(New York City) Health Board Approves Ban on Large Sugary Drinks

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

Seeking to combat rising obesity rates, the New York City Board of Health approved on Thursday a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, enacting the first restriction of its kind in the country.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who proposed the measure, celebrated its passage on Twitter.

“NYC’s new sugary drink policy is the single biggest step any gov’t has taken to curb obesity,” he wrote. “It will help save lives.”

The measure, unless blocked by a judge, will take effect in six months. The health board vote was the only regulatory approval needed to become binding in the city, but the American soft-drink industry has strongly opposed the plan and vowed this week to try to fight the measure by other means, possibly in the courts.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html

---

Unbelievable. This is an obviously unconstitutional interference in adults' dietary choices, even though I personally would never buy such large drinks. A judge better block it. There are better solutions to combat obesity.

[4th law of robotics]

1. We have to ban these drinks to compensate for the massive subsidies

we give to corn producers so they can cheaply produce these drinks leading to overconsumption.

Duh!

[randome]

4. Yeah, well, since NYC can't control that, I suppose they are doing the next best thing.

[4th law of robotics]

6. I'm pretty sure this will accomplish nothing.

[alp227]

26. How about ending cornfare?

(Corn welfare)

Or banning high fructose corn syrup instead?

[MadrasT]

2. Yet another reason to never set foot in NYC.

I don't generally buy such beverages, but object to the nanny policy.

Fuck Bloomberg.

[loli phabay]

17. yup and if any new yorkers want them then here in va we have big gulp loophole

And we are happy to supply them at a premium.

[valerief]

3. Aren't the drinks high fructose corn syrupy and not sugary? nt

[alp227]

27. There is sugar AND HFCS.

91 grams of sugar in a Big Gulp! It's true that the soft drinks sold in the US are sweetened with mostly HFCS. The nutrition facts will say "Sugars __ g" and in the ingredients "high fructose corn syrup". See Sprite nutrition facts/ingredients for instance.

[qanda]

5. While I don't agree with eliminating people's right to choose the larger sizes of drinks

Soda is so bad for your health. I hope it, at least, makes people more aware of the choices they are making. Watching family members suffer with diabetes, at an alarming rate, is enough to make me HATE soda.

[Jennicut]

16. Diabetes is not caused by merely drinking too much soda, though.

Type 2 diabetes can be hereditary, and the factors are age, ethnicity and cholesterol and weight. I have type 1 diabetes and I have to worry about all food, every kind of food, all day long. This is a nanny state to me. If you don't want type 2 diabetes, you have to look at your entire diet. And even then, it might not be preventable. In my support group at my local hospital many of the type 2 diabetics were not even over weight.

[Tikki]

7. I think that this is a brave decision by New York and I applaud their determination...

to start a different dietetic standard to model for future generations.


Tikki

[davidthegnome]

21. The line between brave and stupid may be thin...

But I did not think it had become nonexistent. How is this going to set a standard? It is limiting the size of drinks only, as far as I'm aware. So instead of having a large sugary drink at a restaurant, your young punks especially (like me) are going to have a smaller one at the restaurant, then pick up another from the local store. Is that the sort of dietetic standard we should be striving for?

I have learned a variety of things from my (ongoing) education so far. I have learned the sort of ethics I prefer from the companies I will buy products from, I have learned that I despise companies like Nike, Walmart, Hershey, etc. (thus I no longer buy from them) I have learned that, when you try to forbid something, it actually becomes even more tempting to those who are forbidden.

Now perhaps in time even I will learn to stay away from the evils of the large sugary drink. What I resent, what I protest to and what I would mock and laugh at to my dying day is someone telling me I can't have one, in whatever size I like. Sure I can, just maybe not at a restaurant. Oh well. That's why we have alcohol right?

[Tikki]

31. ...and some, especially parents, won't be doing as you do...

Tikki

[davidthegnome]

58. The ones that already don't

Beyond that, I'm not convinced. I guess we'll see - but I can't see this as a step in the right direction towards improving public health, it does not do enough, it doesn't actually do ANYTHING effective.

[alp227]

28. I may be sounding like a freeper or libertarian right here, but I say let consumers decide!

As long as others like the NYC government or nutrition advocates get the message out! Check out this billboard campaign by my county:



http://www.facebook.com/ChooseWaterNow

[MercutioATC]

77. Right, because nobody can order another 16-ounce drink...

...and no establishment can offer unlimited refills...

...and the law covers non-restaurant venues like Convenient stores (it doesn't)...

It's a knee-jerk nanny-state law enacted solely to provide the ILLUSION of solving a problem.

[Tikki]

81. Absolutely...but when a little one asks for money for a soda...

hopefully, the parents will give exact change for the new standard size. This will be repeated over
and over again and it will be what most children will grow up with. They will become used
to quenching their thirst with that amount and it will save money and sugar intake at the
same time.
Look who is REALLY out of sorts on this new law. The companies who want the standard size larger and more costly.
If someone needs to drink more sugar soda they can, yes, order another one...


Tikki

[MercutioATC]

82. This law doesn't apply to convience stores.

...so your hope that parents give the kiddies exact change for the smaller size has nothing to do with this law.

There's actually a good possibility that the backlash will result in more restaurants offering free refills, actually INCREASING the sugar intake of kids. This was a Bloomberg PR ploy, nothing more.

[Tikki]

83. You could be correct or like in California where restaurant owners were..

going to lose all their customers because of the smoking ban. Didn't happen...in fact most Californians
cheer the no smoking law.
The NY law gives a 'chance' to make a difference in the sugar intake for everyone.
It is just a 'chance' and I hope it works.
Backlash...why so important to backlash? Again, who will win in this battle?

Tikki

[MercutioATC]

84. It's clear who wins this battle. The nanny state.

...and we lose.

A question: Do you feel that you possess the personal restraint and intelligence to order an appropriate beverage for yourself at a restaurant?

[Tikki]

85. I quit smoking after realizing that it was a losing battle...

It was a habit with which it's time had passed.
No one won but the tobacco company. The nanny state only wins by
extra taxes and less tobacco related disease...but when no one smokes
anymore, that is the true goal.
I don't drink sugar soda..so maybe I am not really a part of this.
I do have grandchildren and if I lived in NYC I would follow the
guideline hoping that my family would be part of a making a difference.


Tikki

[MercutioATC]

86. So you obviously have the ability to resist temptation for your greater good.

Why do you believe that others don't have this ability and that it's the government's place to protect them fro themselves?

[Tikki]

87. There is childhood obesity...common sense would lead parents to try to look...

into what would be causing their obese child's weight. It can be overwhelming
to fight this battle with a child. Many parents give up. Many parents look for help.
This sugar soda thing is just a step if you chose to start thinking in a different
way about what is causing a real problem.
Kids and, yes, some parents will follow the new rule/law to be part of the group
And other's won't.
I would and be glad it was backed up with facts.
Maybe the problem is that this is really only a small step in a much bigger problem.


Tikki

[MercutioATC]

88. That wasn't my question.

Since you obviously have the ability to resist temptation and make healthy lifestyle choices, why do you believe that others can't do the same.

Nobody forced you to quit smoking. They didn't even legislate the number of cigarettes you could buy..yet you made a healthy choice. Why do you believe that others can't do the same without being forced to by legislation?

[Tikki]

89. Again, some are overwhelmed with a situation that seems out of their control..

Especially when it comes to their children. Yes, it is their responsibility to
make decisions for their children..
What is wrong with working toward a shift in a cultural norm..a healthier approach starting with this?
As I already stated many will need no help in making
any of their life's decisions.
Peer pressure is an outstanding motivator. Yes, I give credit to the whole voting
state of California for passing a law that made me realize I could jump on the healthier bandwagon
and still be a winner.

Tikki
If you want me to admit I was once ignorant to
the health risks of smoking, OK I was.

[MercutioATC]

90. There's nothing wrong with working toward a cultural shift.

There IS something wrong, however, with forcing people to change a minor lifestyle choice through legislative means.

...and, regardless of what advertising or the government tells you, inhaling smoke into one's lungs is an inherently unhealthy practice. You may not have been advised of all of the possible dangers, but anybody with common sense would realize that it's not a healthy choice.

[randome]

91. "Anyone with common sense" would realize soda is poison.

[Tikki]

92. But when I was young smoking was fabulous..exotic and romantic..

Some brave health care providers began to speak of the dangers of inhaling
that smoke with it's poison's and tars into the body.
I did realize, finally, as the truth began to penetrate the B S.

I really just want parents to finally realize they can have a partner in saying; This is the
size sugar soda I want you to drink, this is the size sugar soda I drink and there is
a real reason for this.

I probably have a problem communicating because I wasn't a Logic Major.

Tikki

[christx30]

8. This is a victory

For people too stupid to run their own lives and make their own decisions. They keep voting this joker into office.
Well, to them I say, "Enjoy it." And wonder what is the next thing he'll ban. Caffienated coffee? Red meat? Profanity?
I look forward to all the ways that locals will find to get around this law. Sell a 16oz drink for exactly half the price of a 32oz, and sell an empty 32oz cup for a penny.
Or, better yet, violate the ban and sue once you get fined. Take it up to SCOTUS and get the ban struck down. That's what they are there for. To stop little despots like Bloomberg from keeping too much power.

[dkhbrit]

9. Soda consumption

Soda consumption continues to decline while obesity continues to rise. This is fact. As long as people want to continue to blame soda we will never solve for obesity. Why not ban supersized fast food meals? How about those king sized candy bars?

Calories in vs. calories out. It isn't hard, people. There isn't a single foodstuff in our supermarket that will make you obese if, and I emphasize if, you consume it in moderation. Moderation might mean very little for some foods, but those are the facts. And get some exercise, that way you can enjoy a little more if you want to.

[Mopar151]

13. To a type 2 diabetic, fruit juice = soda

Same amount of sugar - it's that effing simple.

And regarding the NY regulation - how does the ice content figure in, as most takeout sodas are sold with ice? At least to my taste buds, most sodas - particularly older flavors - seem to be formulated to taste right with about 1/3 to 1/2 dilution with ice.

[undergroundpanther]

40. If it was THAT simple

to lose weight as in calories in/out we'd all be thin.People who think the calorie in and out model works,they have no idea the complexities of changing a metabolism. A lot of fat people eat LESS than thin, people do. Diets FAIL,at a 98% rate.
If diets worked there wouldn't be so many of them being promoted like a magic health solution.If dieting actually worked and nobody would be fat.Nobody would regain it after using the regimen for months or years. Yet the fat phobes, continue giving unwanted sanctimonious advice,as if they KNOW why people get fat,is fucking rude. Our narcissistic vain obsessed and superficial society piles on that all pervasive pressure to conform,suffer to be beautiful,reduce calorie intake excercize more and become food obsessed,until you are scared to eat, scared to miss the gym because of the humiliation fat people face,daily. Social pressures,fat bigotry, ignorance that some people have about fat people is abusive and toxic to well being,self acceptance and accepting differences in a diverse world.


Fat Bigots are as toxic as racism,homophobia or any other bigotry. But right now browbeating the "fatties" is a hateful bigotry our society now accepts.Right now fat bigots can get away with it.Maybe one day they won't get away with it anymore.Maybe the promotion of the failure called calories in/out will finally be shown to the to be the failure it really is to all these simplistic vain people. Not all overweight people eat tons of junk food drink humongous sodas or fast food.I don't drink sodas,I don't use sugar,I do everything in moderation yet my bodies set-point never budges.
I diet and I yo yo and when it is done I end up fatter,than BEFORE the diet because my bodies set-point drops further. So I gave up on calorie in calorie out dieting,and I haven't gotten any fatter.

This legislation is Fat Bigotry motivated by that same bigoted assumption that fat people use more resources than thin people do.I see A LOT of thin people drinking super big gulps.And over time they don't gain weight.Lucky sperm club anyone?.Go figure. BTW don't tell me how to feed myself.I eat healther than most thin people do on my cheesy budget.

[Psephos]

43. Well said. n/t

[nobodyspecial]

67. Although genetics plays a role, it isn't the sole determinant

and really plays a smaller role than most people will admit. Often, you see families of obese people but it isn't genetic. It's that they share they same eating and exercise habits.

And although it is as simple as calories in as calories out, and if your body defies this, it really needs to be studied for science -- you need a lot more information to do the equation. For example, what is your weight? If it is more than 300 pounds, a 1,200 daily calorie intake is not enough by a long shot. If you go to this, you throw your body into starvation mode, and it will hang onto every calorie.

It also matters what your body composition is. If you build muscle mass and are active regularly, you can consume a lot more calories than someone who weighs exactly the same but has more fat mass and is sedentary.

Physical activity plays a huge role and to me, this is the biggest reason behind the uptick in obesity. People, especially kids, simply aren't getting outside and being active. It's interesting to looking at the graphs that correlate the increase in childhood obesity with the increasing popularity of video games and computers.

Yes, it is more complex. But throwing up your hands and not making changes is not the answer either. It has nothing with being a fat bigot. Are you able to complete daily living tasks easily? Are you able to enjoy activities and live your best life? Not everyone needs to be skinny, but they certainly can take steps -- literally, as in at least 10,000 per day -- to be healthier. Throw in some squats, pushups, dips and crunches and you're well on your way.

[Mr.Turnip]

10. Fucking Nanny Bloomy.

[Grave Grumbler]

11. The Nanny State is alive and well in NYC.

[closeupready]

12. Probably violates the interstate commerce clause, but

what do I know.

[alp227]

51. How does this law interfere with other states' commerce?

[oberliner]

14. This is absolutely insane

I completely concur with your assessment.

[davidthegnome]

15. .... Just, uh, .....

Wow. You know, I'm a student... and I'll say it, I LOVE large sugary drinks. Sure, it might do some damage - but in the short term it keeps me awake for class. The idea that some idiots are going to "protect" our health by ensuring that large sodas/sugary drinks cannot be sold at restaurants... street carts... or, uh, movie theaters? Is frigging insane. If it were banned altogether, there might be a point to this - but that would be even MORE moronic, which is hard to imagine unless you think of the prohibition - another "Noble Experiment".

Restaurants can sell alcohol in a huge variety of forms. Movie theaters will still sell all kinds of candy and snacks with all kinds of bad fattening bad for you stuff in it. So to suggest that this is somehow going to save lives or improve public health is moronic. People will still drink whatever they please - this stupidity is only ensuring that they won't be able to enjoy doing so at some of their favorite places. I guess we can always let it sit and wait to see if this "noble experiment" works out for the righteous crusaders in their valiant effort to protect Americans from being, uhm, fat.

Maybe for tomorrow's crusade we could try banning Mcdonalds, or Burger King, or maybe we could try banning ice cream from restaurants? Yeah, pretty stupid idea, isn't it?

[rayofreason]

49. Off to the reeducation camp with you! n/t

[AmyDeLune]

18. What's to stop me from ordering 2 drinks?

If I can only order a 16oz beverage and want a 20oz, what's to stop me from just ordering 2 16oz drinks (which will give me 32oz, not healthier at all).

Will they then institute a limit for how many beverages I am allowed to purchase?

[MercutioATC]

78. Bloomberg will be there to stare at you in a really uncomfortable way.

Seriously, he will.

[Scout]

19. stupid, stupid, waste of time and resources. n/t

[davidthegnome]

20. The precedent being set by this

is what I really consider a threat. What will be next on the chopping block? We could go after various types of pastry, hell, we could tackle cheese burgers, steaks... all of those things people maybe shouldn't eat. Yeah, let's impose a legal limit on portion size at all public places... so people will just eat it at home, instead.

I'd be laughing really hard right now.. the thing is, this is actually serious. Like, people really think this is going to work....

[The Straight Story]

23. Once done with smokers they needed a new enemy

And after this will be a new one, and people will support like conservatives do things re: Muslims, because some folks love fear and want others to make their decisions for them. Except on abortion, the my body my choice actually means something.

[alp227]

29. Regarding smokers, I don't want others blowing smoke in my face.

My view is that people who want to smoke should do it in their OWN HOME or a closed space rather than in the presence of other non smokers in the public.

[Psephos]

44. But you're good with cars belching toxic gases by the streetful?

Cigarette smoke is orders of magnitude less toxic than tailpipe gas, which many have used to commit suicide.

This kills me. You can't smoke on the street, while cars by the dozen and hundred pass you, emitting copious amounts of suicide gas all day, every day.

(I am not a smoker, btw.)

[randome]

46. It is NOT okay to poison the atmosphere and there is quite a lot of effort underway to lessen that.

Not nearly enough, obviously.

[alp227]

52. So drivers are now equivalent to entitled buttcracks who blow their smoke towards everyone?

Oh the things i learn at DU.

[CreekDog]

22. Not unconstitutional, no

and you can still buy sugary drinks, but the container size is limited.

so you can buy 10.

i'm not in favor of the rule, but it is legit.

[alp227]

53. Which part of the constitution allows such laws?

I wonder if a libertarian lawyer is now trying to use the citizens united precedent to argue that FOOD is speech, thus the soda ban violates the first amendment?

[proverbialwisdom]

24. NYC and the state of California were ahead of the curve on transfats. I knew none of this before.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/08/kids-cholestorol-trans-fat

Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop

By Tom Philpott| Tue Aug. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

<>

Teicholz reported trans-fat production was dominated by agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge. These companies ran a trade group called the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO), which "for decades" worked "behind the scenes to squelch bad news about trans fats." Teicholz reported:

[SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"]As far back as 1968, the ISEO was mentioned in an internal memo written by the medical director of the American Heart Association: According to the memo, the ISEO objected to the AHA’s intention to include a warning about trans fats in its dietary guidelines; subsequently, the AHA took it out.

And the food industry, too, actively sought to repress research showing trans fats' ill effects. According to Teicholz, independent-minded scientists examining the topic had to "deal with the tidal wave of industry pressure unleashed against them at meetings, conferences, and events. Their papers were rebutted with unusual ferocity, and their research funding was scarce." The pressures came from the industry's highest levels:

Dr. Thomas Applewhite and Dr. J. Edward Hunter, industry scientists employed, respectively, by Kraft and Procter & Gamble (which held the original U.S. patent for trans fats), were the principal forces behind this criticism. Given that they worked for two food giants, the potential for bias was apparent, but their ability to fund research (as well as their own encyclopedic knowledge of the field) meant they could exercise considerable influence.

With independent science about its health effects virtually nil, trans fats took on a healthy sheen, promoted by a food industry that was happy to have found a cheap replacement for butter that also worked well in deep frying. By the '70s, "margarine manufacturers used the slogan 'Healthy for Your Heart' and marketed the product like a drug to doctors," Teicholz reported.

Meanwhile, damage to public health was severe. Teicholz cited Harvard epidemiologist Walter Willett, who reckoned that "of the half million Americans who die prematurely each year from heart disease—the leading cause of death in this country—at least 30,000 are killed by trans fats."

The breaking point came in 2002, when a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences produced a scathing report on the effect of trans fats. Spurred by the NAS document, the FDA had little choice but to move on labeling, which it began to require in 2006. Then came bans on using trans fats in restaurants in New York City, Philadelphia, and California. The drop in trans fat consumption was swift—a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that trans-fat levels in the blood of white adults plunged by 58 percent between 2000 to 2009. (The fats the industry has seized upon to replace trans fats, palm oil and interesterificated vegetable oil, may present their own problems, both to health and the environment, but that is a topic for another post.)[/SPAN]

Although a long time in coming, the melting away of trans fats in the American diet shows that progress can be made—that when independent science can cut through industry-induced fog, and when regulators are compelled to do their job—the American diet can improve. But as the Journal of the American Medical Association article shows, things are still dire. Kids' cholesterol levels are coming down, the article notes, but obesity and overweight levels remain stubbornly high.

That unhappy fact, I think, stems from another practice the food industry picked up in the late '70s—adding massive amounts of empty sweeteners to processed food. As the journalist Gary Taubes has shown, the food industry has largely managed to bury a growing body of research on the harms of that habit.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Let the People Dance!

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

If New York City wants its citizens not to be fat, repeal the cabaret licensing law. The City severely restricts the number of dance venues with this archaic law, and virtually all are closed to those under 21.

Dancing is very good exercise.

LICENSE DESCRIPTION:
Any room, place, or space in New York City in which patron dancing is permitted in connection with the restaurant business or a business that sells food and/or beverages to the public requires a Cabaret license.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/licenses/073.shtml

Five of the Dumbest Laws in New York City (Besides the No-Brunch Law)

As news spread this morning that New York's city council is considering changing the law that prevents sidewalk cafes from opening before noon on Sunday -- they can open earlier on other days -- we know what went through the minds of many of you: That's a law, really?
Apparently, city councilman Dan Garodnick has been working for some time on a bill that would change the strange law, which makes us think we're living in Kansas or someplace else where drinking on a Sunday morning is for some bizarre reason frowned upon.

So that got us thinking, what other crazy laws do we have in this city? After the jump: five of the dumbest, most outdated local laws still on the books.


The No-Dancing Law

In the early 90's Mayor Giuliani began using an outdated Jazz Age law that prohibited dancing in nightclubs or bars without a cabaret license. The law states that a business must have a cabaret license if, "three or more people are found dancing" in the establishment. Giuliani didn't have to enforce the law, but he hates it when other people have fun. Despite a Million Mambo March protest and a 2003 repeal attempt the law is still on the books today.


The Fatty-Hamburger Law

Beef connoisseurs may appreciate this law, which makes it illegal for butchers to sell hamburgers that contain more than 30 percent fat. The punishment? Up to thirty days in jail. That's a pretty hefty punishment for a little bit of extra fat.


The No-Spit Law
…
The No-Mask Law
…
The No-Wine-With-Your-Groceries Law
…
!

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/five_dumb_new_york_city_laws.php

[font color=green size=8]LET THE PEOPLE DANCE[/font]

[alp227]

30. Dude, fix your code, everything ng after 'let the people dance'

got BLOWN UP IN SUPER HUGE FONT

[davidthegnome]

32. I like it

Dancing is awesome... except that I rarely run into people who know how. One thing I keep telling young people (well, people my own age... around 30 and younger) is that you have to move your feet. All they do is bob their heads and sway their hips - they think that's dancing. That's not dancing.

[AndyTiedye]

33. Comes from Trying to Dance in Stadium Seating

Dancing is awesome... except that I rarely run into people who know how. One thing I keep telling young people (well, people my own age... around 30 and younger) is that you have to move your feet. All they do is bob their heads and sway their hips - they think that's dancing. That's not dancing.

Been there, done that. It's what happens when you have to do most of your dancing in a stadium, arena, or "concert" venue with seats bolted to the floor. Overcrowded nightclubs are not much better.

Outdoors is the best.
?t=1344866048

[rayofreason]

34. I'll take 2 medium sodas please.

What nanny-state morons. But stupid is as stupid does. And anyone who wants more can get more.

[randome]

35. It will encourage some to think twice.

It isn't some kind of cure-all for obesity and no one is saying it is. But it makes people think and that might save relatively few lives or change their lives.

I haven't had a soda in three years. If they were banned altogether from the planet, I would have no problem with that.

You still have the right to rot your teeth and gut out as often as you want.

[rayofreason]

36. "Think twice" hah! Order twice more like it.

I never drink soda, only water or tea (or wine, but that is a different story), and I rarely eat any fast food - maybe 3-4 times/year out of necessity. But I have no illusions or desires to impose my choices on others.

How about banning sugar in 1 lb. bags in the stores while we are at it? People should buy it in one 1g pack at a time. It might make them think twice - about those who think that such measures will change behaviors.

Want to cure obesity? Have everyone read Gary Taubes book.

[randome]

37. Holding two sodas in your hand instead of one...

...will make SOME think, "What am I doing?"

You can make the point that this isn't a good thing but I don't see it as a bad thing, either.

And no one is trying to 'cure' obesity. This is just like a public service reminder.

[rayofreason]

48. Just sell a 32 oz. cup for a penny with the two sodas.

There are so many ways to get around this and to highlight the foolishness of control freaks. Truly a target-rich environment.

Want a public service reminder? Well how about....a public service reminder (TV ads, billboards, etc.) instead of a lame attempt to force people to cut back on super-sized sodas?

[alp227]

54. Public service announcement example is at reply 28.

[randome]

59. How is anyone FORCING anyone to do anything in regards to this?

As you say, there are many ways around it but it may make SOME people think twice.

Jesus Christ, it's like "I ain't gonna let the goddamned guv'miint take away my God-given right to big sodas!"

Shit, with everything that's going on in the world today, this is where you draw the line?

[MercutioATC]

79. That's soon to be the "Bloomberg Special" in NYC restaurants.

Two 16-oz sodas for the price of one.

[maratmuradyan]

38. Spam deleted by Paulie (MIR Team)

[WooWooWoo]

39. you know an easy way for businesses to get around this?

free refills.

[undergroundpanther]

41. calories...

If it were That easy...to lose weight as in that commonly believed but incredibly ignorant calories in/out model we'd all be thin.

People who think the calorie in and out model works all the time like some math equation,they have no idea the complexities of changing a body metabolism. A lot of fat people eat LESS than thin people do. Diets FAIL,at a 98% rate.


If diets worked there wouldn't be so many of them being promoted like a magic health solutions.If dieting actually worked and nobody would be fat.Nobody would regain it after using the regimen for months or years.

Yet the fat phobes still continue giving unwanted sanctimonious advice to the overweight as if they KNOW why fat people get fat,is is fucking rude.
Our narcissistic, vain, body/status obsessed and superficial society piles on that all pervasive pressure to conform,suffer to be beautiful,reduce calorie intake exercise more and more and become become food obsessed,until you are scared to eat things, scared to miss the gym because of the burning soul killing humiliation that fat people face,daily. Social pressures,fat bigotry, ignorance that some people have about fat people is abusive and toxic to well being,self acceptance and growing into as a culture, the accepting of body differences in a diverse world.


Fat Bigots are as toxic as racism,homophobia or any other bigotry. But right now browbeating the "fatties" is a hateful bigotry our society now accepts.Right now fat bigots can get away with it.Maybe one day they won't get away with it anymore.Maybe the promotion of the failure called calories in/out will finally be shown to the to be the failure it really is to all these simplistic vain people. Not all overweight people eat tons of junk food drink humongous sodas or fast food.I don't drink sodas,I don't use sugar,I do everything in moderation yet my bodies set-point never budges.
I diet and I yo yo and when it is done I end up fatter,than BEFORE the diet because my bodies set-point drops further. So I gave up on calorie in calorie out dieting,and I haven't gotten any fatter.

This legislation is Fat Bigotry motivated by that same bigoted assumption that fat people use more resources than thin people do.I see A LOT of thin people drinking super big gulps.And over time they don't gain weight.Lucky sperm club anyone?.Go figure. BTW don't tell me how to feed myself.I eat healthier than most thin people do on my cheesy budget.

read this
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full

[olddad56]

42. Psst. Hey tubby, wanna buy a big sugary drink?

the next black market.

[alp227]

55. Gangs bootlegging supersize soda????

The street value is going to be SO cheap compared with alcohol during prohibition or illegal narcotics today.

[lynne]

47. Now you have to buy two soda's to wash down that Mega-Supreme NY Pizza -

- LOL! The Nanny State at its finest!

[Remmah2]

50. Impose a one donut per cop sugar restriction.

See how far that one would go.

[NYC Liberal]

56. I was against it before. Now, I really don't mind.

Can people buy two smaller drinks? Sure. Are they going to? Most probably are not. It will be a sufficient deterant and much more effective than a tax would be. (And if so many people here are going to do that, then one wonders why they'd care anyway.)

In short, the hysterical overreactions to this are, well, hysterical.

[TomClash]

57. Did they shut Free Republic down?

It seems that Invasion of the Body Snatchers happened right here!

These comments are hilarious. Most people in NYC don't think their liberty depends upon the right to buy a 42 oz soft drink containing 500 calories.

[closeupready]

60. Seriously, when you subscribe to nothing but hatred,

eventually EVERYONE or their families is verbally abused. Thus, for those who were kicked out over there for being 'homosexualist' or 'socialist', it can be a boring internet for those who are political junkies.

[alp227]

61. What if Berkeley banned restaurants from serving meat?

While many on DU are vegan/vegetarian, I doubt many would support such a law.

Whatever happened to "my body my choice"? I think adults should have the right to do whatever the hell they want with their own diets. What is so hard about recognizing basic consumer choice?

[Throd]

62. You might make the wrong choice, so we must remove your ability to choose.

It's for your own good, so you shouldn't have any objections.

[alp227]

63. since when was it the state's responsibility to control adults' dietary choices?

or did you forget a sarcasm tag?

[Throd]

64. It isn't

I didn't think a sarcasm tag was necessary.

[TomClash]

65. Are we really comparing soda to meat?

And, by the way, soda isn't banned in NYC. The size of the container is regulated.

We regulate foodstuffs all the time. Like meat, certain types of which are already banned nationwide.

[alp227]

66. No, I just don't want government dictating adults' dietary choices.

Let adults decide what they want to drink. If a restaurant wants to serve super size drinks, their customers will decide whether the restaurant should keep making those large drinks. Of course that doesn't mean NYC doesn't get to create anti obesity campaigns like the one in my county (which has the sense to AVOID nanny state NYC type regulation):

[TomClash]

69. Is it working in your county? I doubt it.

New York City is trying to encourage certain healthy behaviour among children. You can still drink your sugary slime you just cannot buy it at restaurants in large sizes. Somehow that doesn't ring the liberty bell the way women's reproductive rights does. To me there is a HUGE difference.

By the way we tried posters and advertising and warnings. Kid got fatter.

[rachel1]

68. Good! Nobody should drink that much soda so ought to be banned

[alp227]

70. Of course no one should drink that much soda,

but does it REALLY take a government law to dictate so? Can cities also ban overeating, like this Milwaukee man who got kicked out of a buffet restaurant for overeating (but Milwaukee did NOT introduce a law against overeating, I wonder if mayor Tom Barrett being in the recall election against Gov. Scott Walker had to do with it...)

[randome]

71. No one is forbidding you from poisoning your body however you choose.

Limiting the size in restaurants will encourage SOME people to think twice about it. Is that so bad?

[alp227]

72. Are adult consumers not smart enough to make their own dietary choices?

I thought that consumer choice, not government interference, determines what businesses sell. Of course, it's OK for government to make safety regulations so that restaurants aren't selling food infected with E. Coli. But think about the business owners (some of whom are working class immigrants who run corner stores) who profit off the sale of those super size drinks.

[randome]

73. Tobacco. Seat belts. Jaywalking. Turn signals. Motorcycle helmets.

Product warranties.
Toy safety laws that protect children.
Radiation limits for microwaves and cell phones.
Smoke detectors in public buildings.
Safety and efficiency laws regarding lawmowers, electrical appliances, etc.

Surely adults are responsible enough to handle this without interference.

Those business owners will need to find other ways to make a profit besides doing the bidding of corporations trying to push us to consume ever greater portions of food and drink.

Most of which is deadly to one's health in even small portions.

Drink water instead of sugary corn syrup.

[alp227]

74. Comparing portion size control with seat belt laws now?

Seat belt laws, toy safety laws, smoke detector laws, etc. are all intended for basic SAFETY. Companies can't neglectfully sell shoddy, dangerous products on unsuspecting consumers. In the case of sugary drinks, the consumers usually KNOW about the sugary content of the drinks, while someone buying a lawnmower or car seat would want to know that the product is certified safe. Simply put there is no rationalization for the NYC law because it's nothing but interference in adults' dietary choices PERIOD. It's only consistent: if we support a woman's right to choose in reproductive matters, we should also support a person's right to choose junk food and a business's right to sell what sells (of course in compliance with basic safety regulations).

[AndyTiedye]

75. I Often Get 1 Big Soda for the Two of Us

It is easier to carry one soda than two, especially with other food, and one big one is plenty enough for the two of us.

[bluestateguy]

76. Attention all Yonkers drug store owners

expect to see an increased demand in "sugary" drinks from New Yorkers.

[graham4anything]

80. Kudo's to mike Bloomberg, most people will eat what's in front of them,& not ask for refills

Nobody needs to drink 48 ounces of soda in a 90 minute movie or eat a big extra butter tub of popcorn

And IMHO those that spew the talking point line "nanny state' are not actually democrats at all but part of the republicantealibertarian party.

Those that are morbidly obese cost the taxpayer millions of dollars a year and if someone can't have self-control, then help is needed.

And there is nothing wrong with help being given.

The point is not that stores in NYC that are not covered by the health department inspections can sell larger.

Some nuts don't want to wear seat belts in cars, or helmets riding a bicycle. Better the rules say you have to.

And if someone wants to purchase 3 sodas or 4 sodas, well then the city makes money from taxes.
And only regular soda is monitored. Diet soda and other non fattening beverages are not part of the cut back.

And well, compare the physique of Michael Bloomberg vs. say Republican heavyweight and blubbercheek Chris Christie. Which one is going to live to be 75? 80? 85? 90?
Ask the insurance actuaries. A longer life benefits all the families of everyone in the world.
What's wrong with trying to help people?

Just because someone is standing on the bridge wanting to jump, does not mean one pushes them into the water. Besides, if one didn't need help getting better in life, why go to a doctor, or for those religious, why believe in God?

Now we can hope Mayor Bloomberg uses his self-earned, hard earned money he has, and goes to the next cause that is near and dear to him- which is finding a way to combat a really deadly evil -the NRA and guns and bullets and get them banned. And he has the money to beat the NRA at it's own game by offering candidates to watch their back and support them when the blackmailing like NRA threatens to back an opposing candidate to anyone who dares defy the mighty $$$NRA$$$


and finally, studies have proven most people eat what is in front of them. Most do NOT order seconds or ask for refills but are satisfied with what is in front of them.
Therefore if they only have 16 ounce glass instead of 48 ounces, getting all the satisfaction they need.
But if they had a 48 ounce glass, they would drink all that. (or larger.) Who buys a 2 liter bottle of pepsi and drinks it in one sitting? Yet they think nothing of going to the movies and ordering the largest of large(so large it don't fit in the cup holder in your seat) drink of soda