City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

abberbabber

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.

So concentrate on better nutritional education in schools, above and beyond the "basic food groups". If the government just "levels the playing field" as you put it, nobody learns anything for themselves. Of course...why would the government want us to think for ourselves? :laugh:

liftingheavy

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.

The government is not setting limits. New York is changing portion sizes to pre-Supersized levels. Nowhere in the legislation does it limit how many of anything you can buy. But maybe, just maybe if people start to learn again what a portion size should be, obesity will come down in this country.

It's critical for so many reasons. Do you know how many folks cannot enlist now because they are overweight?

TinkrBelz

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.

Must buy super size because big evil corporation told me to.................

Can't think for myself............

Can't research online and learn about nutrition.............

I buy everything that I see on TV because the commercials make it look so good.................

Must eat more brains....................

<And that was my zombie voice>

Pspetal

Banning something outright is too much "nanny state". There should be another push for "unhealthy" tax. IMO a small 780 calorie banana pudding milkshake is just as bad as a big soda, if not more.
Increase the tax on sodas AND sugary drinks. To actually make that effective, maybe the price of bottled water can be reduced? At the moment, bottled water is more expensive than soda, which makes buying soda an easy choice.
If you raised taxes on unhealthy food and subsidized healthy food like fruits and vegetables (which are too expensive), maybe we'd make better choices and what we get to eat wouldn't be decided FOR us.
I think the key is rewarding good behaviour. I feel like incentives are always more effective.
Just my 2 cents.

kdeaux1959

There are enough restrictions on American Freedoms without adding this to the mix. If people are going to overeat, they will overeat... It is not the city's business what we consume.. WE are the ones responsible for our own health as long as it does not infringe upon my rights (such as regulating smoking in public areas)... I have overeaten which is why I still have a large amount of weight to lose, despite losing over 70 lbs. I now make healthier choices most of the time and choose to exercise more than just always coming in and sitting in the recliner watching tween shows with my daughter or sitting at the computer all day... That brings us to the next question of the day? Will we start taxing internet time since that is part of America's obesity problem? Will we power down all the televisions at a certain time so people can exercise more? This is about personal choice. Yes it is a public health problem of pandemic proportions (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, lost productivity) but in the end it is a choice we all have to make for ourselves.

LilacDreamer

...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?

Then lets pick a random year, 1988, portions weren't so large then, and what was so wrong with that? were they infringing on your (and the companies) rights back then? or is that different because at that point people had not grown accustomed to the super sized options, since they did not exist?

pudadough

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.

I find this position hard to defend when you consider that McDonald's and a lot of other huge fast food conglomerates make their nutrition information available on their website without any regulation compelling them to do so. It's also available upon request in the brick and mortar locations. Most smaller restaurants almost never do that. Therefore, you are better informed when you go to that evil, huge corporate establishment with the unfair advantage than when you visit the local Mom and Pop restaurant in your hometown.

I don't know you, but I'll presume to say that you and I are both average people. And somehow we know that a daily diet of McDonald's is bad for you. Just by our own common sense. People aren't ignorant of the facts about fast food and supersizes, we choose to ignore them to satisfy our own cravings or wallets or time crunch or whatever. A lot of us average people on MFP know exactly how we got here. We didn't need the government to tell us we were making bad choices.

Nataliaho

I'm not going to comment on the law specifically as that is best left to you Americans to discuss. However I will say that while travelling though the states a couple of years ago I was shocked at the sizes of drinks and chips. I ordered a medium meal at Wendy's and it was HUGE, probably as big as the biggest size in Australia.

liftingheavy

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.

So concentrate on better nutritional education in schools, above and beyond the "basic food groups". If the government just "levels the playing field" as you put it, nobody learns anything for themselves. Of course...why would the government want us to think for ourselves? :laugh:

If "learning for ourselves" means that we figure out that 52 ounce sugary drinks are bad once we've become obese it's too late. We as a country have had years to do that, and look at where we are. Again, I really am not concerned with what adults do unless I subsidize anything for them. We have to give the kids a fighting chance though.

TinkrBelz

Banning something outright is too much "nanny state". There should be another push for "unhealthy" tax. IMO a small 780 calorie banana pudding milkshake is just as bad as a big soda, if not more.
Increase the tax on sodas AND sugary drinks. To actually make that effective, maybe the price of bottled water can be reduced? At the moment, bottled water is more expensive than soda, which makes buying soda an easy choice.
If you raised taxes on unhealthy food and subsidized healthy food like fruits and vegetables (which are too expensive), maybe we'd make better choices and what we get to eat wouldn't be decided FOR us.
I think the key is rewarding good behaviour. I feel like incentives are always more effective.
Just my 2 cents.

Yes, but what if I am a healthy person and I treat myself every Friday (and I do this) and I want to buy a 780 calorie banana pudding milkshake (oddly enough it is usually a 1200 calorie blast), WHY should I have to pay more tax on that when I am a healthy and fit woman?

If I choose to eat one once in a while, I should not have to pay a higher tax. Eating these in moderation is not bad, it is eating like this everyday. People have got to learn to control themselves!! I can not eat a 1200 calorie Sonic Blast everyday, but having it once in a while is not going to hurt me...and THAT is not up to my city or my country to decide if I should be allowed to buy it or get taxed more for it.

liftingheavy

Banning something outright is too much "nanny state". There should be another push for "unhealthy" tax. IMO a small 780 calorie banana pudding milkshake is just as bad as a big soda, if not more.
Increase the tax on sodas AND sugary drinks. To actually make that effective, maybe the price of bottled water can be reduced? At the moment, bottled water is more expensive than soda, which makes buying soda an easy choice.
If you raised taxes on unhealthy food and subsidized healthy food like fruits and vegetables (which are too expensive), maybe we'd make better choices and what we get to eat wouldn't be decided FOR us.
I think the key is rewarding good behaviour. I feel like incentives are always more effective.
Just my 2 cents.

Totally agree. Right now, it's just the opposite. Does not make sense. Those at the lower socioeconomic rungs of the society eat off of the 99 cent menu, and those in the middle and higher buy from Whole Foods and Trader Joes.

LilacDreamer

...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...

How is this different than anything else that is illegal in new york? Fireworks, Sparklers and all the other fun 4th of july items are illegal in NY but not in other states...does that mean they are restricting the freedom of interstate commerce? I don't see anyone throwing a fit about that.

You can expose your breasts in NY but you can't in New Jersey...should women in New Jersey start protesting because they don't have the right to display their breasts all over the garden state? Where exactly do we draw the line?

There are always things that may be illegal in one state that aren't illegal in another.

LilacDreamer

I find this position hard to defend when you consider that McDonald's and a lot of other huge fast food conglomerates make their nutrition information available on their website without any regulation compelling them to do so. It's also available upon request in the brick and mortar locations. Most smaller restaurants almost never do that. Therefore, you are better informed when you go to that evil, huge corporate establishment with the unfair advantage than when you visit the local Mom and Pop restaurant in your hometown.

Without any regulation? NYC has a law that the nutrition information must be available in every restaurant as soon as you walk in the door. Every restaurant has it on the menu.

liftingheavy

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.

I find this position hard to defend when you consider that McDonald's and a lot of other huge fast food conglomerates make their nutrition information available on their website without any regulation compelling them to do so. It's also available upon request in the brick and mortar locations. Most smaller restaurants almost never do that. Therefore, you are better informed when you go to that evil, huge corporate establishment with the unfair advantage than when you visit the local Mom and Pop restaurant in your hometown.

I don't know you, but I'll presume to say that you and I are both average people. And somehow we know that a daily diet of McDonald's is bad for you. Just by our own common sense. People aren't ignorant of the facts about fast food and supersizes, we choose to ignore them to satisfy our own cravings or wallets or time crunch or whatever. A lot of us average people on MFP know exactly how we got here. We didn't need the government to tell us we were making bad choices.

I should say this, I do not have a problem with McDonalds... It got thrown in somewhere and I ran with it, they have healthier choices and I do not think they are evil. I know they exist to make a profit.

You mentioned cravings, wallets and time crunch... The biggest problem I have is that too often it's a wallet issue.

tsh0ck

Then lets pick a random year, 1988, portions weren't so large then, and what was so wrong with that? were they infringing on your (and the companies) rights back then? or is that different because at that point people had not grown accustomed to the super sized options, since they did not exist?

no. they weren't infringing on rights. because the government didn't regulate the portion sizes. companies decided for themselves. that's the whole point.

you don't want to get the big stuff? don't. you do? fine. you should be able to.

pudadough

...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...

How is this different than anything else that is illegal in new york? Fireworks, Sparklers and all the other fun 4th of july items are illegal in NY but not in other states...does that mean they are restricting the freedom of interstate commerce? I don't see anyone throwing a fit about that.

You can expose your breasts in NY but you can't in New Jersey...should women in New Jersey start protesting because they don't have the right to display their breasts all over the garden state? Where exactly do we draw the line?

Like I said, I wouldn't draw the line. I'm a libertarian at heart. People are throwing a fit about some of these things. Prostitution and weed, for example, are always hot topics. I say legalize them all. Because my life will remain exactly as it always has been: completely unaffected by what other people do to their bodies in their spare time.

Fireworks are wholly different from fast food, because you can hurt other people and burn things down with them. Therefore, they are not comparatively equal to the topic at hand, and not "commerce" in the sense that fast food businesses are. States can regulated things that burn based on their natural climate, etc. Texas always has burn bans in effect during dry months. If you can hurt others with it, you can't reasonably compare it to food.

liftingheavy

Then lets pick a random year, 1988, portions weren't so large then, and what was so wrong with that? were they infringing on your (and the companies) rights back then? or is that different because at that point people had not grown accustomed to the super sized options, since they did not exist?

no. they weren't infringing on rights. because the government didn't regulate the portion sizes. companies decided for themselves. that's the whole point.

you don't want to get the big stuff? don't. you do? fine. you should be able to do.

Yes, companies decided for themselves, and portion sizes were normal. Then, somewhere along the line, a group in a boardroom realized that Americans were kind of greedy... And if we can get them hooked on our big cheap sweet drinks we've got 'em for good. And I say Americans because I have traveled widely abroad and you do not see these sizes.

Why here? It's offensive that these same companies offer regular portion sizes in Europe and China. It's not only bad for our kids, but for national defense, innovation, health, and so much more. It's a big issue. You and I may be fine, but if you don't think people around the world are sitting in wait watching us get bigger, lazier and dumber, I tell you, they are.

pudadough

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.

I find this position hard to defend when you consider that McDonald's and a lot of other huge fast food conglomerates make their nutrition information available on their website without any regulation compelling them to do so. It's also available upon request in the brick and mortar locations. Most smaller restaurants almost never do that. Therefore, you are better informed when you go to that evil, huge corporate establishment with the unfair advantage than when you visit the local Mom and Pop restaurant in your hometown.

I don't know you, but I'll presume to say that you and I are both average people. And somehow we know that a daily diet of McDonald's is bad for you. Just by our own common sense. People aren't ignorant of the facts about fast food and supersizes, we choose to ignore them to satisfy our own cravings or wallets or time crunch or whatever. A lot of us average people on MFP know exactly how we got here. We didn't need the government to tell us we were making bad choices.

I should say this, I do not have a problem with McDonalds... It got thrown in somewhere and I ran with it, they have healthier choices and I do not think they are evil. I know they exist to make a profit.

You mentioned cravings, wallets and time crunch... The biggest problem I have is that too often it's a wallet issue.

I don't buy that either. A loaf of wheat bread is $2.15 at my local WalMart and a can of generic albacore is 50 cents. That costs less altogether than three dollar menu burgers after tax and can last twice as long. Generic low sodium soup is also usually under a dollar. I was a college kid living on minimum wage less than 6 years ago so I'm pretty well-versed. Effort to find the best choices at a low price is where most people fail. Still not the government's responsibility to try and remedy that.

McDonald's was just my randomly selected representative, I think. I only get coffee there for the most part. *shrug*

bathsheba_c

Banning something outright is too much "nanny state". There should be another push for "unhealthy" tax. IMO a small 780 calorie banana pudding milkshake is just as bad as a big soda, if not more.
Increase the tax on sodas AND sugary drinks. To actually make that effective, maybe the price of bottled water can be reduced? At the moment, bottled water is more expensive than soda, which makes buying soda an easy choice.
If you raised taxes on unhealthy food and subsidized healthy food like fruits and vegetables (which are too expensive), maybe we'd make better choices and what we get to eat wouldn't be decided FOR us.
I think the key is rewarding good behaviour. I feel like incentives are always more effective.
Just my 2 cents.

Totally agree. Right now, it's just the opposite. Does not make sense. Those at the lower socioeconomic rungs of the society eat off of the 99 cent menu, and those in the middle and higher buy from Whole Foods and Trader Joes.

Actually, if you read the article, the 780 calorie milkshake would be regulated as well. The rule is enforced based on number of calories per unit volume . . .

Pspetal

All I know is that when I was at school and I didn't have money or time to get fit, I bought the worst foods out there. Everything less than $2. I even took a 2nd job at a local Dunkin' Donuts just so I could save on food costs.
It was all crappy food and I got fat. If vegetables were cheaper (I love vegetables), I would've bought them over all the crap I was eating.
Banning anything crosses the line for me but with the higher tax on unhealthy food, you still HAVE a choice. You can choose to buy it if you still want it. All this of course makes no sense if you don't have an alternative, which I think should be lower produce prices. Then the people who WANT to buy fruits and vegetables can do so because it is accessible now.
I know you don't want to pay the extra tax because you are working to get fit and you like to treat yourself once in a while, but me and most of my friends would have welcomed higher junk food prices and lower healthy food prices.
I wish I didn't have a reason to join this website, but I do because personal choice is really not a choice if you don't have money or time.

liftingheavy

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.

I find this position hard to defend when you consider that McDonald's and a lot of other huge fast food conglomerates make their nutrition information available on their website without any regulation compelling them to do so. It's also available upon request in the brick and mortar locations. Most smaller restaurants almost never do that. Therefore, you are better informed when you go to that evil, huge corporate establishment with the unfair advantage than when you visit the local Mom and Pop restaurant in your hometown.

I don't know you, but I'll presume to say that you and I are both average people. And somehow we know that a daily diet of McDonald's is bad for you. Just by our own common sense. People aren't ignorant of the facts about fast food and supersizes, we choose to ignore them to satisfy our own cravings or wallets or time crunch or whatever. A lot of us average people on MFP know exactly how we got here. We didn't need the government to tell us we were making bad choices.

I should say this, I do not have a problem with McDonalds... It got thrown in somewhere and I ran with it, they have healthier choices and I do not think they are evil. I know they exist to make a profit.

You mentioned cravings, wallets and time crunch... The biggest problem I have is that too often it's a wallet issue.

I don't buy that either. A loaf of wheat bread is $2.15 at my local WalMart and a can of generic albacore is 50 cents. That costs less altogether than three dollar menu burgers after tax and can last twice as long. Generic low sodium soup is also usually under a dollar. I was a college kid living on minimum wage less than 6 years ago so I'm pretty well-versed. Effort to find the best choices at a low price is where most people fail. Still not the government's responsibility to try and remedy that.

McDonald's was just my randomly selected representative, I think. I only get coffee there for the most part. *shrug*

I love albacore, but not when I was 5. I'm a little irked that the cans are now only 5 ounces for the same price. Convenience, taste and 99 cents is hard to pass up, is all I'm saying. They can still sell soda for 99 cents, but it doesn't have to be 52 ounces. For someone who is not nutritionally aware, it's a deal they cannot pass up.

bathsheba_c

I'm in favor of it solely because it seems to piss of the libertarians so much.

Do libertarians not believe in negative externalities?

Pspetal

Actually, if you read the article, the 780 calorie milkshake would be regulated as well. The rule is enforced based on number of calories per unit volume . . .

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I somehow missed that!

robot_potato

Personal responsibility, accountability, and Darwinism. Up the health education to kids in school, and free choice after that. If you wanna dork up your health be my guest, just don't expect me to pay for your disability for something you chose to do to yourself. THAT is another problem entirely.

This. Educate, not regulate.

LilacDreamer

...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...

How is this different than anything else that is illegal in new york? Fireworks, Sparklers and all the other fun 4th of july items are illegal in NY but not in other states...does that mean they are restricting the freedom of interstate commerce? I don't see anyone throwing a fit about that.

You can expose your breasts in NY but you can't in New Jersey...should women in New Jersey start protesting because they don't have the right to display their breasts all over the garden state? Where exactly do we draw the line?

Like I said, I wouldn't draw the line. I'm a libertarian at heart. People are throwing a fit about some of these things. Prostitution and weed, for example, are always hot topics. I say legalize them all. Because my life will remain exactly as it always has been: completely unaffected by what other people do to their bodies in their spare time.

Fireworks are wholly different from fast food, because you can hurt other people and burn things down with them. Therefore, they are not comparatively equal to the topic at hand, and not "commerce" in the sense that fast food businesses are. States can regulated things that burn based on their natural climate, etc. Texas always has burn bans in effect during dry months. If you can hurt others with it, you can't reasonably compare it to food.

It was the first thing I thought of that I know is illegal in NY. Feel free to substitute something else that has been made illegal or has been regulated in NY. The actual item doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that this would not be the first item banned or regulated in NY or any other place in this country.

I'm a liberal myself, so i can understand your point, i just don't necessarily agree.

NY was the first state to ban smoking indoors....did that infringe on our rights?

I firmly believe in everyone's personal rights and liberties...but I also think that people are quick to abuse things because they can. I don't care if people smoke weed, I don't even care about prostitution...but I do care about the drunkard going 90 miles per hour that will inevitably kill someone. People will always find a way around things...when alcohol was illegalized people made moonshine. They say that when something that was illegal is legalized, it loses its luster. Then what about that guy with blood alcohol level 10x over the legal limit? Should we just pat him on the head and send him on his merry way because of his right to drink as he pleases? Disregarding the fact that it puts others at risk simply because it wouldn't have any effect on your life, of course.

Limits do need to be set, for various things - none of which I wish to go into specifics about at the moment.


*Please note, I am not suggesting that prohibition was a good thing, or that alcohol should be banned. I just don't choose to partake in it myself*

LaurenAOK

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.

I definitely agree to an extent, but I look at it slightly differently. I don't think the law is as much banning PEOPLE from consuming that stuff as it is banning restaurants from encouraging that type of behavior.

Think about it, people could just order two drinks or whatever. Or they could go home and drink 10 sodas in one day and that would be perfectly good and fine. The law isn't trying to stop anyone from doing those things. It IS trying to stop promoting those giant portion sizes as something that is normal and acceptable.

In a country where obesity is quickly becoming an epidemic, it's important that we stop promoting these kinds of unhealthy behaviors. If people are well-educated about nutrition and still choose to consume junk, that is 100% their choice. But it's kind of hard to get educated in a society that's constantly saying "more is better." Just my pov.

DataBased

Banning anything crosses the line for me but with the higher tax on unhealthy food, you still HAVE a choice. You can choose to buy it if you still want it. All this of course makes no sense if you don't have an alternative, which I think should be lower produce prices. Then the people who WANT to buy fruits and vegetables can do so because it is accessible now.

But this is happening now. A store chain called Fresh & Easy is making its way and it makes eating healthy affordable. It's a response to market forces - believe it.

I know you don't want to pay the extra tax because you are working to get fit and you like to treat yourself once in a while, but me and most of my friends would have welcomed higher junk food prices and lower healthy food prices.

I wish I didn't have a reason to join this website, but I do because personal choice is really not a choice if you don't have money or time.

This is called maturity - you are gaining it. So am I. I prefer to do so based on my own inner growth. NOT at the behest of some politicrat who tells me I must pay more for the lesson.

Pspetal

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about Fresh and Easy.
Unfortunately there isn't one in Boston yet. No Walmart in the city either (nearest one used to take about an hour and a half to get to by public transport from where I lived) and I didn't have a car to get there. Pretty much the only choice I had, was the Chinese market near my house. Things I bought from there used to rot in a day or sometimes would be rotten on the inside when I cut it open. It seemed like I was only wasting money even though produce there was so cheap.

LilacDreamer

A store chain called Fresh & Easy is making its way and it makes eating healthy affordable. It's a response to market forces - believe it

I have a problem with this. Why does a store chain have to pave the way for healthy affordable eating? It should exist everywhere, no matter what. Fresh & Easy is only located in Nevada, California, and Arizona...so while those states will have affordable healthy lifestyles, the rest of the country will remain at a standstill

It's the same thing as places like subway offering the "fresh fit option" and taco bell's "fresco" menu...why has society become so hooked on the unhealthy options that it has become the norm? These ideas should not be seen as innovative ways to get healthier...it's a fact that these companies are a huge part of the obesity problem.

We are a society of excess...we get everything we want, when we want it, and it is disgusting.

TheDudette

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?

Preaching to the choir!