City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks
Replies
-
No one complained when they gradually went up, so... Bring them down. The corporations that sell this sugar are now making cups that are 52 ounces. For 99 cents at gas stations, full of Mountain Dew.
Remember when a bag of chips used to be fun sized? Now they are 99 cents and contain 5 servings and people eat the whole bag because it looks like a normal bag now.
yes, i remember buying a $.25 fun sized bag of chips that was 1 serving. they now sell a bag 4 or 5x the size for .99 and people think it's perfectly okay because it's there on the shelf and its smaller than the regular 5.5oz - 9oz bag. It obviously isn't, and a part of me wants to say that it's almost deceptive because they've increased the sizes of everything...but they've done it openly so, meh.0 -
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.0 -
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.0 -
I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.
Down with the nanny state.
Absolutely, what she said...0 -
No. Why a ban? It would just cost money to enforce, and its not going to make any difference at all. If a person wants to drink a bucket of soda at a time, they can just buy a few, or pick up a 2 liter. Put the money into public education to teach students and their parents why you shouldn't drink said bucket of soda instead.0
-
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.0 -
The thing is, we DO pay for their disability.
True. I also agree with what you said earlier about kids. At my high school, they decided to ban sodas in the drink machines, but they just replaced them with the "healthier option" of super-size bottled Gatorade. Now, not only are they still getting sugared up all day long, the portion sizes are huge - much larger than a can of Coke. I was so excited to hear that they were getting rid of the sodas, and so disappointed to find them replaced with something just as bad and then marketing it as healthy. :explode:0 -
I can see both sides of the argument. I do feel that portion sizes served in restaurants have served to skew our view of what is really appropriate. However, I don't believe the government should ever be given the right to control anything like this.
What the government should be focusing on is why we aren't being educated on what is really appropriate to put into our bodies. When I was in school, no nutrition classes were offered. What the school fed us was too much for a kid and then they sold sodas and candy on top of that. Nothing wrong with selling it as long as the kids are aware of how it affects their bodies and parents are aware of how much their kids are eating. I didn't realize just how much and what I was eating until I had done serious damage to my body and became serious about getting healthy. Many parents these days are my age and probably didn't have any more education on it than I did, so they don't have the information to teach their kids.
The issue isn't that the serving sizes offered are too big, but that, as a country, most of us are unaware of what is really appropriate.0 -
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.
The government is not proposing to take over the oversized sweetened drink business, they are making changes to portion sizes.0 -
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.
The government is not proposing to take over the oversized sweetened drink business, they are making changes to portion sizes.
Interfering with the businesses offerings at all is "taking over the business." Because the entrepreneur no longer has control over what they do in their establishment. If the government is able to regulate drink sizes and trans fats, what's to stop them from regulating that all restaurants must only serve vegan food or provide chopsticks exclusively in place of forks? It's a bad precedent all around.0 -
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.
The arguments may be consistent, however in reality, both you and I subsidize healthcare for uninsured people who make bad food choices. The companies that push this stuff know it, and that is why the size of everything has gone up. They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.0 -
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.
The government is not proposing to take over the oversized sweetened drink business, they are making changes to portion sizes.
Interfering with the businesses offerings at all is "taking over the business." Because the entrepreneur no longer has control over what they do in their establishment. If the government is able to regulate drink sizes and trans fats, what's to stop them from regulating that all restaurants must only serve vegan food or provide chopsticks exclusively in place of forks? It's a bad precedent all around.
No, no, no... Entrepreneurs can continue to make 52 ounce jugs for soda - they just won't be able to sell them in New York. That is not taking over the business. Those companies can decide if they continue to produce these sizes depending on whether or not they will make a profit. And believe me, this is all about profit. And a few other things in my opinion, but I won't even go there.0 -
If I want to buy a 60oz drink I should be allowed to do so. If I want to buy an 8oz drink, I should be allowed to do so. The government should not have to right to tell me that I can only purchase certain size drinks. What if I am going to share that 60oz drink with a couple of friends.
When I order my food at a restaurant, I always look at the menu and make the best choices. That is MY responsibility to take care of MY body!
Maybe people that are a healthy weight should receive lower health insurance premiums. If you are overweight for a certain amount of years, you pay higher insurance premium. Then people will say, I sure would love to drink that 60oz Coke with fries everyday, but if I do that, I will get fat and that will make my insurance premium go up. Personal responsibility.0 -
I don't care how big the biggest is, my concern is how small a smallest is. When I order a small I don't want 24oz please. Drives me nuts.
THIS!!!!!!! I don't care who orders the half-gallon coke at the movies, I want to be able to get a six or eight ounce drink and I CAN'T! The SMALLEST size I can get is, I think, 24 oz! How insane is that?0 -
The biggest premise problem: assuming the government knows what is healthy.
<insert snake coil flag here>0 -
I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.
Down with the nanny state.
But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?
What's the point, with money so tight at the moment, in spending more money enforcing rules like this when it probably won't change anything? If people want large sizes they buy 2 of the small sizes - you should see my boyfriend, sometimes he orders 3-4 burgers (luckily, he has a fast metabolism, unluckily, heart disease runs in his family so he needs to cut down). It is up to the person, to choose how much they want. If they are going to spend money on health, they should spend it on teaching people how to eat healthily and why it is important to care about your health, instead of treating people like babies and saying they can't have this because they have no self control.0 -
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.
The arguments may be consistent, however in reality, both you and I subsidize healthcare for uninsured people who make bad food choices. The companies that push this stuff know it, and that is why the size of everything has gone up. They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.
I agree that we do pay for the uninsured. My point is that we should just stop. Insist that people provide for themselves or turn to their families for help, rather than the government and other taxpayers.
Companies like McDonald's have no incentive to make people sick, they only have incentive to sell drinks. You can drink a coke and not get diabetes. It's when you don't moderate the number of cokes you put down your own throat that you have a problem. So it's not the companies putting people in the hospital, it's the people themselves. So why should the companies have their business freedoms reduced?0 -
For those arguing for the government to step in....it's a slippery slope. Once we start saying "Well, issue A is just out of control, so the gov't should do <insert seemingly innocuous legislation here> to fix it" you open the door for the gov't to start completely controlling that aspect of your life. Government is a necessary evil....and because it is inherently evil, the less of it there is, the better off we'll all be.0
-
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.
The government is not proposing to take over the oversized sweetened drink business, they are making changes to portion sizes.
Interfering with the businesses offerings at all is "taking over the business." Because the entrepreneur no longer has control over what they do in their establishment. If the government is able to regulate drink sizes and trans fats, what's to stop them from regulating that all restaurants must only serve vegan food or provide chopsticks exclusively in place of forks? It's a bad precedent all around.
No, no, no... Entrepreneurs can continue to make 52 ounce jugs for soda - they just won't be able to sell them in New York. That is not taking over the business. Those companies can decide if they continue to produce these sizes depending on whether or not they will make a profit. And believe me, this is all about profit. And a few other things in my opinion, but I won't even go there.
so they are forcing the company to change policy or be run out of town. that's a good thing?0 -
The biggest premise problem: assuming the government knows what is healthy.
<insert snake coil flag here>
0 -
...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I'm just really curious why people think the government has to intervene? Look at *anything* the government manages - seriously, at least I learn from the mistakes I make over time. I'll make my own mistakes, and not have the red tape and bureaucracy so I can quickly adjust when I learn a better way, thank you very much.
Exactly. Veterans hospitals and the beacon of efficiency that is the Postal Service...ugh.
The government is not proposing to take over the oversized sweetened drink business, they are making changes to portion sizes.
Interfering with the businesses offerings at all is "taking over the business." Because the entrepreneur no longer has control over what they do in their establishment. If the government is able to regulate drink sizes and trans fats, what's to stop them from regulating that all restaurants must only serve vegan food or provide chopsticks exclusively in place of forks? It's a bad precedent all around.
No, no, no... Entrepreneurs can continue to make 52 ounce jugs for soda - they just won't be able to sell them in New York. That is not taking over the business. Those companies can decide if they continue to produce these sizes depending on whether or not they will make a profit. And believe me, this is all about profit. And a few other things in my opinion, but I won't even go there.
If you "just can't sell in New York" you are restricting freedom of interstate commerce in the United States. We already had that problem. It was a major part of why we dumped the Articles of Confederation in favor of our current constitution...0 -
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.
The arguments may be consistent, however in reality, both you and I subsidize healthcare for uninsured people who make bad food choices. The companies that push this stuff know it, and that is why the size of everything has gone up. They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.
I agree that we do pay for the uninsured. My point is that we should just stop. Insist that people provide for themselves or turn to their families for help, rather than the government and other taxpayers.
Companies like McDonald's have no incentive to make people sick, they only have incentive to sell drinks. You can drink a coke and not get diabetes. It's when you don't moderate the number of cokes you put down your own throat that you have a problem. So it's not the companies putting people in the hospital, it's the people themselves. So why should the companies have their business freedoms reduced?
I think I love you :laugh:0 -
I do not know if the govt knows what is healthy, but New York clearly knows that a 52 ounce drink and a pound of fries in one bag leads to overeating and they want better for their residents. Whats wrong with that?
If I want a pound of fries I'll order 4 bags. But no, I'd probably be embarrassed to do that. Voila. Problem solved.0 -
I do not know if the govt knows what is healthy, but New York clearly knows that a 52 ounce drink and a pound of fries in one bag leads to overeating and they want better for their residents. Whats wrong with that?
If I want a pound of fries I'll order 4 bags. But no, I'd probably be embarrassed to do that. Voila. Problem solved.
Because that's not the government's job! They're not supposed to babysit us and make sure we make the right decisions.0 -
I hate these kinds of things. I'm all about free will. It's why I got ticked off over the Happy Meal toy ban... and the suggestion to outlaw circumcision with absolutely no exceptions for religious reasons, etc.
I'm not a huge fan of the nanny state thing... even though I don't order 32 ounce soft drinks.0 -
... They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.
I don't see any reason why any "party" except your own family should "suggest anything" to change the situation? We all vote with our wallets. I'm' old enough to remember the organized "gas outs" where people just flat refused to go to the gas station on one specific day. They knew we would come back - but they felt it that day, and they felt the pinch that day. It's an exaggerated example, of course, but we have more power than you might realize.
Just by helping others understand their own choices (like this site does) and then passing along the information, buying patterns can and will change. When corporations see that the profitability of the unhealthy stuff is shrinking, they'll begin focusing on the healthy stuff.0 -
I do not know if the govt knows what is healthy, but New York clearly knows that a 52 ounce drink and a pound of fries in one bag leads to overeating and they want better for their residents. Whats wrong with that?
If I want a pound of fries I'll order 4 bags. But no, I'd probably be embarrassed to do that. Voila. Problem solved.
Not really, because New York will figure out this trick and then limit how many fries your can order within a 24 hour period.
I think there should be a scale in front of all stores. If you weigh a certain amount you can order super sized food. But, if you are overweight...Nope...only Happy meals. The state of New York is just trying to take care of you!!! :huh:0 -
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.
The arguments may be consistent, however in reality, both you and I subsidize healthcare for uninsured people who make bad food choices. The companies that push this stuff know it, and that is why the size of everything has gone up. They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.
I agree that we do pay for the uninsured. My point is that we should just stop. Insist that people provide for themselves or turn to their families for help, rather than the government and other taxpayers.
Companies like McDonald's have no incentive to make people sick, they only have incentive to sell drinks. You can drink a coke and not get diabetes. It's when you don't moderate the number of cokes you put down your own throat that you have a problem. So it's not the companies putting people in the hospital, it's the people themselves. So why should the companies have their business freedoms reduced?
The crux of the problem is that there is no counterbalance to the powerful advertising and great "deals" that McDonalds puts out there. We are keenly aware of how these foods affect us. I learned it from my parents. Maybe you did too. There is no good nutrition education in schools, and very little advertising to promote healther choices, with the exception of a few PSAs.
The end result is that over the last 10 years, obesity has hit the mid 30's and is rising. Average folk simply do not have the resources to compete with corporations, period. And so sometimes the government has to make suggestions or regulate to level the playing field.0 -
Government, setting your limits so you don't have to. I think it's a good thing, yeah there should be personal choice but apprently people don't know how to make the right ones and need assistance.0
-
I'm on the fence..yes people have the right to choose...however with the rise in obesity morbidity and mortality...the government does need to intervene somehow.
I don't agree with a ban ..but something has got to give!
Something has got to give?!?! OMG its called self restraint and responsibility. It is NOT the governments job to nanny our *kitten*. We're giving up so many liberties to be "taken care of" by the government.
My god is accountability even in the dictionary anymore?
There is no personal responsibility in this country. if there was we wouldn't be have such a large obesity percentage...
^^^This^^^ When left to our own devices, and presented with 48 ounces of soda vs, 8 ounces, we choose 48 ounces and buy one for the kids too.
Then, those who say this is not a govt issue complain about subsidizing the healthcare of people who make these choices. You can't have it both ways. Some things have to be regulated. Sad but true.
I'm not sure how complaining about government regulation and subsidizing other peoples' healthcare is inconsistent. Both situations call for a return to personal accountability. In the case of healthcare, if you do order those whoppers and belly busting drinks, DO NOT expect anyone else to pay for your bad choices. I pay for mine, you pay for yours and the government stays the hell out of it all. See? Completely consistent.
The arguments may be consistent, however in reality, both you and I subsidize healthcare for uninsured people who make bad food choices. The companies that push this stuff know it, and that is why the size of everything has gone up. They profit and we pay. Neither party, by the way, has suggested anything that will change this situation, despite the rhetoric.
You are correct. I would like to add that we don't just subsidize the uninsured. Insured people who have lifestyle-related health problems use far more healthcare resources than healthy folks, thereby driving up the costs for everyone else. We are all pooling the risk - insured and uninsured. Unhealthy habits cost everyone. That's just reality and you can't just wish it away and expect people to do the right thing. It would be nice, though, if the public would put enough pressure on businesses to VOLUNTARILY do the right thing. I'd rather not have the govt. involved. I appreciate the fact that a lot of restaurants are now putting calorie and nutrition info on their menus. Not too big of a stretch to think they might start adjusting their portion sizes too...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions