City planning to ban sale of oversized sweetened drinks

A store chain called Fresh & Easy is making its way and it makes eating healthy affordable. It's a response to market forces - believe it

I have a problem with this. Why does a store chain have to pave the way for healthy affordable eating? It should exist everywhere, no matter what. Fresh & Easy is only located in Nevada, California, and Arizona...so while those states will have affordable healthy lifestyles, the rest of the country will remain at a standstill

It's the same thing as places like subway offering the "fresh fit option" and taco bell's "fresco" menu...why has society become so hooked on the unhealthy options that it has become the norm? These ideas should not be seen as innovative ways to get healthier...the fact these companies are a huge part of the obesity problem.

We are a society of excess...we get everything we want, when we want it, and it is disgusting.

I've got no problem with getting what I want when I want it. and now that I'm in the gym and eating better, I can do that with no worries.

Why are people refering to this as a prohibition? It's not banning establishments from selling as many sugary drinks as people will buy; it is banning them from selling sugary drinks in a certain size cup!

This is effective for two reasons. First, little kids always love to have the largest size of everything, so this limits what they are going to get. Second, establishments always price items so that the consumer thinks the larger size [popcorn, soda, fries, whatever] is the better deal, even though the business still earns more profit when selling the larger item. That's why movie theater popcorn only costs 50% more to buy a tub that is 400% the size. Restricting serving size breaks the cycle of "Let me buy the 32 oz. soda because it costs less per oz. than the 12 oz soda."

By the way, the trick of offering "discounts" on items that are less likely to be sold anyway is a famous one in economics. Let's just say that businesses aren't offering student discounts or senior discounts as a favor to YOU.

Stupid.

How about instead of banning them you just eliminate the ridiculous subsidies for corn and corn byproducts (e.g. high fructose corn syrup) and let the price of regular soda dictate the market? And hey - I'm not even a Libertarian - I'm a Dem!

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

This.

Times infinity.

jane, ftw.


I just don't get it. really. why is it OK for the government to tell me what I can buy -- which it really is here -- and tell companies what they can sell me? limiting sugary drinks to 16 ounces is insane intrusion.

(maybe someone should tell bloomberg that there's been a 20 percent reduction in calories consumed, per capita, through soda over the last 10 years already. I think we're doing OK on our own, gov.)

Sure, I think HUGE portion sizes of food and drinks just distorts our view of how much we should actually be eating at a time, so getting rid of ridiculously large serves of anything seems like a great idea to me.
But, I don't think it should apply onto to sweetened drinks, it should apply to all drinks. Otherwise you are still led to believe that a huge serving size is normal, or necessary, regardless of what is actually in the cup.

So even if I got a 'big gulp' and filled it with Unsweetened Unflavored Iced Tea, then that amount of 0 calorie beverage is unnecessary for me?

Hmmm...and I thought I was supposed to drink 64oz of water a day...:grumble:

The food police are right around the corner

There goes another little bit of free choice (freedom).

They'll chip away and chip away until its all gone.

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

I won't bother restating, that is perfect.

Americans have a tendency to force their opinions on others as laws. It is disappointing. If someone wants to drink a pound of sugar, smoke a cigarette in their own place of business, or marry their same sex cousin, it is really none of anyone's business. F'ing haters.

This guy's gonna be upset:

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

But they aren't limiting how much you eat/drink - it just means that if you want two large drinks, you buy two large drinks. How is that restricting your liberty?

The problem here is government regulation of private industry. Can I buy two mediums if I want a large? Sure. But why should "Big Brother" dictate whether a corporation can sell a large in the first place? It's socialist at best to interject government regulations on private endeavors. Don't you have enough on your mind these days, government? You need to start stirring your fingers around in the private sector as well? GET OUT!!

Look, would having laws like this mean that MFP would no longer be needed? They are still going to be free refills. It's a stupid move. Healthy eating is a lifestyle, not a law.

For example: People still get drink, and even when booze was illegal, people still drank. Our culture is created by advertizing and occasionally pop creative folks. It will never work.

It is the same thing with guns. When they are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them. Good luck New York.

This ^^^^

You can't regulate personal responsibility.

Amen, dsjohndrow

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

This.

This quote sums up my feelings on that train of thought nicely.

"So I’m not a health freak, and no, I don’t want to pass laws mandating the eating of broccoli. But I do want us to understand how wrong and simple-minded our definition of freedom is today. Any time the government appears to be suggesting some program aimed at getting people to do something that is obviously good for themselves—buying health insurance, not eating a bucket of popcorn big enough that two cats could screw in it—a certain number of idiots jump up and cry “Ha! Nanny state! Taking away my freedom!”"

I could say more, but none of it would be particularly polite. However, I will say I enjoy having a government that actually cares about it's citizens. Government has a place in maintaining the well-being and general welfare of all of it's citizens at all times, and if that means some restrictions and/or requirements on behavior then so be it. After all, we already live in that world and I do not see much of a difference over I can't own an artillery piece over I can't buy a 2,000 calorie beverage. No typical person has the need for either one and both can too easily cause damage to society as a whole. In short, the rights of one person do not trump the good of us all.

I think I'm a libertarian at heart, because I will never think it's right to legally regulate things just because they're unhealthy. Especially if they're only unhealthy to the person consuming them. If people want to kill themselves slowly with sugar it's not my business. If they want to kill themselves fast with crack that's not my business, either.

Down with the nanny state.

This fer realz!

I think that people are forgetting that portion control is only part of the obesity problem in this country. Limiting the size of drinks is only slapping a band aid on the problem. The fact is a lot of people (adult and children) get zero exercise. How many conversations have you had with people that are full of nothing but excuses why they can't get off their butts and exercise. Kids don't play outside, they hide in their rooms with their video games. Family are doing fewer and fewer activities together. I know a lot of families that have never sat down together for dinner, its always fend for yourself.

I can go on and on listing reasons why as a country we are getting bigger. Taking away someone's rights to pick whatever size soda they want will not fix anything.

It will fix the problem of so many liquid calories and sugar going into the body from one cup. But no, it does not solve the epidemic, but it's a step in the right direction.