New York OKs nation's first ban on super-sized sugary drinks
Replies
-
To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason
I'm all for measures that provide awareness and knowledge on what people are consuming. That is not hindering me from living my life as I see fit. Totally different from banning portion sizes.
^
^
This!0 -
When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:
That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.0 -
This ban is ridiculous! I should be able to get a Route 44 Cherry Limeade from Sonic if I darn well want to! Will I? Probably not, but taking that choice away from me is the start to some very bad stuff. What will they ban next?! Large fries? Full fat dressing? Fried chicken over grilled? You can't force people to be healthy! What is this world coming to?! I don't need the government making these choices for me. I say all of this and I'm a registered democrat!
mmmm...Sonic Cherry Limeade. Have to make it "easy ice" or you only get a few sips out of it though.0 -
Against.
Let people make their own decisions.
Ditto.
Sorry, but you can only hold people's hand so far. Informing people of the calorie content and giving them the ingredients list should be enough.0 -
When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:
That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.
What choice? This is making the choice for you by the nanny government!0 -
When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:
That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.0 -
When I visited America I was quite frankly shocked by the size of some of their soda cups. Who needs 64 ounces of soda in one sitting!? :noway:
That said, I approve of it. I believe that people are ultimately responsible for making their own choices, but also that things like this help them to put more thought into the choices they are making.
Reasons why I may want a 64oz soda:
1. Floating the river all day
2. Road trip
3. Just cuz!
This doesn't help people put more thought into the choices they are making because it completely takes away their ability to even make a choice!0 -
100% for it. Since Marijuana is illegal and it shouldn't be because it's perfectly safe, why not ban something that really hurts us? Why do they need to sell large quantities of sugar anyway?. It's only for profit. Money always matters more than peoples health. I wish they would do that in all states. And I'm glad McDonald's is now going to post it's calorie content in the actual restaurants. As a nation we are dying of excess fat and sugar consumption. I understand peoples concerns over the government being in our personal business but it really pisses me off that money (for profit) has more importance than the consumers health.0
-
I'm not understanding---New York is telling me how much soda I can buy at one time? What about those people that buy the extra big sizes to measure their daily intake? Why oh why do they think this is a legislative item?0
-
To the folks talking about interference with businesses. Well, when nutrition values were asked to be printed on the back of the food products, it was same stuff that was shouted out. When they banned smoking from public areas, same stuff was shouted (I''ve been a smoker most of my life, I understand the pain for smokers but still, this was a good move). Many times government had to interfere and I think most of the times its for a valid reason
Agreed.
In addition, people seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps they are not aware) that sometimes there is a hidden cost from production by private enterprise which gets paid by society as a whole. They essentially pass the bill for payment on to the taxpayer. Pollution and obesity are common examples.
Is that fair? No. Does the responsibility of business stop at the point of sale? No. Should business escape responsibility for the extended consequences of their production? No.
It's a question of balance. Do you want to excessively interfere in the market? No but you also want to factor in the consequence of market failure (negative externalities.)0 -
It may not be a very effective law or change how much soda an individual will buy, but it is certainly raising enough awareness of the issue for it to be a thread here! I think that's a big positive outcome of it.
I agree with the above poster who mentioned labelling - if soda had a warning such as "sugar has ....effect on the body" like cigarettes do, it will raise individual awareness and actually put the decision in the consumers hands - to be educated and warned about the issue and STILL go and drink 16oz in one go then that puts the decision, and therefore the responsibility, on the individual.
I'm in the UK so I'm not really affected by the issue, but I don't think I've seen soda measures that big over here. Must make you need to pee like a racehorse!!0 -
100% for it. Since Marijuana is illegal and it shouldn't be because it's perfectly safe, why not ban something that really hurts us? Why do they need to sell large quantities of sugar anyway?. It's only for profit. Money always matters more than peoples health. I wish they would do that in all states. And I'm glad McDonald's is now going to post it's calorie content in the actual restaurants. As a nation we are dying of excess fat and sugar consumption. I understand peoples concerns over the government being in our personal business but it really pisses me off that money (for profit) has more importance than the consumers health.
They sell such large quantities of sugar because the market demands it. They will sell what the consumers buy. It's us, not them. They are only going to make more money now anyway because 2 medium Coke's are going to cost more than 1 large one did.0 -
Just because it is unhealthy doesn't mean our government has the authority to regulate it. This type of legislation is absurd. I don't even drink soda, but this is silly. I expect they'll be coming for your Venti Frappaccinos soon.0
-
100% for it. Since Marijuana is illegal and it shouldn't be because it's perfectly safe, why not ban something that really hurts us? Why do they need to sell large quantities of sugar anyway?. It's only for profit. Money always matters more than peoples health. I wish they would do that in all states. And I'm glad McDonald's is now going to post it's calorie content in the actual restaurants. As a nation we are dying of excess fat and sugar consumption. I understand peoples concerns over the government being in our personal business but it really pisses me off that money (for profit) has more importance than the consumers health.
Shocker! A business that is trying to make a profit?! How dare they!?
Everyone should know by now that a diet rich in fast food and soda is unhealthy. How could you not? I still like to get an occasional Big Mac or a Nacho Bell Grande.0 -
Everyone should know by now that a diet rich in fast food and soda is unhealthy. How could you not?
The implication of this however is that ploughing further money into education programmes will not work.
This then leads us to the question if the carrot doesn't work then perhaps you have to use a stick....0 -
Can't you just buy two 16 oz sodas if you want more?0
-
Everyone should know by now that a diet rich in fast food and soda is unhealthy. How could you not?
The implication of this however is that ploughing further money into education programmes will not work.
This then leads us to the question if the carrot doesn't work then perhaps you have to use a stick....
Like previously stated, prohibition will never work. Besides the fact that the government has no place determining what people choose to consume, individuals will always find a way to beat the system.0 -
Against.
Let people make their own decisions.
Seem right ethically, but left to their own devices some people will eat themselves to the grave.0 -
It is a restriction of freedom. I say let us make a choice. Charge a lot more for the big drinks and put the extra charge into the health care system to pay for the added obese problems. If I want a big sugary drink and it makes me fat that is my choice but I pay for it. If I want to smoke, I can smoke, but I am going to pay for it.
Most people will not pay more. ( look at all the smokers who have quit because of the price) And in my state that smoke tax when into the trauma system and the children's hospital.
I am not for more taxes either. More like a risk pricing.0 -
Against.
Let people make their own decisions.
Seem right ethically, but left to their own devices some people will eat themselves to the grave.
People will do many things that will bring them to an early grave. I remember news stories of people dying from over-exercising on programs like Insanity. Guess we should enforce a strict time limit on the amount of gym time you are allowed, eh?0 -
Against.
Let people make their own decisions.
Seem right ethically, but left to their own devices some people will eat themselves to the grave.
Sounds bad but...Survival of the fittest0 -
I am basically against the deals on bulk buy or discount on bigger portions...
if 500ml of something cost $2, then 250ml should cost $1 or say $ 1.1 max (including overhead of packaging)
(Having said that, I mean the cost of smaller quantities should be reduced and not to increase the cost of bigger ones)
In the UK, in cinemas, lets say 100g popcorn cost £3, 200g will cost £3.25 and 400g costs £ 3.50 (hypothetical figures). so a person is naturally inclined to buy the bigger portion to get value for money (and end up eating a lot more)
Shame is that even supermarkets do such deals but only for crap foods like crisps etc and never for fruits/veggies or healthy stuff.
These are actually the tactics that bigger companies use to make more money. To be honest they don't care if everyone turns 50 stones because of them.0 -
It's like the war on drugs or prohibition.
More than anything, it's about the loss of freedom. People will make bad choices no matter what size the cups are.0 -
Why not ban sugar full stop? It's a harmful substance with no nutritional benefits and a great deal of harmful effects on people. Sugar probably kills more people than tobacco. Just my controversial two cents ;-)
Reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons...0 -
Everyone should know by now that a diet rich in fast food and soda is unhealthy. How could you not?
The implication of this however is that ploughing further money into education programmes will not work.
This then leads us to the question if the carrot doesn't work then perhaps you have to use a stick....
Like previously stated, prohibition will never work. Besides the fact that the government has no place determining what people choose to consume, individuals will always find a way to beat the system.
Yep, I agree that prohibition is not really the answer.
However, while people will find a way to consume whatever they want if it means that much to them, imposing a barrier will reduce consumption to some degree. Most people follow the path of least resistance.
To tackle a difficult problem sometimes you have to make difficult decisions.
However, it is clear to me that the market, left to its own devices will actually worsen the obesity problem - it is in the interests of business to promote excessive consumption, not reduce it. That leaves it down to the individual or imposing some kind of regulation. Clearly leaving it to the individual is not working terribly well at the moment...0 -
I am basically against the deals on bulk buy or discount on bigger portions...
if 500ml of something cost $2, then 250ml should cost $1 or say $ 1.1 max (including overhead of packaging)
(Having said that, I mean the cost of smaller quantities should be reduced and not to increase the cost of bigger ones)
In the UK, in cinemas, lets say 100g popcorn cost £3, 200g will cost £3.25 and 400g costs £ 3.50 (hypothetical figures). so a person is naturally inclined to buy the bigger portion to get value for money (and end up eating a lot more)
Shame is that even supermarkets do such deals but only for crap foods like crisps etc and never for fruits/veggies or healthy stuff.
These are actually the tactics that bigger companies use to make more money. To be honest they don't care if everyone turns 50 stones because of them.
I want to open a BBQ joint when I get out of the Army. BBQ is NOT a food that should be a main staple in anyone's diet. Should I turn people away that appear overweight? Would that be the "ethical" thing to do?
Or maybe have a menu that people over a certain weight must order off of?0 -
I agree entirely with you!!!0
-
I find it unfortunate that there is really so little common sense left in the world.0
-
Everyone should know by now that a diet rich in fast food and soda is unhealthy. How could you not?
The implication of this however is that ploughing further money into education programmes will not work.
This then leads us to the question if the carrot doesn't work then perhaps you have to use a stick....
Like previously stated, prohibition will never work. Besides the fact that the government has no place determining what people choose to consume, individuals will always find a way to beat the system.
Yep, I agree that prohibition is not really the answer.
However, while people will find a way to consume whatever they want if it means that much to them, imposing a barrier will reduce consumption to some degree. Most people follow the path of least resistance.
To tackle a difficult problem sometimes you have to make difficult decisions.
However, it is clear to me that the market, left to its own devices will actually worsen the obesity problem - it is in the interests of business to promote excessive consumption, not reduce it. That leaves it down to the individual or imposing some kind of regulation. Clearly leaving it to the individual is not working terribly well at the moment...
And leaving it up to the government has never faired any better.....0 -
Against.
Let people make their own decisions.
Seem right ethically, but left to their own devices some people will eat themselves to the grave.
People will do many things that will bring them to an early grave. I remember news stories of people dying from over-exercising on programs like Insanity. Guess we should enforce a strict time limit on the amount of gym time you are allowed, eh?
I think if it's less of the forced approach and more education then it would be better. If the customers had more of an idea of what they're eating and what they're doing to themselves then it would help.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions