City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

Options
1…5681011…13

Replies

  • kettle_belle83
    kettle_belle83 Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    I think this proposal is at best only scratching the surface of the obesity epidemic in this country. Banning sugary drinks isn't going to solve the problem, but what's the government to do? Something must be done as the rising costs of obesity are being passed on to us.
  • livinginwoods
    livinginwoods Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    One freedom at a time. :explode:
  • gigibenton
    gigibenton Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    First it is a big gulp..then it will be a large pizza-or a pitcher of beer-or a large bottle of wine-or a bucket of chicken. You open this floodgate and what will be next? Do you really want the government of any city to be making these decisions?
  • kylesmommy89
    kylesmommy89 Posts: 356 Member
    Options
    I'm for it. They're not banning sugary drinks, just getting rid of the ridiculous portion size. If you want that much soda, buy two. At least it will put how much you are consuming in a better perspective. I've drank an entire Big Gulp before and not really noticed. I would never drink 2 or 3 cans of soda back to back because I would realize how much I've actually drank.
  • flutgos
    flutgos Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Nope. If people want to be fat *kitten* then let them. It isn't affecting me at all. It also gives me a better chance with women. haha The only type of banning that I was for the banning of smoking in public places. It is now banned here in Ohio. That directly affects my health and it was pretty hard to stay away from it. All of the bars and restaurants allowed smoking. I can't just stay at home 24/7.
  • Krissy366
    Krissy366 Posts: 458 Member
    Options
    I think it's the trickery I disagree with, so what I would prefer is that people label things as they are.

    a "large" drink, if it is 32oz should be called "32oz" drink. The problem is with the younger generations who don't realize a "large" drink is actually 12oz and that buy buying a "large" you're actually buying 3 large drinks.

    Also, things should be sold in unit price.

    Or better yet, label them as portions. So when someone asks what sizes they have the answers are "2 portions, 4 portions or 6." Of course, they would still shorthand it as small medium or large, but maybe the cups themselves could be labeled. LOL
  • thepanttherlady
    thepanttherlady Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    If the Mayor truly wants to target obesity, let's start at the school level. Nutrition should be a mandatory subject in school. I can count on one finger how often I've used the skills I learned from wood or metal shop since I've been out of school yet it was required to graduate. Physical Education becomes a choice once you've accumulated enough credits. It too (or even combined with nutrition classes), should be mandatory.

    How about targeting school lunches? Seems the families that utilize this option the most are low income families. The same ones who make less healthy food choices due to income constraints. My 11 year old daughter came home one day and asked me if I knew how much sodium were in the lunches the school serves. An 11 year old. Granted, if my eating habits hadn't been what they were (and still occasionally are), I wouldn't be in the position I'm in to be on MFP. I wouldn't be educating myself the best I can with healthier choices and and then passing my knowledge on to my children on what a portion size is, how to read a nutritional label etc.


    For the government to step in and tell me what size drink I can have (non-diet or juices which contain a tremendous amount of sugar excluded) thinking this will reduce obesity is absurd. It will eliminate convenience, not consumption.
  • quixoticmantis
    quixoticmantis Posts: 297 Member
    Options
    what happened to personal responsibility?

    Yup!
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,365 Member
    Options
    I'm against banning things, but 100% in favor of requiring nutritional information on every food product in both stores and restaurants. People should be able to make their own choices, but I strongly believe they should be informed choices.

    Agree with this 100% I know Cali has a law that is similar to this although it only requires chain restaurants to post their information. I think if you're going to make a law to try and fight obesity then the biggest thing you can do is simply require restaurants to post their caloric information.

    NY already requires that has has for a couple of years in EVERY restaurant.....they want to go a step further.
  • DFWTT
    DFWTT Posts: 374
    Options
    Bump for later and to add all my new found conservative friends!
  • Krissy366
    Krissy366 Posts: 458 Member
    Options
    I'm against banning things, but 100% in favor of requiring nutritional information on every food product in both stores and restaurants. People should be able to make their own choices, but I strongly believe they should be informed choices.

    Agree with this 100% I know Cali has a law that is similar to this although it only requires chain restaurants to post their information. I think if you're going to make a law to try and fight obesity then the biggest thing you can do is simply require restaurants to post their caloric information.

    NY already requires that has has for a couple of years in EVERY restaurant.....they want to go a step further.

    They were trying to do it in MA - but it never went anywhere. There were rumors it would be part of the Affordable Care Act, but I'm not sure that it will ever come to fruition. I would seriously love it everywhere though. That said, I love eating at places that have locations in NY just for that reason.
  • mlewon
    mlewon Posts: 343 Member
    Options
    this is so stupid. they want to be able to have it still be sold in convenience stores.... where do you think people are buying them the most? i do not believe the government should be able to monitor what people are eating. if people can drive motorcycles without helmets and risk their lives everyday, shouldn't people be able to eat what they want even if it is bad for them?

    yes, i understand people should make better choices, but it's not for the government to make.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Options
    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?

    Why should they limit what you purchase in whatever quantity? Why would you want them to? If you give a government the power to take away your choices in one area, what makes you think they'll stop at that area?




    AMEN TO THIS!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^
  • pwittek10
    pwittek10 Posts: 723 Member
    Options
    That is nuts!
    We do not need the city to tell us what to drink!
    If we quit buying, they will quit selling!
    We do not need our right to choose taken away!
  • stephyy4632
    stephyy4632 Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    bump so i can read later
  • Leiki
    Leiki Posts: 526 Member
    Options
    I always get the largest size if it is cheaper by ounce, and share it with my bf. I'd rather have a venti shared by 2 than 2 talls at Starbucks, for example. Therefore, I am not against oversized. It is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them.
  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    Options
    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.

    ^^^^THIS^^^^
  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    Options
    I think it's the trickery I disagree with, so what I would prefer is that people label things as they are.

    a "large" drink, if it is 32oz should be called "32oz" drink. The problem is with the younger generations who don't realize a "large" drink is actually 12oz and that buy buying a "large" you're actually buying 3 large drinks.

    Also, things should be sold in unit price.

    Or better yet, label them as portions. So when someone asks what sizes they have the answers are "2 portions, 4 portions or 6." Of course, they would still shorthand it as small medium or large, but maybe the cups themselves could be labeled. LOL

    That isn't better, it's exactly the same. A portion is whatever they say it is. An ounce is an ounce is an ounce. Label a 32 ounce drink a 32 ounce drink and you've been honest. Label it 2 "portions" or 3 "portions" and I have no idea how big it actually is. No need to "shorthand" anything. If I want a 32 ounce drink, I say "I'll have a 32 ounce drink." In what way is your "portion" suggestion "better?"
  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    Options
    I always get the largest size if it is cheaper by ounce, and share it with my bf. I'd rather have a venti shared by 2 than 2 talls at Starbucks, for example. Therefore, I am not against oversized. It is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them.

    Will they give you a second cup to split it in? Because I don't care how close I am to someone, I want my own coffee cup. I'm willing to pay more per ounce to get it, too.

    Though I'm not against oversized. I don't believe the government should be regulating adult behavior.
  • Pspetal
    Pspetal Posts: 426 Member
    Options
    Jon Stewart ridiculing this right now... Gotta love Jon!

Categories