Too many loopholes around limiting size. If you want to discourage consumption, just tax it like alcohol.
This is true. Most developed countries have implemented a sugary drink tax, but in conjunction some have also required the amount of sugar in those products to be reduced by a certain percentage. France also implemented a law that refills on sugary drinks are no longer allowed.
I hope that the US would eventually follow the example.
Even without going down the added sugar rabbit hole, soda, sports and energy drinks are the 4th highest source of calories in the US diet.
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Can I imagine a case of that nature where people with guns show up? Sure. But that's not how enforcement generally works in those cases.
There are kinds of laws where it isn't even relevant. Guys with guns are mostly reserved for criminal issues. If a public university fails to comply with certain federal laws, the feds will stop giving that university's students financial aid, stop funding that university's researchers grants, and that sort of thing. No guys with guns are directly involved.
If large sodas are made illegal (a silly, nanny-esque idea, and a waste of the government's time and my tax money, IMO), and someone sells giant sodas, I think the result will be lawsuits, fines, and possibly the eventual revocation of things needful to do business (licenses, etc.).
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Can I imagine a case of that nature where people with guns show up? Sure. But that's not how enforcement generally works in those cases.
There are kinds of laws where it isn't even relevant. Guys with guns are mostly reserved for criminal issues. If a public university fails to comply with certain federal laws, the feds will stop giving that university's students financial aid, stop funding that university's researchers grants, and that sort of thing. No guys with guns are directly involved.
If large sodas are made illegal (a silly, nanny-esque idea, and a waste of the government's time and my tax money, IMO), and someone sells giant sodas, I think the result will be lawsuits, fines, and possibly the eventual revocation of things needful to do business (licenses, etc.).
Ok. I concede that is the more likely scenario, most of the time. I think I actually find it more distressing to think that swarms of lawyers and bureaucrats will waste time and resources stamping out the evils of one too many ounces of sugar syrup in a cup being transferred between two consenting adults for money. And before they can waste time on the enforcement, they would have to waste even more time and resources and sponsor studies to determine just how many ounces is too many, just so that the convenience store ends up selling two 20 oz. bottles of Coke to an individual (for a greater profit) instead of a single 40 oz. fountain drink.
But who wanted to tell me that I hated poor people because I would require the bottle deposit to be paid in cash in order to curb SNAP abuse?
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
Men with guns (um, police officers) are often the first step for a variety of violations.
Re the fine/ticket issue I mentioned, probably not, so long as there's some other way to enforce the fine, which there is. More likely the fine increases and my car may eventually get towed.
Laws re soda (which I'm not in favor of) would be fining a business that ignores them (businesses get fined commonly for violations of the law, rarely is anyone arrested). I agree with theoldguy that focusing on size is pointless (fine, I'll buy two) and taxes are a better remedy if someone wants to try focusing on a soda-based approach (super politically unpopular, however, so don't hold your breath anyone!).
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Funny (to me) story -- at a former job I represented a local pharmaceutical company that also made a brand of consumer products where they were really focused on defending their trademarks and trade dress. We had gotten a preliminary injunction in the SD of Florida (i.e., Miami), against a company infringing on their trade dress, and the other company ignored it and violated it. When my client (in-house counsel) found out, she was livid and wanted me to get the federal prosecutor in Miami to file criminal charges. I basically laughed at her, as he would have done. We did get nice monetary sanctions.
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Funny (to me) story -- at a former job I represented a local pharmaceutical company that also made a brand of consumer products where they were really focused on defending their trademarks and trade dress. We had gotten a preliminary injunction in the SD of Florida (i.e., Miami), against a company infringing on their trade dress, and the other company ignored it and violated it. When my client (in-house counsel) found out, she was livid and wanted me to get the federal prosecutor in Miami to file criminal charges. I basically laughed at her, as he would have done. We did get nice monetary sanctions.
I thought you were an attorney; I appreciate your informed & applied perspective.
I have experience with some higher ed legal-conflict scenarios, otherwise I'm just a normal, barely/slightly informed citizen talking bullDoody.
This is a pie-in-the-sky, not-at-all-realistic wish, but, basing the cost of food on the number of calories would be great. The more the calories, the higher the price. I'd be healthy AND rich! lol.
Note: This is NOT real suggestion... for so many obvious reasons.
Too many loopholes around limiting size. If you want to discourage consumption, just tax it like alcohol.
This is true. Most developed countries have implemented a sugary drink tax, but in conjunction some have also required the amount of sugar in those products to be reduced by a certain percentage. France also implemented a law that refills on sugary drinks are no longer allowed.
I hope that the US would eventually follow the example.
Laws regulating how much of an ingredient can be used in food/beverages?
Hard pass.
What I eat and what I drink is none of the government's business.
Too many loopholes around limiting size. If you want to discourage consumption, just tax it like alcohol.
This is true. Most developed countries have implemented a sugary drink tax, but in conjunction some have also required the amount of sugar in those products to be reduced by a certain percentage. France also implemented a law that refills on sugary drinks are no longer allowed.
I hope that the US would eventually follow the example.
Laws regulating how much of an ingredient can be used in food/beverages?
Hard pass.
What I eat and what I drink is none of the government's business.
Unless the government starts paying more and more of the nation's healthcare cost and it can be reasonably determined that some items of food and drink are disproportionately contributing to health problems. In that case what you eat/drink does become the government's business. IMO, most likely in the form of taxes on high calorie, low nutrient foods and drinks.
People just need to take some personal responsibility. Anyone who's made it past fourth grade should be able to figure this out.
Eat less. Take a walk. Ta Da.
I agree. Im tired of so many people needing to have their hand held whenever they do anything nowadays. There are dozens of calorie counting and food tracking apps available now. Such as the very one we are on now ! If people cant take five lousy minutes at each meal to log and track their food then they are probably too lazy to have success with most any endeavor. Many in modern society seem to want everything done for them. Its really tragic
I would say adding a health coach to each doctors office and covering health coaching with insurance so people can have the accountability, support and information they need to complete all of the suggestions they are given.
I would say adding a health coach to each doctors office and covering health coaching with insurance so people can have the accountability, support and information they need to complete all of the suggestions they are given.
People will just ignore the advice as they do that of the doctor, just adding another layer of cost.
How many people get the advice to eat less and move from the doctor and don't do it?
I don't think we necessarily need more laws. I do love the calorie disclosure though. I just think society as a whole needs to adopt a better attitude regarding health and food. If you look at other countries with a lower obesity rate their portions are smaller and people bike and walk more as opposed to driving,
Stop subsidizing the sugar, corn and wheat industries. Let food cost what it actually cost so that a salad doesn't cost 10X as much as wonder bread. If isn't real and it forces people to make unnatural decisions
Replies
Even without going down the added sugar rabbit hole, soda, sports and energy drinks are the 4th highest source of calories in the US diet.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
All with virtually no nutritional content
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Can I imagine a case of that nature where people with guns show up? Sure. But that's not how enforcement generally works in those cases.
There are kinds of laws where it isn't even relevant. Guys with guns are mostly reserved for criminal issues. If a public university fails to comply with certain federal laws, the feds will stop giving that university's students financial aid, stop funding that university's researchers grants, and that sort of thing. No guys with guns are directly involved.
If large sodas are made illegal (a silly, nanny-esque idea, and a waste of the government's time and my tax money, IMO), and someone sells giant sodas, I think the result will be lawsuits, fines, and possibly the eventual revocation of things needful to do business (licenses, etc.).
Ok. I concede that is the more likely scenario, most of the time. I think I actually find it more distressing to think that swarms of lawyers and bureaucrats will waste time and resources stamping out the evils of one too many ounces of sugar syrup in a cup being transferred between two consenting adults for money. And before they can waste time on the enforcement, they would have to waste even more time and resources and sponsor studies to determine just how many ounces is too many, just so that the convenience store ends up selling two 20 oz. bottles of Coke to an individual (for a greater profit) instead of a single 40 oz. fountain drink.
But who wanted to tell me that I hated poor people because I would require the bottle deposit to be paid in cash in order to curb SNAP abuse?
Men with guns (um, police officers) are often the first step for a variety of violations.
Re the fine/ticket issue I mentioned, probably not, so long as there's some other way to enforce the fine, which there is. More likely the fine increases and my car may eventually get towed.
Laws re soda (which I'm not in favor of) would be fining a business that ignores them (businesses get fined commonly for violations of the law, rarely is anyone arrested). I agree with theoldguy that focusing on size is pointless (fine, I'll buy two) and taxes are a better remedy if someone wants to try focusing on a soda-based approach (super politically unpopular, however, so don't hold your breath anyone!).
Funny (to me) story -- at a former job I represented a local pharmaceutical company that also made a brand of consumer products where they were really focused on defending their trademarks and trade dress. We had gotten a preliminary injunction in the SD of Florida (i.e., Miami), against a company infringing on their trade dress, and the other company ignored it and violated it. When my client (in-house counsel) found out, she was livid and wanted me to get the federal prosecutor in Miami to file criminal charges. I basically laughed at her, as he would have done. We did get nice monetary sanctions.
I thought you were an attorney; I appreciate your informed & applied perspective.
I have experience with some higher ed legal-conflict scenarios, otherwise I'm just a normal, barely/slightly informed citizen talking bullDoody.
Note: This is NOT real suggestion... for so many obvious reasons.
Laws regulating how much of an ingredient can be used in food/beverages?
Hard pass.
What I eat and what I drink is none of the government's business.
Unless the government starts paying more and more of the nation's healthcare cost and it can be reasonably determined that some items of food and drink are disproportionately contributing to health problems. In that case what you eat/drink does become the government's business. IMO, most likely in the form of taxes on high calorie, low nutrient foods and drinks.
Too many laws actually.
I agree. Im tired of so many people needing to have their hand held whenever they do anything nowadays. There are dozens of calorie counting and food tracking apps available now. Such as the very one we are on now ! If people cant take five lousy minutes at each meal to log and track their food then they are probably too lazy to have success with most any endeavor. Many in modern society seem to want everything done for them. Its really tragic
People will just ignore the advice as they do that of the doctor, just adding another layer of cost.
How many people get the advice to eat less and move from the doctor and don't do it?