NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

dsimms1966

My weight is none of the government's business.

10acity

I find it incredibly disturbing that there are so many replies in support of this. I cannot fathom how any thinking human being could possibly be anything but outraged by the suggestion.

Our government does not exist in order to dictate (note intentional word choice) how individuals live their lives. Beyond upholding/enforcing the law-- and even many of those have gotten completely out of control-- in order to ensure a reasonable degree of safety for its citizens, the government has no business in our personal lives-- and what I choose to drink or eat is pretty damn personal. It's just another step toward making everyone so damned dependent on the government that no one can even remember how to function on their own. Not to mention how disgusting it is that this is even being brought up given the current state of the economy and job market.

Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

We've had government-mandated physical education in schools since the 1960s, dude. And I walk everywhere in my city. On sidewalks.

PE in schools is regulated at State level

"In its first report since 2000, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education gave states and the federal government a failing grade on physical education in the American school system. Noting that no federal law requires that physical education be offered in schools or provides any incentive for physical education programs, the report says states too are dodging the issue, with many setting some general or minimum requirements but delegating responsibility for meeting those standards to individual school districts. "

http://www.healthinschools.org/News-Room/EJournals/Volume-7/Number-4/The-Shape-of-the-Nations-Children.aspx

And I'm glad your city has invested in sidewalks. Not all do.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/life/2011/aug/04/rural-areas-lack-of-sidewalks-fueling-obesity-prob-ar-247686/

Because public education is regulated at the state level. And rightly so, as we are the United States of America. It's not an accident.

As a previous poster said, you can't legislate common sense. And trying is (a) stupid (b) a waste of energy and resources (most notably my tax money) and (c) never going to be effective. Frankly, I'm not even sure I think PE should be mandated at that level. Forget that you can't really force someone to exercise, how about that a government shouldn't? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all of that? All of this removal of personal responsibility and initiative is what creates the attitude of entitlement that has become so prevalent. When the government decides we're all idiots who can't even make our own food choices, we'll slowly begin to act like idiots as we can expect Uncle Sam to make our every choice and provide for our every need. I've never been to the UK, but I can tell you for sure that the majority of Americans value liberty more than this.

londoneye

My weight is none of the government's business.

So who pays for the medical costs of obesity?

twistofcain

Ok, ban anything over 16 ounces? I will just buy multiples of them!


Stop trying to control the people. Educate them on making better choices, rather than taking every ****1ng thing from them because it is bad for them.

londoneye

I find it incredibly disturbing that there are so many replies in support of this. I cannot fathom how any thinking human being could possibly be anything but outraged by the suggestion.

Our government does not exist in order to dictate (note intentional word choice) how individuals live their lives. Beyond upholding/enforcing the law-- and even many of those have gotten completely out of control-- in order to ensure a reasonable degree of safety for its citizens, the government has no business in our personal lives-- and what I choose to drink or eat is pretty damn personal. It's just another step toward making everyone so damned dependent on the government that no one can even remember how to function on their own. Not to mention how disgusting it is that this is even being brought up given the current state of the economy and job market.

Yeah, God forbid Americans learned any lessons from countries who have stayed slim by spending tax money on building SIDEWALKS so people don't have to drive everywhere, or MANDATING physical education in schools, or REGULATING fast food advertising... A socialist nightmare! (That just happens to result in people being healthier, happier, and more productive!)

We've had government-mandated physical education in schools since the 1960s, dude. And I walk everywhere in my city. On sidewalks.

PE in schools is regulated at State level

"In its first report since 2000, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education gave states and the federal government a failing grade on physical education in the American school system. Noting that no federal law requires that physical education be offered in schools or provides any incentive for physical education programs, the report says states too are dodging the issue, with many setting some general or minimum requirements but delegating responsibility for meeting those standards to individual school districts. "

http://www.healthinschools.org/News-Room/EJournals/Volume-7/Number-4/The-Shape-of-the-Nations-Children.aspx

And I'm glad your city has invested in sidewalks. Not all do.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/life/2011/aug/04/rural-areas-lack-of-sidewalks-fueling-obesity-prob-ar-247686/

Because public education is regulated at the state level. And rightly so, as we are the United States of America. It's not an accident.

As a previous poster said, you can't legislate common sense. And trying is (a) stupid (b) a waste of energy and resources (most notably my tax money) and (c) never going to be effective. Frankly, I'm not even sure I think PE should be mandated at that level. Forget that you can't really force someone to exercise, how about that a government shouldn't? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all of that? All of this removal of personal responsibility and initiative is what creates the attitude of entitlement that has become so prevalent. When the government decides we're all idiots who can't even make our own food choices, we'll slowly begin to act like idiots as we can expect Uncle Sam to make our every choice and provide for our every need. I've never been to the UK, but I can tell you for sure that the majority of Americans value liberty more than this.

I'm in Luxembourg. Everyone is thin and no-one seems particularly oppressed to me!

GorillaNJ

Ok, ban anything over 16 ounces? I will just buy multiples of them!


Stop trying to control the people. Educate them on making better choices, rather than taking every ****1ng thing from them because it is bad for them.

You can still go into a bodega and get a 20oz or 2 liter bottle... just not in a restaurant or other place that serves food and is inspected by the health department for it.

pg3ibew

I didn't read all the posts, but here is my 2 cents.

Bloomberg is an idiot.

He raised all the SIN(liquor and cigarettes) taxes just about every year he has been in office. You know what? People are still buying them. And worse: they are going to other states to buy them.
In NYC a pack of smokes is 12 bucks.
In NYC a bottle of wine is 20 bucks.
Gasoline(not a sin tax) is 4 bucks.
NJ is just a 10 minute ride away. Those same smokes are 7.50 and the bottle of wine is 12 bucks and gas is 3.40. Do you know what happens now? Everyone goes to Jersey to shop for the day. They wind up eating in Jersey as well. So, for a ten dollar toll, you go to Jersey, buy gas, cigs and liquor for the week and wind up eating lunch and dinner and Jersey. You kow who gets hurt? Every business owner in NYC.

Spend the day in NJ and save yourself a hundred bucks and that is factoring in the 10 toll to cross into NJ.

roachhaley

Most States do not. Have a look at HBOs recent 'weight of the nation' doc for more info

http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

But I guess that you would support such a move, which, as I was trying to point out, is an example of government intervention in 'private' health matters.

Really? I saw a list on the PBS website and the majority of states did. The list was outdated but I can't imagine all of the states have changed their policy.

Your link was just to the main Weight of the Nation page. No information about PE classes immediately obvious to me.

And yeah, I do think there should be mandatory PE classes in public school. You know why? Because it's public school. Taxpayers are paying for it so if there is a vote to add mandatory PE then I have no issue with it.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shpps/2006/factsheets/pdf/FS_PhysicalEducation_SHPPS2006.pdf

This shows that the majority of schools have a mandatory PE program. That's from your HBO website

rachel5576

This is so ridiculous i laughed out loud! Really i don't see the point.

wahmx3

I don't see how that is the answer at all.... I agree with the principal behind it, but what else is next. If I go to the movies once a year and want a super size soda, that should be my choice. There are far more effective things.... tax junk food (which I know is difficult to do ), offer more gym time and recess time at school (increase the length of the school day to do this or have the kids go a few extra days to make up the time), offer free workout classes or gym memberships, cut out the advertising to kids especially, more campaigns to promote nutrition and show how bad some of the "bad" foods really are.

rachel5576

I'd also like to point out that soda is cheap due to govt corn subsidies. Maybe THAT is where the govt should back out!

^ This

Effing corn subsidies. Spending SO MUCH taxpayer money for stuff that is bad for the environment and bad for the body. Stupid. Just watched a West Wing episode dealing with this so I'm all riled up about corn right now :P

I totally agree!

kwest_4_fitness

I think it's another bull**** step by government... People must choose for themselves wether or not to be healthy... They'll just by smaller soda's and drink more of them... What's next, King Mike makes everybody exercise?

I agree. It begins and ends with the individual. Government needs to focus on running the government and stay out of the private lives of citizens in instances like these.

AbbsyBabbsy

I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, but that's only going to solve obesity on an individual level. We have a societal problem, which means we probably need a societal solution. We live in an environment that sets us up to fail. Fake foods, loaded with fats, sugars and refined carbs are prevalent and inexpensive. Kids don't even know what vegetables are anymore. And, yes, those of us who pull it together and employ willpower will be successful. But the thing is, I want everyone to be successful, not just the elite who can overcome their environment. I don't want kids to be obese because their parents only shop at the bodega and don't provide better. I don't want obesity to be the punishment for kids whose parents can't exercise personal responsibility. If personal responsibility were the answer, we'd be thin by now.

That said, this particular law seems unpolished. A huge milkshake is still ok? I liked the suggestion of displaying the calorie content on the cup with a warning.

TurtleRunnerNC

I think it's another bull**** step by government... People must choose for themselves wether or not to be healthy... They'll just by smaller soda's and drink more of them... What's next, King Mike makes everybody exercise?

^^^^¡¡ this ^^^^^

When did we become a people who need the government to tell us what we can / can't eat or drink. Slowly they are taking over. Little by little so we don't notice. In a blink we won't be ''the land of the free'' at all.

It is time for people to take personal responsibility! !!!! If you are not smart enough not to put a cup of hot coffee between your legs you don't get to sue the brewer of the coffee when you burn yourself. If you are not smart enough to read the label on the jar of Nutella to see if it is healthy or not you shouldn't be able to sue Nutella. If you cannot resist eating a 3,000 calorie fast food meal for lunch every day it is not the restaurants fault that you are heavy.

UGH!

hallie_b

Does NYC really have that much money, that they can afford the policing costs of this? Imagine getting busted for selling 17oz of soda. Selling 4-12 oz cups and a cup holder is ok?, but selling one 48 oz cup is against the law? All this does is increase the garbage in the environment.

Yes

kimnsc

Really? Seriously? How about putting the same money that is going to be spent to try to enforce this law and put it into a campaign that says "Put Down The Fork", "Walk Away From The All You Can Eat Buffet", "Ordering a Diet Coke with your 2 Big Macs and LG Fry is not a Diet plan"? Nothing is going to stop people from buying 2 smaller sugary drinks to replace the big one or getting free refills. And buying two will just increase waste in the form of cups and bottles on the go. You can't regulate if someone wants to drink a gallon of MT Dew a day just like you can't regulate if that same person doesn't get off their butt to try and do something that sorta looks like exercise. Just another example of stupidity at its best. Urgggggggg.

714rah714

and please only one Krispy Kreme donut per customer, thank you.

Sarahbear83

I don't think a ban is necessary, however it would be nice to see portion sizes shrink. I've heard many people say that other countries have "large" meals that are the same size as our "small" meals in restaurants. No one needs 32 ounces of soda (diet or not) in one sitting or the equivalent of 3 potatoes worth of french fries.

Banning is the wrong way to go about it. Giving companies incentives if they use smaller, more appropriate portion sizes and correctly site nutrition information (I've read they can be ~100 calories off on menus) would be a better direction to go in. When they make it look like a punishment, people get outraged about their rights being violated and living in a nanny state. Yes, people could always just buy two of something, but many people wouldn't. There have been studies that show people only eat what is in front of them because it's there and it feels wasteful to throw it out when they get full.

10acity

My weight is none of the government's business.

So who pays for the medical costs of obesity?

When the health care system isn't government-run, individuals do. You aren't suggesting that this level of regulation would be free, correct?

It's been fun, but if I continue to debate this, it will probably be with those who get a vote.

(No offense intended, btw) :flowerforyou:

AlyRoseNYC

and please only one Krispy Kreme donut per customer, thank you.

And maybe in a few more years...No more white bread in the supermarkets.

VorJoshigan

My libertarian tendencies probably guide me on this more than my weight focus, but this is an awful idea. If "the government" needs to do something, it should stop subsidizing the grain/HFCS/sugar industries and stop steering insulin resistant people towards a low-fat diet.

Biggest problem - it will not work.

If people want to drink a lot of soda, they're going to do it. All this will do is transfer money from people who drink sodas to people who don't. I would guess that poorer folks drink more sodas than wealthier folks, so this will end up being reverse income redistribution. argh!

londoneye

Most States do not. Have a look at HBOs recent 'weight of the nation' doc for more info

http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

But I guess that you would support such a move, which, as I was trying to point out, is an example of government intervention in 'private' health matters.

Really? I saw a list on the PBS website and the majority of states did. The list was outdated but I can't imagine all of the states have changed their policy.

Your link was just to the main Weight of the Nation page. No information about PE classes immediately obvious to me.

And yeah, I do think there should be mandatory PE classes in public school. You know why? Because it's public school. Taxpayers are paying for it so if there is a vote to add mandatory PE then I have no issue with it.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shpps/2006/factsheets/pdf/FS_PhysicalEducation_SHPPS2006.pdf

This shows that the majority of schools have a mandatory PE program. That's from your HBO website

That document is about the schools themselves requiring PE, rather than the government.

Anyway, as I was saying, my point is that in countries where governments take public health seriously and promote healthy living, people are... healthier! It isn't a question of society vs the government. It's OUR government, and it can and should play a role in tackling the obesity crisis. Whatever the US is doing at the moment, it clearly aint working, and I don't believe that's because US citizens are less responsible or lazier or greedier than people in other countries. Its because they are living in a toxic food environment.

ErinBeth7

I read that by 2030 42% of Americans are projected to be obese. Something needs to change for certain!

I agree that people should be more healthy, but putting a law place about what people can or can't consume in eating establishments is going too far. If people want to be healthy and care, then they will make better decisions. This is not a mass effort. Its a personal, individual effort.

londoneye

My weight is none of the government's business.

So who pays for the medical costs of obesity?

When the health care system isn't government-run, individuals do. You aren't suggesting that this level of regulation would be free, correct?

It's been fun, but if I continue to debate this, it will probably be with those who get a vote.

(No offense intended, btw) :flowerforyou:

I believe that Medicare and Medicaid are taxpayer funded. And thanks for assuming I don't/cant vote!

roachhaley

Most States do not. Have a look at HBOs recent 'weight of the nation' doc for more info

http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

But I guess that you would support such a move, which, as I was trying to point out, is an example of government intervention in 'private' health matters.

Really? I saw a list on the PBS website and the majority of states did. The list was outdated but I can't imagine all of the states have changed their policy.

Your link was just to the main Weight of the Nation page. No information about PE classes immediately obvious to me.

And yeah, I do think there should be mandatory PE classes in public school. You know why? Because it's public school. Taxpayers are paying for it so if there is a vote to add mandatory PE then I have no issue with it.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shpps/2006/factsheets/pdf/FS_PhysicalEducation_SHPPS2006.pdf

This shows that the majority of schools have a mandatory PE program. That's from your HBO website

That document is about the schools themselves requiring PE, rather than the government.

Anyway, as I was saying, my point is that in countries where governments take public health seriously and promote healthy living, people are... healthier! It isn't a question of society vs the government. It's OUR government, and it can and should play a role in tackling the obesity crisis. Whatever the US is doing at the moment, it clearly aint working, and I don't believe that's because US citizens are less responsible or lazier or greedier than people in other countries. Its because they are living in a toxic food environment.

What? The state government is the thing making these schools have a PE program. Just because it isn't the federal government doesn't mean it's not some form of government.

I think you're a bit confused. I live in the UK, and though there are considerably less obese people (from what I've seen) the trend is the same as everywhere else - wealthier people are thinner, and poor people are fatter. The thin people aren't thin because the government told them to be, they're thin because they can afford frequent grocery trips and healthy food and have the time and money to go to the gym every day. The poor people are fatter because they can only afford to grocery shop once a month and therefor need to buy long-life food that is worse for them. They also work longer hours so they do not have time for exercise or the money for the gym. I'm sure most of the less fortunate people would like to be healthier, but it simply isn't in their budget. The government telling them how bad the food is that they're eating won't change their financial situation. The government telling them that they should exercise won't change that they don't have time to exercise.

If the government wants to do something, they could stop subsidizing the corn/sugar/etc industry. By doing that they are driving down costs for the manufacturer and making unhealthy food cheaper.

AlyRoseNYC

That document is about the schools themselves requiring PE, rather than the government.

Anyway, as I was saying, my point is that in countries where governments take public health seriously and promote healthy living, people are... healthier! It isn't a question of society vs the government. It's OUR government, and it can and should play a role in tackling the obesity crisis. Whatever the US is doing at the moment, it clearly aint working, and I don't believe that's because US citizens are less responsible or lazier or greedier than people in other countries. Its because they are living in a toxic food environment.

Excuse my butting in, but I need to comment on this.

I have family all across the eastern sea board of the US. I have visited many states in the country. Every single supermarket I've visited has a fresh produce, dairy, and meat section. Every single 7-11 (gas station/convenience store) has fresh fruit and veggies. Every single corner store and bodega carries bottled water. We may have plenty of "toxic" food CHOICES, but we are certainly not being force fed here.

It IS all about choice, as we learn here on MFP. If it were not, Americans would literally be unable to lose weight, correct? I actually appreciate the food options we have here. I enjoy indulging in fast food and ice cream sometimes. I used to eat it way more often than I do now. But I was unhappy with my weight and made the choice to cut back on it. I didn't need Big Brother to do it for me.

714rah714

I don't see how that is the answer at all.... I agree with the principal behind it, but what else is next. If I go to the movies once a year and want a super size soda, that should be my choice. There are far more effective things.... tax junk food (which I know is difficult to do ), offer more gym time and recess time at school (increase the length of the school day to do this or have the kids go a few extra days to make up the time), offer free workout classes or gym memberships, cut out the advertising to kids especially, more campaigns to promote nutrition and show how bad some of the "bad" foods really are.

Can't increase recess time for New York City public schools because they no longer have any playgrounds. Playgrounds were used to build additions to ease over crowding.

GorillaNJ

What? The state government is the thing making these schools have a PE program. Just because it isn't the federal government doesn't mean it's not some form of government.

I think you're a bit confused. I live in the UK, and though there are considerably less obese people (from what I've seen) the trend is the same as everywhere else - wealthier people are thinner, and poor people are fatter. The thin people aren't thin because the government told them to be, they're thin because they can afford frequent grocery trips and healthy food and have the time and money to go to the gym every day. The poor people are fatter because they can only afford to grocery shop once a month and therefor need to buy long-life food that is worse for them. They also work longer hours so they do not have time for exercise or the money for the gym. I'm sure most of the less fortunate people would like to be healthier, but it simply isn't in their budget. The government telling them how bad the food is that they're eating won't change their financial situation. The government telling them that they should exercise won't change that they don't have time to exercise.

If the government wants to do something, they could stop subsidizing the corn/sugar/etc industry. By doing that they are driving down costs for the manufacturer and making unhealthy food cheaper.

So you think starving the poor is a better solution? Making processed foods more expensive will not make fresh things cheaper.. or easier to get.

roachhaley

What? The state government is the thing making these schools have a PE program. Just because it isn't the federal government doesn't mean it's not some form of government.

I think you're a bit confused. I live in the UK, and though there are considerably less obese people (from what I've seen) the trend is the same as everywhere else - wealthier people are thinner, and poor people are fatter. The thin people aren't thin because the government told them to be, they're thin because they can afford frequent grocery trips and healthy food and have the time and money to go to the gym every day. The poor people are fatter because they can only afford to grocery shop once a month and therefor need to buy long-life food that is worse for them. They also work longer hours so they do not have time for exercise or the money for the gym. I'm sure most of the less fortunate people would like to be healthier, but it simply isn't in their budget. The government telling them how bad the food is that they're eating won't change their financial situation. The government telling them that they should exercise won't change that they don't have time to exercise.

If the government wants to do something, they could stop subsidizing the corn/sugar/etc industry. By doing that they are driving down costs for the manufacturer and making unhealthy food cheaper.

So you think starving the poor is a better solution? Making processed foods more expensive will not make fresh things cheaper.. or easier to get.

What? No, I would have no issue with subsidies for healthy food. But the government's idea of "healthy" is pink goop. The government also thinks that pizza is a vegetable.

lizziebeth1028

Although it boggles my mind why anyone would need a 64 oz fountain drink to go with their meal....that's just gluttony. I also think it's very sad that the government has to step in to regulate this. Seriously... people now a days really need to take accountability for their actions and exercise some self-control.