NYC Large sugary drink ban proposed

I'd also like to point out that soda is cheap due to govt corn subsidies. Maybe THAT is where the govt should back out!

^ This

Effing corn subsidies. Spending SO MUCH taxpayer money for stuff that is bad for the environment and bad for the body. Stupid. Just watched a West Wing episode dealing with this so I'm all riled up about corn right now :P

I totally agree!

I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, but that's only going to solve obesity on an individual level. We have a societal problem, which means we probably need a societal solution. We live in an environment that sets us up to fail. Fake foods, loaded with fats, sugars and refined carbs are prevalent and inexpensive. Kids don't even know what vegetables are anymore. And, yes, those of us who pull it together and employ willpower will be successful. But the thing is, I want everyone to be successful, not just the elite who can overcome their environment. I don't want kids to be obese because their parents only shop at the bodega and don't provide better. I don't want obesity to be the punishment for kids whose parents can't exercise personal responsibility. If personal responsibility were the answer, we'd be thin by now.

That said, this particular law seems unpolished. A huge milkshake is still ok? I liked the suggestion of displaying the calorie content on the cup with a warning.

Does NYC really have that much money, that they can afford the policing costs of this? Imagine getting busted for selling 17oz of soda. Selling 4-12 oz cups and a cup holder is ok?, but selling one 48 oz cup is against the law? All this does is increase the garbage in the environment.

Yes

and please only one Krispy Kreme donut per customer, thank you.

My weight is none of the government's business.

So who pays for the medical costs of obesity?

When the health care system isn't government-run, individuals do. You aren't suggesting that this level of regulation would be free, correct?

It's been fun, but if I continue to debate this, it will probably be with those who get a vote.

(No offense intended, btw) :flowerforyou:

My libertarian tendencies probably guide me on this more than my weight focus, but this is an awful idea. If "the government" needs to do something, it should stop subsidizing the grain/HFCS/sugar industries and stop steering insulin resistant people towards a low-fat diet.

Biggest problem - it will not work.

If people want to drink a lot of soda, they're going to do it. All this will do is transfer money from people who drink sodas to people who don't. I would guess that poorer folks drink more sodas than wealthier folks, so this will end up being reverse income redistribution. argh!

I read that by 2030 42% of Americans are projected to be obese. Something needs to change for certain!

I agree that people should be more healthy, but putting a law place about what people can or can't consume in eating establishments is going too far. If people want to be healthy and care, then they will make better decisions. This is not a mass effort. Its a personal, individual effort.

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.

I don't see how that is the answer at all.... I agree with the principal behind it, but what else is next. If I go to the movies once a year and want a super size soda, that should be my choice. There are far more effective things.... tax junk food (which I know is difficult to do ), offer more gym time and recess time at school (increase the length of the school day to do this or have the kids go a few extra days to make up the time), offer free workout classes or gym memberships, cut out the advertising to kids especially, more campaigns to promote nutrition and show how bad some of the "bad" foods really are.

Can't increase recess time for New York City public schools because they no longer have any playgrounds. Playgrounds were used to build additions to ease over crowding.

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.

So you think starving the poor is a better solution? Making processed foods more expensive will not make fresh things cheaper.. or easier to get.

What? No, I would have no issue with subsidies for healthy food. But the government's idea of "healthy" is pink goop. The government also thinks that pizza is a vegetable.