New York OKs nation's first ban on super-sized sugary drinks
Replies
-
They should just have MFP's submit button on the register and print out on the receipt: "If you drank this everyday in addition to your normal meals, you'd gain 48 lbs a year."
THIS IS PERFECT!!!!0 -
Can someone explain to me, rationally, how a ban on selling excessive servings of soda will transform America from a free nation to one under the jackboot of communist oppression?
The slippery slope argument (it all starts from this one thing and will then mushroom into many other negative things) is fallacious at best and outright politics of fear at worst. Sheesh, I'm not American but even I have more confidence in the robustness of your democracy than that.
The market will do nothing to stop rising obesity levels - its function is to increase production and consumption. People it seems have difficulty limiting their own portion sizes so what is there left to do? It is all well and good saying people should exercise self control but what if they don't as is clearly the case? How is the social cost of obesity to be paid for then?
America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic and our representatives are not doing the will of the people. They are doing what they feel is right but they are infringing on the rights of people to make their own choices. That's why we left Europe. To get away from tyranny. This is how it all starts. Small things first. I agree, sugary drinks should be consumed in moderation but I it all boils down to the majority of the masses being ignorant when it comes to proper nutrition.0 -
Can someone explain to me, rationally, how a ban on selling excessive servings of soda will transform America from a free nation to one under the jackboot of communist oppression?
The slippery slope argument (it all starts from this one thing and will then mushroom into many other negative things) is fallacious at best and outright politics of fear at worst. Sheesh, I'm not American but even I have more confidence in the robustness of your democracy than that.
The market will do nothing to stop rising obesity levels - its function is to increase production and consumption. People it seems have difficulty limiting their own portion sizes so what is there left to do? It is all well and good saying people should exercise self control but what if they don't as is clearly the case? How is the social cost of obesity to be paid for then?
Well in America, the role of government is to protect our liberties. We are the only country that (at least used to) operates under that guiding principle. It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.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 ;-)
Why stop there? Let's force everyone to report to City Hall at 0600 for Physical Fitness Training like we do in the Army. We'll also have Government Dining Facilities as the only place people can eat, no need to cook at home or buy groceries anymore. If the government says its ok, by golly, it must be true.
By the way, I love your comment about sugar killing more people than tobacco. Your evidence provided leaves no room for a different opinion.
I agree, ever read "1984" by Geroge Orwell. I agree soda has no nutritional value. But there are many, real problems that our government should be addressing. These types of laws (seatbelts for adults, helmet laws, sin tax, laws against suicide,etc) are just interference with Darwinism. It's preventing thinning of the herd.
0 -
It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.
Simply because there is a demand for something does not mean it should be supplied or is even desirable surely?
What if the market causes an outcome which manufacturers do not pay for but simply pass on to the tax payer? Is that fair? For example, pollution is a by product of production. The more that is produced, the cheaper the price and the more incentive there is for businesses to continue down that route. The market rewards this but the negative outcome (externality) is increased pollution which the taxpayer will pick up a social cost without necessary regulation. Should there be government intervention as a result? To me that seems reasonable. Intervening in the market is not always a bad thing or equates with the taking away of real freedom.
A completely unregulated market is the opposite of communism: it is facist (the far right of the spectrum)0 -
Against. It's not the government's job to tell me what to put into my body. If people are really dumb enough to drink those things then that's their lot in life. And if they can't get a 32 oz drink they'll either still drink that much at home or get a couple 16 oz ones. This is opening a very large Pandora's box. Plus, it's not just a matter of people drinking what they want; for the most part stores should be able to sell what they want too.0
-
It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.
Simply because there is a demand for something does not mean it should be supplied or is even desirable surely?
What if the market causes an outcome which manufacturers do not pay for but simply pass on to the tax payer? Is that fair? For example, pollution is a by product of production. The more that is produced, the cheaper the price and the more incentive there is for businesses to continue down that route. The market rewards this but the negative outcome (externality) is increased pollution which the taxpayer will pick up a social cost without necessary regulation. Should there be government intervention as a result? To me that seems reasonable. Intervening in the market is not always a bad thing or equates with the taking away of real freedom.
A completely unregulated market is the opposite of communism: it is facist (the far right of the spectrum)
I think you need to check your definition of fascism.0 -
I don't know why everyone is getting upset about it. Its not the first time a ban or an option has been removed from the public eye. McDonalds had to do away with their "Supersize" and there were no riots about it. Honestly even when I ate fast food in the past I still didn't drink a full 16oz with the meal.
We are one of the most unhealthy countries in the world and its time to step up and realize where we need improvement.
I don't blame the government about this and think they should target schools next. Sodas,sugary drinks, and fatty foods should be removed from the lunchrooms. Childhood obesity is where it starts.
It all boils down to it....yes we still have choices and some people will still choose to drink soda. But there is no reason to have large quantities of it available. No one NEEDS to have an option of a 40oz soft drink.
So you get to dicate what others choose to eat and drink? Are you the master of all thins healthy? Meals and some cocktails at an average restaurant double or triple what is in a 32oz soda. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.0 -
I personally think it's a waste of time to put a ban on large sodas. If people want more soda, they'll just buy 2 small ones.
Besides, it isn't up to the government to decide what I eat or drink. I think they would be better off putting their efforts into health education and teaching people about the dangers of drinking soda, starting with the kids in school. Their intentions might be good, but I just think it's a step in the wrong direction. :ohwell:0 -
It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.
Simply because there is a demand for something does not mean it should be supplied or is even desirable surely?
What if the market causes an outcome which manufacturers do not pay for but simply pass on to the tax payer? Is that fair? For example, pollution is a by product of production. The more that is produced, the cheaper the price and the more incentive there is for businesses to continue down that route. The market rewards this but the negative outcome (externality) is increased pollution which the taxpayer will pick up a social cost without necessary regulation. Should there be government intervention as a result? To me that seems reasonable. Intervening in the market is not always a bad thing or equates with the taking away of real freedom.
A completely unregulated market is the opposite of communism: it is facist (the far right of the spectrum)
Hello? Fascism is when the government dictates everything. Ever heard of WWII? Mussolini? It is complete totalitarianism - authoritarian regime. The absence of government is laissez faire, otherwise known as "freedom." Communism and free markets are not necessarily opposites. Communism can be authoritarian or it can be completely voluntary. In America, we had small pockets of voluntary communism back in the 1960s. So long as it's voluntary it's fine. Government use of force or coercion is wrong, just as individual use of force or coercion is wrong. It is the "force" part that makes it wrong. It is always wrong to initiate force against someone.
It seems you may have read too much economic theory of John Maynard Keynes.
WE, the PEOPLE, are the consumers. Consumers aren't "the other guy." Yes, if there are enough people who desire a product or service, the market CAN and WILL step up and provide that product or service.
As to your pollution example, that is the same as fraud. That is when the government steps in, when consumers get something other than what they request.0 -
I agree, ever read "1984" by Geroge Orwell. I agree soda has no nutritional value. But there are many, real problems that our government should be addressing. These types of laws (seatbelts for adults, helmet laws, sin tax, laws against suicide,etc) are just interference with Darwinism. It's preventing thinning of the herd.
0 -
I don't know why everyone is getting upset about it. Its not the first time a ban or an option has been removed from the public eye. McDonalds had to do away with their "Supersize" and there were no riots about it. Honestly even when I ate fast food in the past I still didn't drink a full 16oz with the meal.
We are one of the most unhealthy countries in the world and its time to step up and realize where we need improvement.
I don't blame the government about this and think they should target schools next. Sodas,sugary drinks, and fatty foods should be removed from the lunchrooms. Childhood obesity is where it starts.
It all boils down to it....yes we still have choices and some people will still choose to drink soda. But there is no reason to have large quantities of it available. No one NEEDS to have an option of a 40oz soft drink.
So you get to dicate what others choose to eat and drink? Are you the master of all thins healthy? Meals and some cocktails at an average restaurant double or triple what is in a 32oz soda. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.
My reasoning is flawed? Part of my reasoning is fact! Go to a Mcdonald's and try to supersize it. Not only was it banned in the US it is banned worldwide.
No Im not the master of all *things* healthy. Thats why Im on here...Im choosing to make a change. I stopped drinking soda completely. Our entire life of decision making is divided into what we need and want. Do we need soda? No. We as a country want the option of it. But we dont NEED an option of 40oz of it. If people want to buy more then so be it. Meals and cocktails werent even in my original argument...it was Soda...so you adding that was irrelevant. Im just stating that there isnt anything wrong with a little bit of limitation on ridiculous amounts of drinks that have been proven that are bad for us!
Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?0 -
FFS, we're not children.<snip>Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?0 -
I do not think sugary drinks are healthy---but,really. A ban? I'm curious. Are you pro or against? :drinker:
-
I will say this: Prohibition did not work in the 20's...what makes them think it will work now. Maybe they're trying to evacuate New York? LoL I predict mass exodus. I don't eat those foods myself, but really...?0 -
Go to a Mcdonald's and try to supersize it. Not only was it banned in the US it is banned worldwide.
It wasn't banned. Read your news instead of watching it on TV. McDonald's *decided* to get rid of super-size. Guess what? They replaced that big drinks with the new "SUMMER SIZE" this past summer.0 -
FFS, we're not children.<snip>Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?
No doubt! We are talking about ADULTS here. The government is NOT our mom and dad!0 -
I wonder what so many who are here trying to lose weight would have said prior to "Finding the - i must be healthy and look good god" and deciding they know so much abt what others should and shouldn't be eating and drinking. Its posted all over here all the time, the way others criticize when they see people they deem not an acceptable weight, or eating acceptable foods. Sitting at tables making snarky comments and treating people like crap bc they are overweight. Yet it was YOUR CHOICE to become fat when you "didn't care" huh?0
-
FFS, we're not children.<snip>Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?
No doubt! We are talking about ADULTS here. The government is NOT our mom and dad!
True and yet most adults act like children. Stubborn and uncaring of our actions no matter what the consequences. Think what you will but I don't believe its going to start riots.0 -
Yes. All of your arguments center around the government taking responsibility for parenting our children. So the government should handle the beverage oversight for our children ? What about sugary breakfast cereal? Should the government step in with oversight as well? After school snacks? Processed foods?My reasoning is flawed?
If we wanted to we could relinquish all of our parental repsonsibility to the government. Consider the technology we have on hand. Most people pay using a debit card at the grocery store. When a parent made a purchase at the store all of data (items that were purchased) could be sent to a government database. The parents grocery list could be analyised to determined the quality of the food. If the foods purchased were deemed unhealthy then CPS could been immediatley dispatched to the home to remove the children from an enviromnment that contained unhealthy foods.
Allowing the government to raise our children? Hmmm?
Perhaps the parents should raise their children.0 -
Hello? Fascism is when the government dictates everything. Ever heard of WWII? Mussolini? It is complete totalitarianism - authoritarian regime. The absence of government is laissez faire, otherwise known as "freedom." Communism and free markets are not necessarily opposites. Communism can be authoritarian or it can be completely voluntary. In America, we had small pockets of voluntary communism back in the 1960s. So long as it's voluntary it's fine. Government use of force or coercion is wrong, just as individual use of force or coercion is wrong. It is the "force" part that makes it wrong. It is always wrong to initiate force against someone.
It seems you may have read too much economic theory of John Maynard Keynes.
WE, the PEOPLE, are the consumers. Consumers aren't "the other guy." Yes, if there are enough people who desire a product or service, the market CAN and WILL step up and provide that product or service.
As to your pollution example, that is the same as fraud. That is when the government steps in, when consumers get something other than what they request.
Facism is not simply a political ideology - it is also an economic ideology.Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[7] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[8] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[9]
(link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism)
In short, society should pay for the failure of the unfettered market as I mentioned previously...
I don't really know what JMK's work really has to do with anything but with regard to your fraud example as being an instance where the government should step in, much like pollution, then surely obesity is, in your own words "when consumers get something other than what they request."?0 -
Yes. All of your arguments center around the government taking responsibility for parenting our children. So the government should handle the beverage oversight for our children ? What about sugary breakfast cereal? Should the government step in with oversight as well? After school snacks? Processed foods?My reasoning is flawed?
If we wanted to we could relinquish all of our parental repsonsibility to the government. Consider the technology we have on hand. Most people pay using a debit card at the grocery store. When a parent made a purchase at the store all of data (items that were purchased) could be sent to a government database. The parents grocery list could be analyised to determined the quality of the food. If the foods purchased were deemed unhealthy then CPS could been immediatley dispatched to the home to remove the children from an enviromnment that contained unhealthy foods.
Allowing the government to raise our children? Hmmm?
Perhaps the parents should raise their children.
LOL Wow that was one hell of a leap. My hypothetical was to show a point that rather than assume that this action is an attack on our level of control it is purely an action to educate and advise that quantities of a certain product are not healthy and are deemed bad. Why is everyone jumping leaps from my original statements? Im commenting regarding the limitations of mass quantities of soda...just as the article states. And everyone is coming at me with everything else too. Im not talking about cereals, alcohol, meals or anything else. lol0 -
Against...I know its a bad idea...the people that are drinking them know its a bad idea...but I am a grown up and this is supposed to be a free country. If I want to do something unhealthy that is only harming me then that is my business.0
-
I am against this. A person has the right to do eat and drink what they want whether its the right or wrong decision. So people be healthier sure but forcing something like this one them isnt going to make them change their behaviors. If they were really worried about peoples overall health they would have to ban McDonald's and Burger King and all other fast food cause that is just as unhealthy as a soda even more so.0
-
I'd be fine with a warning label, but a ban is ridiculous.
Though this is from the same man who banned giving away free formula in hospitals and required that new mothers be given "a talk" before allowing them to feed formula to their infants because of the benefits of breast milk. Nanny state much?
He is a paternalistic pain in the *kitten*.0 -
FFS, we're not children.<snip>Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?
No doubt! We are talking about ADULTS here. The government is NOT our mom and dad!
True and yet most adults act like children. Stubborn and uncaring of our actions no matter what the consequences. Think what you will but I don't believe its going to start riots.
A riot, by definition, is an act of violence. Violence is unacceptable.0 -
Can someone explain to me, rationally, how a ban on selling excessive servings of soda will transform America from a free nation to one under the jackboot of communist oppression?
The slippery slope argument (it all starts from this one thing and will then mushroom into many other negative things) is fallacious at best and outright politics of fear at worst. Sheesh, I'm not American but even I have more confidence in the robustness of your democracy than that.
The market will do nothing to stop rising obesity levels - its function is to increase production and consumption. People it seems have difficulty limiting their own portion sizes so what is there left to do? It is all well and good saying people should exercise self control but what if they don't as is clearly the case? How is the social cost of obesity to be paid for then?
Well in America, the role of government is to protect our liberties. We are the only country that (at least used to) operates under that guiding principle. It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.
^^^^Quoting you- "Consumers want what they want".
Yes, they do. That is why their happy, soda-loving selves can just buy two if that's what they really want. If they still don't believe in self-control after someone is basically slapping them in the face and telling them no, then they can walk around with two 16 oz cups. No hair off my as$0 -
Hello? Fascism is when the government dictates everything. Ever heard of WWII? Mussolini? It is complete totalitarianism - authoritarian regime. The absence of government is laissez faire, otherwise known as "freedom." Communism and free markets are not necessarily opposites. Communism can be authoritarian or it can be completely voluntary. In America, we had small pockets of voluntary communism back in the 1960s. So long as it's voluntary it's fine. Government use of force or coercion is wrong, just as individual use of force or coercion is wrong. It is the "force" part that makes it wrong. It is always wrong to initiate force against someone.
It seems you may have read too much economic theory of John Maynard Keynes.
WE, the PEOPLE, are the consumers. Consumers aren't "the other guy." Yes, if there are enough people who desire a product or service, the market CAN and WILL step up and provide that product or service.
As to your pollution example, that is the same as fraud. That is when the government steps in, when consumers get something other than what they request.
Facism is not simply a political ideology - it is also an economic ideology.Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[7] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[8] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[9]
(link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism)
In short, society should pay for the failure of the unfettered market as I mentioned previously...
I don't really know what JMK's work really has to do with anything but with regard to your fraud example as being an instance where the government should step in, much like pollution, then surely obesity is, in your own words "when consumers get something other than what they request."?
JMK is the reason that people believe that government interference in the market is a good thing. Someone who believes his theories is always going to be confused about economics.
When an act of pollution is committed, it is a violation of property rights. When a customer buys a soda, it's a conscious choice.0 -
My opinion, it was the government who okayed all this extra large servings and now they got us all addicted to it , and now they are going to take it all away...whats next chocolate??? boy there would be alot of PMSing women ready to kill if that would happen....
and i think high fructose corn syrup is more of a problem than real sugar...i think they need to ban the us of HFCS in foods, that is a horrible chemical they allowed to be used in our foods that we eat...its almost like they are trying to kill us off faster0 -
You can still get free refills. I know most places you eat will give you free refills when eating in.
What's next?0 -
We could tax the *kitten* out of unhealthy foods (and the companies) to levy the healthy ones! No kid needs flourescent blue soda, but loads of people cannot even afford fruit. Cheaper fruit and veg and we can make macdonalds and coca cola pay for it!
Ah, just you wait, when I take over the world...
Seriously though I think the ban is a good idea, but maybe dealt with wrongly, but serving sizes in the USA are baffling. Granted it is just political posturing though.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions