NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

AlyRoseNYC

Wow anyone who has been on this site appreciates that probably no one should EVER drink something that sugary and huge. We require helmets, seatbelts etc so we don't have to use our collective resources to scrape people off the pavement. I have no interest in subsidizing people's obesity surgery, amputations, etc. so I have no problem making it just a little harder for them to poison themselves.

Soda is not poison, and has zero effect on my underweight husband and many other NYCers who do not have a weight problem. So because the government has decided that fat people cannot control themselves, those that DO practive self-control will be paying higher prices to get the amount of product they want. Larger packaging greatly reduces the cost of transport and delivery. It's also "better" for the environment (not that I care about that much lol.) The companies are not just going to swallow the cost. It will be passed on to the consumer.

Not being rude or anything, just wanted to add to this discussion

mrmanmeat

Good.

But the overweight people who drink gallons a day will still find a way.

roachhaley

What ever happened to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!

It is NOT the governments job to regulate what and how much we eat! If I want to overeat, having a ban on x-large soda is not going to stop me...nor will it stop anyone else.

Get the governement out of my life...if I wanted the governement to control it, I will just go live in a communist country!

What is next? ...x-large bags of candy, big macs, whoppers, large pizza with toppings,etc....????

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!)

Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against

darylinny

LET'S SEE - they raised the price of cigarettes to $5-7.00 per pack and it didn't stop the smokers. People need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OBESITY. Its not Coca-Cola's fault !!!

^^This!! and the one about buying two 16oz sodas to make up for the banned 32oz...another way to get more "tax" money!!

Katie3784

I am pretty liberal, but am definitely against the government telling people what they can eat or drink. If people want the sugary drinks, they will get them. If they can't get a big one, they'll get two small ones.

contingencyplan

I like and agree with the thought process behind it. But it really isn't something that the government should be stepping into. It should fall onto the individual to take responsibility.

FitLink

Yes, sounds great! Banning sugary drinks will surely reverse obesity rates. Ban it all, that stops people!

Excuse me while I go do a bump before I smoke a joint........ :noway:

Exactly. Prohibition DOESN'T WORK! Haven't we learned that in 100+ years of prohibitory laws? Alcohol prohibition actually INCREASED alcoholism rates!

Obviously, prohibition is a failure for both alcohol and drugs. However, that's not what this is, so let's meet straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It's government regulating consensual behavior, and it's prohibiting bulk packaging. It won't affect the problem it's intended to address, except maybe negatively.

Katie3784

Wow anyone who has been on this site appreciates that probably no one should EVER drink something that sugary and huge. We require helmets, seatbelts etc so we don't have to use our collective resources to scrape people off the pavement. I have no interest in subsidizing people's obesity surgery, amputations, etc. so I have no problem making it just a little harder for them to poison themselves.

Soda is not poison, and has zero effect on my underweight husband and many other NYCers who do not have a weight problem. So because the government has decided that fat people cannot control themselves, those that DO practive self-control will be paying higher prices to get the amount of product they want. Larger packaging greatly reduces the cost of transport and delivery. It's also "better" for the environment (not that I care about that much lol.) The companies are not just going to swallow the cost. It will be passed on to the consumer.

Not being rude or anything, just wanted to add to this discussion

very smart

atsteele

Wow anyone who has been on this site appreciates that probably no one should EVER drink something that sugary and huge. We require helmets, seatbelts etc so we don't have to use our collective resources to scrape people off the pavement. I have no interest in subsidizing people's obesity surgery, amputations, etc. so I have no problem making it just a little harder for them to poison themselves.

I don't want to subsidize someone else's obesity surgery, sex change or birth control either. I'm all for letting people have the freedom to make their own choices, good or bad. If I want to buy a 21oz sweet tea after a long run, I should be able to do so. That one choice isn't going to make me fat. Since when is having an extra extra large soda (or sweet tea) once in a while the devil? It's not. Attempting to legislate common sense will never work.

cherrybomb_77

I despise nanny state politics. I don't personally drink giant sodas or sugary beverages myself, but I think controlling/limiting personal freedoms (when they don't impact others) is outrageous and atrocious.

So ridiculous...

This.

livestar

I am all for the government intervening to decrease the consumption of huge sugary drinks and other overly processed foods, because far too many people are completely unaware about the long-term effects. We are, because we are interested. But there are huge swaths of the population that do not have a clue, whether due to lack of interest, common sense, or other demands on their lives that leave them otherwise distracted. Unfortunately, many of these people are parents and it's particularly disgusting to see a 2 or 3 year old with a 12 oz coke and a bag of cheetos on the morning commute. What chance does that kid have at avoiding obesity when this is how they're growing up. Go to the movies, and you always see small children who can barely even carry their sodas and their popcorn bags.

However, I do NOT agree with Daddy Bloomberg's methods.

They should treat these sodas like cigarettes. Tax them to increase the price, therefore disincentiveizing the purchase. If you want to drink it, fine. Pay up! You want the rest of us to pay for all your health issues over the long term, then you need to pay for it up front.

This method has been proven to work time and time again, esp with cigarettes at $13 bucks a pack in these parts.

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.

londoneye

What ever happened to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!

It is NOT the governments job to regulate what and how much we eat! If I want to overeat, having a ban on x-large soda is not going to stop me...nor will it stop anyone else.

Get the governement out of my life...if I wanted the governement to control it, I will just go live in a communist country!

What is next? ...x-large bags of candy, big macs, whoppers, large pizza with toppings,etc....????

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!)

Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against

Right, but I didn't say Americans were lazy. My point was that they are made fat by their environment and the food and activity incentives and opportunities around them. Town planning is something that (can be) influenced and regulated by governments, so that walking to a nearby shop to buy fresh produce is something that is available to everyone.

And as for freedom of speech, most people accept that it is not unlimited. Speech that harms or deliberately misleads the vulnerable (e.g. marketing fast food to children using their favourite cartoon characters) is fair game in my eyes.

GorillaNJ

So the stupidity of this law is endless... it does not include things like milkshakes. So I can still go over to Shake shake and get myself a 36oz super thick chocolate malted, but if I wanted to get the same size rootbeer from the same place I could not. :frown:

For all the good Bloomberg has done with reorganizing and making city government more efficient and accessible. I think the bike initiatives, pedestrian plazas and expanded parks that have been opened during his administration are excellent, I like the letter gradings for health inspections on restaurant windows.

He has been a nightmare for personal freedoms, the nanny of all nanny states. Food donations to shelters, salt bans, transfat bans, smoking in parks (This one kills me, infront of my office is a park, buses and trucks idle there all day long, but I cant have a cigar?) smoking in private clubs, foie gras..... And a pack of smokes in Manhattan is not $7 it is closer to $12.

He should just stick to what he does best as a business man...

McBully4

What do you think about this as a tool to combat obesity?

http://news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-bloomberg-propose-ban-sale-large-sugary-035357237--sector.html

Bloomberg has used the power of the city government to promote other health measures, including a campaign to cut down on salt and a ban on trans fats in restaurant food, as well as a requirement that chain restaurants display calorie counts.

I'm all for this, but If I or anyone else wants a 64oz bladder buster of a sugary soda this is America, rock on and have one.
Print the Calories in huge bold print on everything like they do the cigarette warnings. If some one is drinking a soda and they are staring at a huge bold font "This cup has 800 Calories that's 1/3 of your day" Maybe they will think twice.

roachhaley

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!)

Most cities/towns are way more spread out than what people in other parts of the world are used to. I lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma for the majority of my life and the closest thing that sold food was a mile away. There are sidewalks but nobody uses them. It's not because we're lazy, it's because we don't want to spend 2 damn hours walking to the mall.

Also, regulating advertising is regulating freedom of speech. Something most Americans are against

Right, but I didn't say Americans were lazy. My point was that they are made fat by their environment and the food and activity incentives and opportunities around them. Town planning is something that (can be) influenced and regulated by governments, so that walking to a nearby shop to buy fresh produce is something that is available to everyone.

And as for freedom of speech, most people accept that it is not unlimited. Speech that harms or deliberately misleads the vulnerable (e.g. marketing fast food to children using their favourite cartoon characters) is fair game in my eyes.

Tulsa was not intended to be as big of a city as it is or as residential as it is. It was primarily for the oil industry. Have you ever lived in an American city? The way they are composed is usually blocks of residential area with small pockets of retail. It isn't like here in the UK where there is a small grocery store on nearly every street.

Anyways, I'm pretty most cities were planned way before there was such an obesity epidemic. Your suggestion is fine for new city planning, but kind of pointless for the majority of existing communities.

And no, people are made fat by eating too much food. Believe it or not, nobody forces you to eat McDonalds for your three meals a day. Your suggestion that kids are influenced by advertisements geared towards them is correct. The issue with that is that it's the parents buying the food/product. Just because a kid wants something doesn't mean they HAVE to get it. It's the parent's responsibility.

callsitlikeiseeit

i just don't think its the govt's business telling us what we can and can not eat or drink

people will lose weight and make healthier choices WHEN THEY ARE PREPARED AND READY TO DO SO
same thing with those who smoke. if they want to change they have to do it on their own.

i had a NASTY soda 'addiction' and one day - simply decided I had had enough of it.

instead of banning things, I think it would be much more effective to make healthy foods more affordable and widespread

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/

karen_thinmint

Ridiculous.

And if some wants a large soda, they'll just order two...

The govt needs to stop policing. Education about portion control will stop the issue, not making people drink from cans. They'll just drink more cans (two 12 onz cans has more sugar than one 20 onz bottle, just saying), its not stopping the consumption, just annoys the local businesses and the manufactures.

BeeElMarvin

Just what we need. More government control. Welcome to the nanny state!

^^^ This. Too many laws now. NY Government wants to micromanage our lives.