City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.
Do you pay taxes? If you don't know, government pays over 50% of the health care costs in the US. Chances are pretty good that when little Johnny or Janie develops becomes diabetic, with a bunch of pop being a significantly contributing factor you're going to be paying for the health care costs.
You good with that?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.0 -
I didn't read it that way. It looks to be that LESS demand for fuel efficient vehicles. And the plants are are American Car makers right? American cars don't seem to sell as well as their Japanese counterparts.Packerjohn wrote: »
I live in CA which has one of the highest prices per gallon of gas and in an area which is the 3rd largest commuter's nightmare in the US. SUV's are a big staple of that commute (which is an average of an hour one way). California also has more cars per capita than any state. Sporting 2 of top 3 worst commutes in the US, along with one of the highest costs per gallon of gas, and along with the state with the most cars, and one of the most highest tax rates in the country, you'd have a hard time convincing me adding an extra tax would deter usage. It hasn't yet after all these years.Packerjohn wrote: »
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Talk to someone who works in the auto industry about what happens to sales of pick ups and large SUVs vs small cars when the price of gas is over $4 a gallon vs $2.50. Ask them if the price of gas deters usage. BTW, would personally have no problem with a similar tax on the other sugared items mentioned.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
As gas prices increase (around $4.00 a gallon seems to be the magic mark) due to crude, taxes, etc., sales of less fuel efficient vehicles shift to those that are more fuel efficient, so gas price does make a difference.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102186856
Low gas prices are spurring increased purchases of less fuel efficient vehicles. This shifts when gas prices go up.
From the article:
As fuel prices have fallen, so has the fuel economy of the typical new vehicle, despite mandates to improve it, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
As recently as August, the average was 25.8 miles per gallon; it fell to just 25.3 miles per gallon last month. UMTRI researcher Michael Sivak noted there has been "less demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles because of the decreasing price of gasoline."
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I work in a fringe segment of the auto industry. I can assure you as fuel prices increase demand for fuel efficient cars increases and demand for vehicles with poor fuel economy.
Also, don't know what you're talking about regarding American cars and Japanese counterparts. The article is talking about sales in the US as a whole. Also, virtually all of the Japanese branded cars sold in the US are assembled here. This article shows the top 10 vehicles for US content, half of them are Hondas and Toyotas.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade0613&referer=advice0 -
Because taxing all the "bad" stuff has obviously deterred it's usage.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.
Do you pay taxes? If you don't know, government pays over 50% of the health care costs in the US. Chances are pretty good that when little Johnny or Janie develops becomes diabetic, with a bunch of pop being a significantly contributing factor you're going to be paying for the health care costs.
You good with that?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.
And no I'm not talking about Obamacare. That's STILL an insurance act. I'm speaking of healthcare that's AUTOMATIC for any individual. The US is a for profit health care system. It should be a non profit system. Lots and lots of other countries do fine by it. Will there be people who abuse it? Of course. But that happens in any system. The percentage of people trying to fudge the system will be much much smaller than the people who abide. Because of the cost of health care, there's lots and lots of medical FRAUD and uneeded costs by the providers themselves, not by the people going in for it.
The US government has the money. Our system is just deciding not to spend it on the country's health and well being over other profitable ventures that help create more tax revenues.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I think the issue is parents who feed that type of food "happy meals" all the time to their kids. We take our kids to fast food maybe every other month if that and I have no problem giving them a small pop because it's a treat, not the norm. I'd think with the obesity epidemic the government has to step in and try to do something to encourage the parents who use fast food as a staple to try to make healthier choices. Sad, but true...0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.
Do you pay taxes? If you don't know, government pays over 50% of the health care costs in the US. Chances are pretty good that when little Johnny or Janie develops becomes diabetic, with a bunch of pop being a significantly contributing factor you're going to be paying for the health care costs.
You good with that?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.
I am talking about obamacare and the system pre-obamacare ...even pre obamacare we were still subsidizing peoples care vis-à-vis medicare and Medicaid.
So your solution is more taxes? So the ocassional soda drinker has to suffer because some people can't control themselves? By doing that all you are doing is punishing the consumer, because the companies will just increase their prices to compensate for the taxes.
0 -
I'd rather see policy designed to prohibit parents from smoking around their small children than making it more difficult for them to get a 12oz soda with a children's meal.
0 -
2014 was one of the highest costs for fuel recently. Yet there was an increase in percentage of sales for SUV's and SUV crossovers. Stats don't lie. And even as it starts to creep back up again, SUV sales percentage are still going up.Packerjohn wrote: »
I didn't read it that way. It looks to be that LESS demand for fuel efficient vehicles. And the plants are are American Car makers right? American cars don't seem to sell as well as their Japanese counterparts.Packerjohn wrote: »
I live in CA which has one of the highest prices per gallon of gas and in an area which is the 3rd largest commuter's nightmare in the US. SUV's are a big staple of that commute (which is an average of an hour one way). California also has more cars per capita than any state. Sporting 2 of top 3 worst commutes in the US, along with one of the highest costs per gallon of gas, and along with the state with the most cars, and one of the most highest tax rates in the country, you'd have a hard time convincing me adding an extra tax would deter usage. It hasn't yet after all these years.Packerjohn wrote: »
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Talk to someone who works in the auto industry about what happens to sales of pick ups and large SUVs vs small cars when the price of gas is over $4 a gallon vs $2.50. Ask them if the price of gas deters usage. BTW, would personally have no problem with a similar tax on the other sugared items mentioned.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
As gas prices increase (around $4.00 a gallon seems to be the magic mark) due to crude, taxes, etc., sales of less fuel efficient vehicles shift to those that are more fuel efficient, so gas price does make a difference.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102186856
Low gas prices are spurring increased purchases of less fuel efficient vehicles. This shifts when gas prices go up.
From the article:
As fuel prices have fallen, so has the fuel economy of the typical new vehicle, despite mandates to improve it, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
As recently as August, the average was 25.8 miles per gallon; it fell to just 25.3 miles per gallon last month. UMTRI researcher Michael Sivak noted there has been "less demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles because of the decreasing price of gasoline."
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I work in a fringe segment of the auto industry. I can assure you as fuel prices increase demand for fuel efficient cars increases and demand for vehicles with poor fuel economy.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
It's not a secret that American cars don't seem to have the same reliability as their Japanese counterparts here in America at least. Probably why most people in my own family don't buy American cars. So maybe I'm just biased.Also, don't know what you're talking about regarding American cars and Japanese counterparts. The article is talking about sales in the US as a whole. Also, virtually all of the Japanese branded cars sold in the US are assembled here. This article shows the top 10 vehicles for US content, half of them are Hondas and Toyotas.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade0613&referer=advice
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Late to the party, but...
I guess I struggle with this to some extent.
My initial reaction is that this isn't a government issue. Parents should decide what their kids can and can't have, and businesses should be free to sell what they can when they can. But I'm fairly intelligent and I make good decisions for my kids (I think).
There are a lot of parents that don't do that. So at what point does someone have to step in? Or will evolution eventually take care of this as the lazy soda drinkers die off earlier and earlier while healthy genes live on and get passed along?
I guess I like intent of the ordinance, I'm just not sure about the execution.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.0 -
What a waste of time and resources.
If you're going to implement laws to fight childhood obesity, do something that'll make a different. Pretending like soda is the culprit is ridiculous. It's overeating. If you're going to demonized sugar, why only soda? We don't just keep children from drinking vodka. They can't have any alcohol. To me, a soda ban (and one that isn't even a ban but forcing parents to be the ones that actually order it) would be like only saying kids can't have vodka but it's ok to have run and champagne.
Growing up, I never had weight issues. My brother however was overweight. We ate the same cooked meals at home, the same snacks, the same school lunches, the same restaurants. Why was he overweight? He ate more. He'd have another pork chop at home. He'd have 2 double cheese burgers and a milkshake at McDonald's. Instead of just having eggs and bacon that dad cooked, he'd make a sandwich with them and put half a cup of mayo on it.
We rarely drank sodas. I loved that sugary sweet tea though!
He wasn't a big tea drinker....he actually was a massive milk drinker. 2%. He'd go through gallons. Multiple 16 oz glasses a day. Go figure.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.
Explain the difference between soda and cigarettes? Really....someone went there......smh.0 -
Do you think it would be acceptable for companies to put some drug in our food such as heroine or methamphetamine. The answer should be obviously not. I don't see how this is any different than the things food companies do to our foods.I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Because sugar is exactly the same as meth, heroine, and cigarettes.
0 -
Convenience is a direct reason. Also, I believe many people live beyond their means because it's the "American" way. So needing 2 jobs to make ends meet, instead of one takes someone out of the loop who could be providing better options of meals to children. Now of course if someone is a single parent this doesn't apply, but even there are still better options to consider than just eating fast food all the time.jessica22222 wrote: »I think the issue is parents who feed that type of food "happy meals" all the time to their kids. We take our kids to fast food maybe every other month if that and I have no problem giving them a small pop because it's a treat, not the norm. I'd think with the obesity epidemic the government has to step in and try to do something to encourage the parents who use fast food as a staple to try to make healthier choices. Sad, but true...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Ding ding. Kids learn from parents when it comes to habitual behavior.I'd rather see policy designed to prohibit parents from smoking around their small children than making it more difficult for them to get a 12oz soda with a children's meal.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Darwinism usually wins.Late to the party, but...
I guess I struggle with this to some extent.
My initial reaction is that this isn't a government issue. Parents should decide what their kids can and can't have, and businesses should be free to sell what they can when they can. But I'm fairly intelligent and I make good decisions for my kids (I think).
There are a lot of parents that don't do that. So at what point does someone have to step in? Or will evolution eventually take care of this as the lazy soda drinkers die off earlier and earlier while healthy genes live on and get passed along?
I guess I like intent of the ordinance, I'm just not sure about the execution.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Being that I just had my MIL's boyfriend died from terminal lung cancer last week, him smoking a pack a day is DISTINCTLY different than him drinking a 20 ounce soda (yes he did that daily and wasn't fat). Please don't try to compare something that has years of factual study to show that it's an actual cause for cancer versus something that's being consumed outside of the US yet doesn't yield the same results as the obesity issues the US has.brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
bump0
-
It's not a debate on right or left, but on whether or not government should be mandating rulings on people's choices of food.
We've also had a similar discussions on this about school lunches, vaccines, and physical education.
There are things that government should regulate. This I believe shouldn't be one of them. No sides taken, just an opinion on what people think about the move itself.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions