettes, but couldn't do the same with sugared soda. I would think Big Tobacco is at least as powerful as Big Sugar.
-
-
-
alkapal
Jun 7, 2012 12:44 AM
shocked, shocked i say!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits."--Albert Einstein
gyaaaahhhh….oh these people know oh-so-much-more-than-you-about-what's-in-your-best-interest.
bittman, can i have some chocoolate cake? how many ounces? is there too much frosting on that cake, in your opinion?
must i go to the gym today?
should i check in with the mayor (or you) on today's intake of food and drink?
are you coming over to check my fridge and pantry? spot check? or regular appointment?are we such stupid morons that we cannot make decisions for ourselves? then why should we dummies be allowed to vote for politicians if we're too stupid to make decisions?
pathetic!!!!!!!!
take a hike bloomberg. and bittman….go with him.
because hiking is good for you.
~~~~~~~~
ironic that ray bradbury just died. this stuff is right up his alley.›8 Replies-
re: alkapal
MGZ
Jun 7, 2012 02:54 AM
"[A]re we such stupid morons that we cannot make decisions for ourselves?"
From much of what I see and hear, I'm beginning to think that may be the case. Looking around, do you think most people make consistently good decisions? I mean, should it be necessary to have laws against texting while driving, or mandating a list of ingredients on a package of food?
"[T]hen why should we dummies be allowed to vote for politicians if we're too stupid to make decisions?"
Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should return to some modified, modernized, sophisticated version of the original Constitution's oligarchy as a replacement for the plutocracy masquerading as democracy we live with today. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to simply reform the system to permit some form of "truer" democracy - one where so few couldn't manipulate so few in order to deceive and control so many.
By the way, what did you think of Lieberman's essay?
-
re: alkapal
"are we such stupid morons that we cannot make decisions for ourselves?" - I think if you look at what happened with the obesity numbers of children (let alone adults) from the 1980s until the first ten years of the 2000's - then the answer to that isn't very optimistic. Americans - for the most part - have known for a long time that eating "too much" makes you "fat". But how much is "too much"? That's clearly not an answer that many Americans know.
If you want to smoke a cigarette in New York City, you can. But there are all sorts of taxes and restrictions that mean you can not smoke wherever and whenever you want and that there's a price. That happened because society and government decided that it was in society's best interest to smoke less/not at all. Same reason why society and government decided it was in society's best interest to have a public fire fighters and not privately owned ones. Best interest of society.
The point I hear many making who oppose the ban on 16+ oz of sugar soda at restaurants/food trucks/etc. is that it infringes on the consumers choice. However, that consumer can still buy such larger quantities - just at fewer locations. So the issue becomes curbing consumer/vendor choice. But other than that curb on personal freedom - is there any other objection to the ban?
-
-
re: cresyd
I don't really have a dog in the fight, as the saying goes, as I don't drink soda, but I don't see this as a horrible infringement on rights, anymore than health dept regulations that say what one can and can't sell and rules about number of toilets or sinks necessary or whatever. One can call *any* regulation an assault on freedom. I do think that people can scarf down those 32 ounce cups of soda with NO IDEA how many calories are in them.
-
-
re: alkapal
Rmis32
Jun 7, 2012 12:17 PM
Anybody on this board old enough to remember the controversy that accompanied the publication of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed"? At that time, many people and auto companies protested that car crashes and their results were attributable to poor driving by individuals. Yes, individuals were responsible for the carnage on the roads, but as the numbers grew, it was recognized as a societal problem. Car companies were forced, kicking & screaming, to provide seat belts and replace those pretty, shiny and pointy dashboard knobs, which acted like little daggers in a crash, among other improvements. Yes, they added to the cost of the cars. Yes, seat belt use was forced upon us by the state. Are we better off for it? Unquestionably.
I don't know if Bloomberg's proposal is the best way to attack what has become an (excuse the pun) enormous problem, but I am happy that it has provoked discussion. He has tried other strategies,but could not get the cooperation of other state agencies. Clearly, if we go along with mainstream American eating habits, it is likely that undesirable health consequences will follow for many. That makes it a societal problem and the solution is going to involve some loss of freedom. But healthy food can be as tasty & enjoyable as the bad stuff. It just takes a little change in mindset.
-
re: alkapal
We are not stupid morons, but life is too complicated. How many people can repair their own car, build their own computer from components, grow and cook all of their own food, tailor and repair all of their own clothing, determine their own medical care, etc.?
A long time ago, you could live on a farm and be mostly self-sufficient. That doesn't work anymore. We need a system of designating specialists who can make decisions that require expertise beyond what we can expect a decent chunk of the general populace to understand. The food analogy would be the adaptation of the French brigade de cuisine system for a more complicated menu serving a larger clientele that can't be executed by a single cook preparing each dish from start to finish.
There are some decisions that need to be based on science and there needs to be a way to designate people to make those decisions without you or I or the general public having to understand all the science behind the decisions. Some of us are stupid morons who can't make those decisions. Others are capable but are better off being responsible making other decisions to maximize societal efficiency.
-
re: alkapal
Are there any constitutional bases for this ban? The only ones I can come up with are the vague, "promote the general welfare" and the commerce clause. Both have to be stretched beyond the limits of rationality to justify this ban. If one uses them to justify the ban, then regulation of everything can be justified. The basic justification of this ban is: "You're too stupid to know what is good for you, so we will tell you."
The Constitution provides for free speech, but we know that some free speech will be repellant to us. Similarly, the Constitution provides for the right to make bad decisions, like drinking too much sugary soda. The capacity for bad, but legal, decisions should not be regulated by the government.
Boy, this is the most non-food related (but, yet, intimately food-related) post I have ever done on Chowhound!
-
re: gfr1111
I would assume whatever constitutional basis that not only allows for restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes (or the Chicago foie gras ban) - but also the basis that allows for certain communities to install various "blue" laws. In Hamilton County, Ohio (where Cincinnati is), it is not legal to have a business that serves alcohol and has nudity. So you can have topless bars with alcohol, and full nude "bars" with no alcohol.
Cincinnati and Larry Flint have definitely legally butted heads regarding such issues - and Flint won on some points. But there are other blue laws that have not been changed. So when we're talking about the laws that communities/local government can pass to govern themselves, I think there's a relatively wide latitude.
-
-
-
MGZ
Jun 6, 2012 04:17 AM
I enjoyed Bittman's essay. Policy decisions are normally based upon opinions. The best opinions are normally based on science. To that end, there was also a piece in support of the ban from an evolutionary biologist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opi...
Personally, time, and the ever-growing power of corporate interests in our nation, have taken their toll on my libertarian leanings. More and more I am coming to accept the notion that governmental actions are going to be necessary to even the playing field between individuals and the food industry.
›1 Reply-
re: MGZ
I completely agree, especially since the food industries and the government have been in bed together for so long, that steps like this become needed. For all the moaning about the "nanny-state", it has to be balanced by Congress voting that pizza counts towards a serving of vegetables due to the spread of tomato paste? That vote was bought for by the food industries lobbying.
If elected officials can be "convinced" that tomato paste on pizza contributes to healthy eating - then I become more in support of such regulations.
-
