NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I don't think the government has any place regulating these things. If people want to drink them and get fat, they have the right to do so.... but banning it won't solve anything. People will just buy ice cream or something equally as bad.

Proper education about nutrition and fitness needs to be taught... but those are always the first subjects to go by the wayside in school. It's a shame.

I agree with you, but I want to point out that nutrition and fitness can also be taught at home. Not trying to argue, just pointing out an alternative

I am not tryin to start an argument either, but stating a point that I see time and time again on these forums.

You are right, education on nutrition and fitness needs to be taught at home. However, there are far too many people in the world that belive they can just eat whatever they want (in whatever moderation is) that people don't care enough about themselves to change their lifestyle, so you can't expect people to change their kids or spouses either when they don't care enough about themselves.

Eating less junk is still eating junk.

martinah4

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 The list was outdated but I can't imagine all of the states have changed their policy.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.

FAIL! This is inaccurate. My family of 6 (me, husband and 4 kids) rely on one income. My school-teacher husbands income. We are considered above poverty level, and lower-middle class is stretching it. We eat fruit and veggies at every meal. We don't have gym memberships. It is more expensive for our family to eat at McDonald's than it is to sit down and have a healthy meal with all the macros. Seriously. My husband tallies it up, and it averages between $10-$12 dollars a meal. A sit-down restaurant for our family is never less than $40. You just have to know how to shop. My kids are incredibly healthy and not even overweight. The truth is, to actually eat healthy involves meal-planning, turning on your oven and actually taking time to cook and prepare. It's far easier to load up the car and go to Burger King.

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

My point being that for a little work, smart shopping and meal planning, a family of 6 can eat very healthy for LESS than it would cost to eat at McDonalds.

liftingheavy

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.

FAIL! This is inaccurate. My family of 6 (me, husband and 4 kids) rely on one income. My school-teacher husbands income. We are considered above poverty level, and lower-middle class is stretching it. We eat fruit and veggies at every meal. We don't have gym memberships. It is more expensive for our family to eat at McDonald's than it is to sit down and have a healthy meal with all the macros. Seriously. My husband tallies it up, and it averages between $10-$12 dollars a meal. A sit-down restaurant for our family is never less than $40. You just have to know how to shop. My kids are incredibly healthy and not even overweight. The truth is, to actually eat healthy involves meal-planning, turning on your oven and actually taking time to cook and prepare. It's far easier to load up the car and go to Burger King.

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

My point being that for a little work, smart shopping and meal planning, a family of 6 can eat very healthy for LESS than it would cost to eat at McDonalds.

I do not disagree with you at all, it is true that with some forethought and strategic shopping it's possible. Throw in a vegetable garden and veggies are no longer cost prohibitive. A bell pepper at my local grocery store was $2.30 the other day.

The reality is though that for the most part, this is not happening. We introduced these mega sizes how long ago and people did not self regulate, the definition of a normal size ballooned into what is 3-5 normal sizes, and folks went along, and worse, bought those sizes for their kids.

In New York, that size will not be available. I wish they would do the same in Chicago.

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.

FAIL! This is inaccurate. My family of 6 (me, husband and 4 kids) rely on one income. My school-teacher husbands income. We are considered above poverty level, and lower-middle class is stretching it. We eat fruit and veggies at every meal. We don't have gym memberships. It is more expensive for our family to eat at McDonald's than it is to sit down and have a healthy meal with all the macros. Seriously. My husband tallies it up, and it averages between $10-$12 dollars a meal. A sit-down restaurant for our family is never less than $40. You just have to know how to shop. My kids are incredibly healthy and not even overweight. The truth is, to actually eat healthy involves meal-planning, turning on your oven and actually taking time to cook and prepare. It's far easier to load up the car and go to Burger King.

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

My point being that for a little work, smart shopping and meal planning, a family of 6 can eat very healthy for LESS than it would cost to eat at McDonalds.

I never mentioned McDonalds. I mentioned bulk buying processed foods at the grocery store. Think a case of poptarts from Sam's, not McDonalds.

What I said is a real thing. Just because your family can do it doesn't mean others can. I highly doubt a single mother working full time would have much time to plan out her meals, shop for the food a few times a week and then prepare the food after her shift.

EternalJourney

How about proposing a ban on cigarettes too, then ?

Why not go far and ban alcohol and all processed oils.. why stop at just beverages lol.

GorillaNJ

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

These menus were not around 20 years ago. Neither were 52 ounce jugs of soda. What happened, and why aren't 52 ounce jugs of soda available in China and Europe? Because their people demand better and we should too.

It is simple in Europe and China people do not want a 52oz soda. In the US people do want it. I do not know is there a regulation drink size in Europe and China?

If someone wants it and can pay for it, why should they not be able to get it? It is not an illegal substance. And even this law would not stop someone from buying a 2 liter in the store right next to Burger King and chugging it on the street corner.

liftingheavy

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.

FAIL! This is inaccurate. My family of 6 (me, husband and 4 kids) rely on one income. My school-teacher husbands income. We are considered above poverty level, and lower-middle class is stretching it. We eat fruit and veggies at every meal. We don't have gym memberships. It is more expensive for our family to eat at McDonald's than it is to sit down and have a healthy meal with all the macros. Seriously. My husband tallies it up, and it averages between $10-$12 dollars a meal. A sit-down restaurant for our family is never less than $40. You just have to know how to shop. My kids are incredibly healthy and not even overweight. The truth is, to actually eat healthy involves meal-planning, turning on your oven and actually taking time to cook and prepare. It's far easier to load up the car and go to Burger King.

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

My point being that for a little work, smart shopping and meal planning, a family of 6 can eat very healthy for LESS than it would cost to eat at McDonalds.

And, your kids will probably grow up to be healthy, well adjusted, motivated kids. 40% + of kids will be overweight, teased, lethargic, and self-destructive. We cannot expect this country to thrive, innovate, self protect and stay #1 with 40% of our future leaders facing this oversized phenomena.

We have to give these kids a fighting chance. Adults, meh. Except I do not like subsidizing their healthcare when this stuff catches up with them.

liftingheavy

How about proposing a ban on cigarettes too, then ?

Why not go far and ban alcohol and all processed oils.. why stop at just beverages lol.

Where does the legislation say they are banning beverages?

martinah4

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.

FAIL! This is inaccurate. My family of 6 (me, husband and 4 kids) rely on one income. My school-teacher husbands income. We are considered above poverty level, and lower-middle class is stretching it. We eat fruit and veggies at every meal. We don't have gym memberships. It is more expensive for our family to eat at McDonald's than it is to sit down and have a healthy meal with all the macros. Seriously. My husband tallies it up, and it averages between $10-$12 dollars a meal. A sit-down restaurant for our family is never less than $40. You just have to know how to shop. My kids are incredibly healthy and not even overweight. The truth is, to actually eat healthy involves meal-planning, turning on your oven and actually taking time to cook and prepare. It's far easier to load up the car and go to Burger King.

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

My point being that for a little work, smart shopping and meal planning, a family of 6 can eat very healthy for LESS than it would cost to eat at McDonalds.

I do not disagree with you at all, it is true that with some forethought and strategic shopping it's possible. Throw in a vegetable garden and veggies are no longer cost prohibitive. A bell pepper at my local grocery store was $2.30 the other day.

The reality is though that for the most part, this is not happening. We introduced these mega sizes how long ago and people did not self regulate, the definition of a normal size ballooned into what is 3-5 normal sizes, and folks went along, and worse, bought those sizes for their kids.

In New York, that size will not be available. I wish they would do the same in Chicago.

We agree. Like I said on a different thread, American's have done a miserable job of policing themselves. I don't think this proposal is the answer, but I agree that it's a step in the right direction. Any movement forward is progress, IMO. But doing nothing is not helping fix the obesity problem at all.

carld256

If we were to stop the enormous subsidies to corn, soy, and cattle producers a lot of the nutrition and obesity problems in this country would go away. That includes ridiculously cheap HFCS soft drinks which is the only food statistically linked to obesity.

liftingheavy

If most families operated like yours there would not be 35% obesity in this country. Sadly, that is not the case which makes this an anecdotal example. A family of 6 can eat off of the dollar menu at most fast food for 18 dollars, and not have to prepare a thing at home. When both parents work that is apparently an attractive option.

These menus were not around 20 years ago. Neither were 52 ounce jugs of soda. What happened, and why aren't 52 ounce jugs of soda available in China and Europe? Because their people demand better and we should too.

It is simple in Europe and China people do not want a 52oz soda. In the US people do want it. I do not know is there a regulation drink size in Europe and China?

If someone wants it and can pay for it, why should they not be able to get it? It is not an illegal substance. And even this law would not stop someone from buying a 2 liter in the store right next to Burger King and chugging it on the street corner.

And that is why folks in China and Europe are so much healther and smarter. If we do not think other countries are lying in wait while Americans get fatter, lazier, and dumber under the guise of "freedom" we are deluding ourselves.

carld256

How about proposing a ban on cigarettes too, then ?

Why not go far and ban alcohol and all processed oils.. why stop at just beverages lol.

Soft drink aren't being banned.

ericcumbee

land of the free, not so much anymore.

Cindym82

I'm completely for it, now when you go out the "small" is the old med, the "med" is the old large etc...there is NO need to drink a 64oz soda at the movies and it cost's $5.50 in ny/nj.....its redic. No one usually understands how many caloires are actually in that stuff. It's about half your day's worth. It's about time the government steps in with this stuff. If they made better quality food cheaper and shopped pumping the chicken with hormones so the meat is bigger than we'd all be better off

ericcumbee

I'm completely for it, now when you go out the "small" is the old med, the "med" is the old large etc...there is NO need to drink a 64oz soda at the movies and it cost's $5.50 in ny/nj.....its redic. No one usually understands how many caloires are actually in that stuff. It's about half your day's worth. It's about time the government steps in with this stuff. If they made better quality food cheaper and shopped pumping the chicken with hormones so the meat is bigger than we'd all be better off

yes because the nanny/police state knows better than individuals making informed choices.

liftingheavy

If we were to stop the enormous subsidies to corn, soy, and cattle producers a lot of the nutrition and obesity problems in this country would go away. That includes ridiculously cheap HFCS soft drinks which is the only food statistically linked to obesity.

I agree with this also. The lobbyists who make this stuff happen are far to powerful for any of us to make any of it stop.

Just like the big food companies, who spend billions on flashy ads advertising 20 chicken nuggets for $4.99 make it all too attractive for people with few options. No one was outraged by those commercials... but there was a PSA about removing soft drink machines from schools and there were public outcrys.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

violetfleuri

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?

Making everyone exercise would be a great idea.

EternalJourney

How about proposing a ban on cigarettes too, then ?

Why not go far and ban alcohol and all processed oils.. why stop at just beverages lol.

Soft drink aren't being banned.

No, but LARGE sugary drinks are. So why not cut cigarette packs back to 10 cigarettes instead of 20 because 20 is just way too many for some people!!

And lets cut back Alcohol bottle sizes as some sizes are just too much for people to handle!

Why stop at just sugary drinks ?

liftingheavy

It's not the 55, 75, or 87 year olds that are the biggest concern here. It's the 6, 12 and 18 year olds. If anyone here cannot see the link between nutrition and the future of this country they have their eyes closed and their ears covered.

I agree but my question is........where are their parents? It's the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children eat a healthy balanced diet, not the government's.

When mom and dad drink a 52 ounce soda in one sitting, their daughters and sons will want to also. Kids mimic the behaviors that they observe.

liftingheavy

I'm completely for it, now when you go out the "small" is the old med, the "med" is the old large etc...there is NO need to drink a 64oz soda at the movies and it cost's $5.50 in ny/nj.....its redic. No one usually understands how many caloires are actually in that stuff. It's about half your day's worth. It's about time the government steps in with this stuff. If they made better quality food cheaper and shopped pumping the chicken with hormones so the meat is bigger than we'd all be better off

Oh my gosh, I am going to have to self regulate, because the hormone issue REALLY gets me. No wonder young girls are maturing at 7-8. You can't cook that stuff out. We can't even export our hormone laden meats to Europe - they know it's trash.

Okay, I'll start the self regulation now or I could go on and on...