Gulp! NYC Mayor Proposes Super-Sized Soda Ban.

[Kaylee]

See NY Times link (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html).

Or the Chicago Trib (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-31/news/sns-rt-us-usa-sugarban-reactionbre84u1bn-20120531_1_soft-drinks-post-calorie-calorie-counts) if you can't get into the above link.


Personally I think Bloomberg's approach is a little heavy handed but I can understand his frustration. There's a direct connection between non-diet sodas, obesity and medical expenses --- and NYC does fund city owned hospitals.

I'd rather see other approaches taken though. I'd be in favor of requiring all NYC grocery stores and restaurants to have labels on either the items themselves or on the menus as to how much added sugar it has per individual serving using teaspoon icons. But that would be initially costly and much more difficult to implement politically.

Anyway this is likely to happen because the measure requires only the approval of the New York City Board of Health. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-huehnergarth/new-york-soda-ban_b_1562745.html)And whatayaknow, the board's c dairman is New York City's health commissioner Thomas Farley, who strongly supports the measure, while all other board members are Bloomberg appointees.


I don't drink soda so I won't be affected, but I'm curious if anyone I know will start complaining about Bloomberg's latest health crusade.

So, what do you all think? Would you be in favor of YOUR mayor banning the restaurants and fast food places from serving super-sized sodas?

[Babbylonian]

I think that I hate the term "nanny state," but this proposal fits that bill. I further believe that unless the measure affects all establishments selling big tubs of soda (such as convenience stores - not affected by the proposed "ban"), it's unfair and very suspect right from the start. Are 7-11's Big Gulps more healthy than a similar-sized soda at a movie theater?

The bottom line is that anyone with even half a brain knows that sugary soda is an unhealthy drink. They also know that drinking more of it worse than drinking a little of it. If, knowing that, they decide to drink 32 ounces of it on a regular basis, that's their business and not that of the Mayor of New York or even the Department of Health. They can force businesses to use warning labels on large cups (I'm very cool with this), they can probably levy extra "sin" taxes on them (I can't think of a reason to be against this, though I do drink soda), but banning them seems way out of line to me.

[jiggeryqua]

To be scrupulously fair, nobody has actually accused anybody of using a fallacious slippery-slope argument in the latest Ban Tobacco thread. But it is clearly a steep incline coated with a relatively friction-free material...

[Beerina]

Is sugary soda an unhealthy drink? Or is it the cheeseburgers that frequently accompany it?


Part of the problem is so many people have accepted the principle that if the government can claim it's good for you, they can force you to do it.

[CelticRose]

I think it's an exercise in futility. If you want more soda, all you have to do is order two. Or, if the establishment offers free refills, order a small and drink all you want (I already do this by choice. Why pay more?).

[Checkmite]

I think it's an exercise in futility. If you want more soda, all you have to do is order two. Or, if the establishment offers free refills, order a small and drink all you want (I already do this by choice. Why pay more?).

Exactly what I was about to post. This measure is just another well-intentioned but ultimately pointless bit of legislative onanism.

[PlayingDeaf]

What trips me out about this is that it's about the size of the drink. What's next? Shorter cigarettes? No more double or triple burgers? I can only see this being a big waste of time. Unless all they want is publicity. I think they need to stick with public awareness. Which is usually a joke anyway..."Live above the large coke."

[PlayingDeaf]

Thought it was funny...happened to be watching the miss usa pageant tonight,(don't judge me, wife had it on) right after I commented on this post, and one of the questions was about this super size soda bologna. I guess they are getting the publicity they want, but was pretty disappointed that miss I can't remember agreed and said it was a good thing. Boo.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I miss extra-large McDonalds fries. Now I can only get large size for about the same price.

[LTC8K6]

Beers are too big, also.

You should only be allowed to buy one 8oz beer on tap at a time, so it's harder for you to get drunk.

[rjh01]

You do not need to ban soda, just tax it heavily. Some with anything else that is loaded with sugar.

[arthwollipot]

Frankly, it amazes me that anyone can drink this amount of liquid at a time anyway.

[Garrette]

I have many friends and acquaintenances who live on super sized sodas; they never drink water and rush straight to the 32 oz or larger double-caffein-impregnated stuff first thing in the morning and stick with it throughout the day. Then they brag about how they're going to start yoga to get rid of that troublesome belly fat that somehow seems to keep getting bigger.

They should stop drinking the soda.

But the government should keep out of it. Completely. Unequivocally.

I have been repeatedly gobsmacked with interview of locals (I'm nowhere near NYC) who are asked how they feel about it. Almost without exception the thought process goes like this:

I don't think the government should tell people what they can drink, but nobody really needs a soda that big so I guess it's a good thing.

It astounds me both for the internal inconsistency and for the implied ignorance regarding constitutional limitations.

The Atlantic has a pro-ban article (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/despite-opposition-bloombergs-soda-ban-is-a-good-idea/258018/) that nicely demonstrates this. It's all about how it's a good idea from a health standpoint without any consideration at all for the standpoint of governmental authority. I don't give a tinker's damn if every American alive eschews good health advice regarding soda drinking; it in no way empowers the government to dictate their soda-drinking habits or an establishment's soda-drinking practices.

And has been pointed out, if the ban applies only to restaurants and not to convenience stores, then it isn't about health anyway.

The proposed ban is stupid, unconstitutional, unwise, and if passed will likely prove ineffective. (Note: even if it turns out to be extremely effective, the fact will remain that it is not the government's role).

That's my rant, or most of it. The last little bit involves journalistic laziness: The proposed ban is for sodas larger than 16 ounces. I have lost count of the reporters who say that is for sodas 16 ounces and larger. The distinction is not trivial.

[carlitos]

If they ban the big cups, that means I can't have a 32 oz. unsweetened fresh brewed iced tea? If Chicago tries this, I'm starting a revolution.

[LTC8K6]

If they ban the big cups, that means I can't have a 32 oz. unsweetened fresh brewed iced tea? If Chicago tries this, I'm starting a revolution.

No sugar = okay.

You can load it with sugar yourself right there = okay.

Loaded with artificial sweeteners = okay.

Sugar = banned.

Beer = okay.

Big cans of soda = okay.

Big bottles of soda = okay.

If you sell fountain drinks or prepared food, it applies to you, apparently.

Don't know about milkshakes or smoothies or fruit punches, etc.

What about Pepsi Next, which has 60% less sugar and is pretty good? Coke is coming out with a similar formula.

[Draca]

You do not need to ban soda, just tax it heavily. Some with anything else that is loaded with sugar.


I like that idea better than the ban. Where does it stop though? The list of unhealthy items is looooonnnnnng. Even things that are considered real food could be taxed. Bleached white bread for example. The body reacts to many white foods almost as if they are sugar. The fiber and nutrients have been stipped from white bread, rice, pasta. Should bread be taxed if it doesn't reach a certain level of nutrition? Some 'junk foods' may even be better for you. Corn tortilla chips and salsa are going to be better overall than white bread toast and cinnamon sugar.

Should a commission be set up to judge each product based on nutrition and give a tax rate? Twinkies - yes, tortillas - no, cheetos - yes, starbucks skinny latte - no, starbucks venti carmel macchiato - yes, cheese cake ......

[Noztradamus]

Short man syndrome

[Xulld]

This is just a symptom of socialized risk.

[sadhatter]

"... and the problem is it doesn't stop the alcoholics, they will just drink twice as much. Now instead of having a drunk, you have a fat lazy drunk." SLC punk.

Seriously, it isn't size, it is that folks don't understand what the **** a portion is. And by folks i don't mean "everyone but me." i used to be part of that group.

People seem to think whatever container something is in, that is the portion. And even if they decide to give the nutrition panel a glance, they will assume that amount of calories is for the whole soda/bag of chips/etc.

We don't need a nanny state ( god i hate that term, but sadly it is appropriate here.) , we need actual , simple education on calories. People, especially kids, just tune out during that 3 weeks of phys ed in which nutrition is rambled on about, or when the company offers a "Better living" seminar, volunteer or otherwise.

We are trying to take care of the issue in one big step, when we need to take a series of smaller ones. Let's leave the 'eat your veggies' talk for the parents, and focus on getting one generation to understand that if you take in more than you burn off , you get fat. It doesn't matter if that amount ( and we are speaking of kilojoules or calories, not weight.) comes from cookies, or from brown bread, that is what is making you obese. Once this becomes something as common knowledge as "Don't eat from a dented can." or " Don't leave milk out in the sun." then we can get more specific , but until the basics are known, all the 'Apples are good for you' , and nanny state tactics in the world won't work.

And as far as the issue itself, i am kinda sick of other people's eating habits effecting how much food i am allowed to get when i order, or what kind of food i can order. I have no issue with folks eating themselves into a pac-man esque shape, even when i take into account the money they are draining from the health care system ( its what it is there for.) , what i do have an issue with is how this means i can't get my big size fries, double down sandwhich , or soda that will last from 5 to eleven. I have worked out how to make these part of a healthy lifestyle, the fact that others can't shouldn't effect me.

[CORed]

No sugar = okay.

You can load it with sugar yourself right there = okay.

Loaded with artificial sweeteners = okay.

Sugar = banned.

Beer = okay.

Big cans of soda = okay.

Big bottles of soda = okay.

If you sell fountain drinks or prepared food, it applies to you, apparently.

Don't know about milkshakes or smoothies or fruit punches, etc.

What about Pepsi Next, which has 60% less sugar and is pretty good? Coke is coming out with a similar formula.

So if the place has a self-service fountain, you order a giant diet pop or an iced tea, then fill the cup with something sugary.

[Kaylee]

I think that I hate the term "nanny state," but this proposal fits that bill. I further believe that unless the measure affects all establishments selling big tubs of soda (such as convenience stores - not affected by the proposed "ban"), it's unfair and very suspect right from the start. Are 7-11's Big Gulps more healthy than a similar-sized soda at a movie theater

Per the NY Times:
Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.


I agree with you that a soda sold by 7-11 is no more healthy than the exact same brand and type soda sold in a movie theatre. It appears that whether a business is affected has to do with the intricacies of NYC laws, and whether a 7-11 gets affected is probably going to be determined as to whether its considered a grocery store or a "food establishment service."

No doubt the soda manufacturers and large chain fast food businesses will be considering whether this difference in treatment will give them a legal reason to sue.



The bottom line is that anyone with even half a brain knows that sugary soda is an unhealthy drink. They also know that drinking more of it worse than drinking a little of it. If, knowing that, they decide to drink 32 ounces of it on a regular basis, that's their business and not that of the Mayor of New York or even the Department of Health. They can force businesses to use warning labels on large cups (I'm very cool with this), they can probably levy extra "sin" taxes on them (I can't think of a reason to be against this, though I do drink soda), but banning them seems way out of line to me.

I agree. It appears that Bloomberg is only taking this approach because his first two attempts failed:

Thwarted twice in his efforts to cut sugary drink consumption (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-huehnergarth/new-york-soda-ban_b_1562745.html)(the mayor supported, unsuccessfully, a New York state tax on sugary drinks and a New York City proposal to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sugary beverages),


<snip>


In 2010, the American Beverage Association spent close to $13 million in New York in a six-month period, lobbying against a proposed penny-per-ounce statewide soda tax. No expense was spared, from the brilliant anti-soda tax TV campaign (created by the agency that spawned the notorious Harry and Louise anti-healthcare reform ads in 1993), to soft-drink industry worker protests (while workers were on the clock and provided with lunch), to an industry-sponsored 'grassroots' coalition called 'New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes,' to PepsiCo's threat to move its Purchase, New York, headquarters to Texas, if the measure passed. The no-holds barred campaign did the trick. State legislators caved and the measure died.

I do agree with the mayor that there should be a way to ensure that when people engage in behaviors that drive up costs incurred by society, society should have a way to get those costs covered by the people responsible for them.

The soft drinks industry's successful lobbying has made that impossible. In the meantime our politicians still have to balance the budget. So, while I intensely dislike the mayor's latest tactic ... I'm not surprised.


I think it's an exercise in futility. If you want more soda, all you have to do is order two. Or, if the establishment offers free refills, order a small and drink all you want (I already do this by choice. Why pay more?).

I agree that the mayor's latest tactic is not going to be as effective as a sugar consumption tax would be but I think he's taking this current approach because its basically what he has left to try.

I suspect his goal is to actually try to change what is considered acceptable behavior. It took us a while (as a society) to get acclimated to the idea that a quart-sized drink, or an even larger one, is an acceptable size drink to sell to an individual in a restaurant.

There are many reasons why we have gotten to the point where 2/3rds of all Americans are overweight -- but our social mores as to what is acceptable behavior is probably one of them.

Frankly I'm concerned about this latest tactic and think that it is a terrible direction for us to go in. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for future govt regulations. I wish that the sugar tax had suceeded.

As long as our health has an impact on government's budget and not just on our individual ones, I don't think this issue is going away.

[Alan]

People seem to think whatever container something is in, that is the portion. And even if they decide to give the nutrition panel a glance, they will assume that amount of calories is for the whole soda/bag of chips/etc.

The serving sizes sometimes listed are absurd and I doubt are intended to be the actual amount eaten in one go. Like the six packs of small yoghurt cups. On the one of these I looked at, one cup is two servings. They don't seriously intend somebody to make that last two servings or to share it between two people. Put the plastic cover back on and put it back in the fridge for the next day! Find somebody else who wants to eat it to share with!

[Marduk]

The serving sizes sometimes listed are absurd and I doubt are intended to be the actual amount eaten in one go. Like the six packs of small yoghurt cups. On the one of these I looked at, one cup is two servings. They don't seriously intend somebody to make that last two servings or to share it between two people. Put the plastic cover back on and put it back in the fridge for the next day! Find somebody else who wants to eat it to share with!

how about eat half and then apply the other half to your Candidiasis
:D

[Beerina]

You do not need to ban soda, just tax it heavily. Some with anything else that is loaded with sugar.

Or...we can kick politicians in the balls over and over, laughing at their power grab overreaching as they QQ in pain and shame.

[Beerina]

No. That's not right.




















They will never QQ in shame.

[LTC8K6]

So if the place has a self-service fountain, you order a giant diet pop or an iced tea, then fill the cup with something sugary.

NYC has some ridiculous system of inspectors and fines. There would undoubtedly be fines for allowing citizens to bypass the law.

[geni]

The bottom line is that anyone with even half a brain

If you are suggesting that marketers are stupid enough to work on higher brain centres you are going to be deeply disappointed.

There are people's who's full time job it is to work out how to sell you more drinks. If you seriously think they can't influence you you are either a full blown psychopath or otherwise so mentally abnormal as to be an insignificant part of the market.

So in the end the options are to either accept that marketers are going to manage to sell more drink to you or use the law to counter their more effective tactics either through taxes or regulation.

[geni]

Beers are too big, also.

You should only be allowed to buy one 8oz beer on tap at a time, so it's harder for you to get drunk.

You miss the issue there. The pint has remained standard for over a century now and isn't about to change (the scots pint not withstanding). In volume terms the wine glass is more of a problem since that has grown in size. The actual problem with beer is that the average level of ethanol per pint has risen and that people are buying from supermarkets rather than bars. There is a legitimate case for dealing with through changes to the tax system (basicaly give pubs tax brakes and introduce a new tax bracket for stronger beers and ciders).

[Xulld]

If we where not socializing risk, this wouldn't be an issue. Live fast, die young used to be cool/ok when it didn't effect the folks who did things in moderation. Now everyone cares what everyone else is doing becuase we are all in it together. F that, I would rather die young than have a bunch of carebear nanny statists telling me what size coke to drink.

oh btw, I dont drink soda.

Personal responsibility has gone the way of the Dodo. I personally do not welcome our taxation overlords.

[geni]

If we where not socializing risk, this wouldn't be an issue. Live fast, die young used to be cool/ok when it didn't effect the folks who did things in moderation. Now everyone cares what everyone else is doing becuase we are all in it together. F that, I would rather die young than have a bunch of carebear nanny statists telling me what size coke to drink.

An interesting theory but one that suggests you've never bothered spending much time looking at what costs the state money. Truth is actualy dieing young (motorbike crash, drowning, gunshot) doesn't actualy cost the state that much. Its not ideal but its not too much of a problem. Dieing fairly quickly in your 60s is much better. Serious lung cancer from cigarette smoking for example.

The problem with obesity is that the obese tend not to die in the short term so instead you have an constant increase in costs due to lower productivity and having to build everything for bigger people.

The law doesn't really restrict your freedom (you can still drink as much as you can afford) while knocking out one of the more effective tactics of marketers. Cost benifit suggests that there is no real problem with it.

[carlitos]

You do not need to ban soda, just tax it heavily.

The city of Chicago did this many years ago and the soft drink manufacturers pulled their annual convention from McCormick Place. Brilliant.

And you're actually not talking about sugar in American soft drinks, you're talking about high fructose corn syrup, which is artificially cheap due to bad agricultural policies driven by midwestern states. It's crazy; we subsidize the growth of corn to make HFCS, give agribusiness all these breaks to make it, keep the price of real sugar artificially high to appease the sugar barons in Florida, and now local governments are going to tax corn syrup at the consumer level. Can't someone draw this into a simple diagram and show it to a politician somewhere?

[geni]

Personal responsibility has gone the way of the Dodo.

No I'm pretty sure the Dodo existed and given another 50 years of tech advances with might be able to clone it.


I personally do not welcome our taxation overlords.

They've been around since 1776. I'm not an expert on social convention but I think it would be their role to welcome you.

[geni]

The city of Chicago did this many years ago and the soft drink manufacturers pulled their annual convention from McCormick Place. Brilliant.

Why? One annual convention one way or the other is below background noise level.


And you're actually not talking about sugar in American soft drinks, you're talking about high fructose corn syrup, which is artificially cheap due to bad agricultural policies driven by midwestern states. It's crazy; we subsidize the growth of corn to make HFCS, give agribusiness all these breaks to make it, keep the price of real sugar artificially high to appease the sugar barons in Florida, and now local governments are going to tax corn syrup at the consumer level. Can't someone draw this into a simple diagram and show it to a politician somewhere?

Well perhaps they want goverment to get more local. Its a predictable rant but since most of the developed world has the same issue but different farm subsidies setup its not very relivant.

[Xulld]

The problem with obesity is that the obese tend not to die in the short term so instead you have an constant increase in costs due to lower productivity and having to build everything for bigger people. Really? So you think its a productivity issue, fat people dont produce enough? And all those costs in making larger subway seats is killing us?

Can't someone draw this into a simple diagram and show it to a politician somewhere? But that would mean actually working to understand cause and effect, why bother when you can just use the latest catch phrases, sling some good rhetoric and get reelected?

[PhantomWolf]

I don't drink sugary soda very often, and very little when I do (I have caffine free diet coke in my pantry, but don't even drink that often). I also don't do junk food a lot, though admittedly more now I'm closer to them, but I perfer home cooking.

My issue is that I tend to eat too much and sit in front of a computer most of the day, so don't get a lot of exercise.

I guess once the do-gooders haver banned soda, then taxed junk food, they'll be starting a forced regime of calisthenics every morning to deal to people like me.

[JJM 777]

Would you be in favor of YOUR mayor banning the restaurants and fast food places from serving super-sized sodas?
You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.

[PhantomWolf]

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.

For some reason I just had the vision of back alley deals with mobsters and neighbourhood speak easys that are selling "Full sugar Coke, The Real Thing"

[LTC8K6]

You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.

It's apparently any "sugary" drink.

[The Dark Lord]

You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.

No they don't. Diet soda is horrible.

[LTC8K6]

For some reason I just had the vision of back alley deals with mobsters and neighbourhood speak easys that are selling "Full sugar Coke, The Real Thing"

New fast dissolving "diamond flake" sugar packets. Guaranteed to dissolve quickly in your ice cold drink.

[geni]

Really? So you think its a productivity issue, fat people dont produce enough?

Lost time due to a greater propensity to illness is indeed a problem.

And all those costs in making larger subway seats is killing us?

It is clearly a no optimum use of transport floorspace. Once you factor in all the things that have to be ajusted there is a significant total cost.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/nyregion/mayor-supports-plan-to-change-marijuana-arrest-policy.html?hp

This will make up for it.

[SezMe]

Diet soda is horrible.
Nail. Head.

[Beerina]

The city of Chicago did this many years ago and the soft drink manufacturers pulled their annual convention from McCormick Place. Brilliant.

And you're actually not talking about sugar in American soft drinks, you're talking about high fructose corn syrup, which is artificially cheap due to bad agricultural policies driven by midwestern states. It's crazy; we subsidize the growth of corn to make HFCS, give agribusiness all these breaks to make it, keep the price of real sugar artificially high to appease the sugar barons in Florida, and now local governments are going to tax corn syrup at the consumer level. Can't someone draw this into a simple diagram and show it to a politician somewhere?

High-fructose corn syrup may itself be a bogeyman. It's just 55% fructose as opposed to 50% for "normal" sugar. It's fruit sugar.

[mikeyx]

I think that I hate the term "nanny state," but this proposal fits that bill. I further believe that unless the measure affects all establishments selling big tubs of soda (such as convenience stores - not affected by the proposed "ban"), it's unfair and very suspect right from the start. Are 7-11's Big Gulps more healthy than a similar-sized soda at a movie theater?

The bottom line is that anyone with even half a brain knows that sugary soda is an unhealthy drink. They also know that drinking more of it worse than drinking a little of it. If, knowing that, they decide to drink 32 ounces of it on a regular basis, that's their business and not that of the Mayor of New York or even the Department of Health. They can force businesses to use warning labels on large cups (I'm very cool with this), they can probably levy extra "sin" taxes on them (I can't think of a reason to be against this, though I do drink soda), but banning them seems way out of line to me.

all forms of smoking should be banned, the soda ban, meh.....

[NewtonTrino]

This kind of stuff undermines respect for the law in the same way as a drug / alcohol prohibition. It's very counter productive IMHO.

What authority does the state derive the power to ban certain sizes of soda?

[JJM 777]

Diet soda is horrible.
Coke Zero rules. Its taste is absolutely perfect.

[Segnosaur]

You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.
Its a bother because buying 2 smaller drinks is usually more expensive than buying a single large drink. (And some of us do sometimes share drinks with our significant other when at a movie. So if our city enacted the same ban it would cost us more money, even if we didn't drink any more than we were.)

[Xulld]

Lost time due to a greater propensity to illness is indeed a problem.



It is clearly a no optimum use of transport floorspace. Once you factor in all the things that have to be ajusted there is a significant total cost.

Productivity should only be the concern of the business paying the wage of the worker. If government did not restrict businesses hiring and firing decisions this artificial problem would not exist. If businesses fired all of the fat people they would lose overall production. In a perfect world lots of things are more efficient, we do not live in that world.

[Psi Baba]

And you're actually not talking about sugar in American soft drinks, you're talking about high fructose corn syrup, which is artificially cheap due to bad agricultural policies driven by midwestern states. It's crazy; we subsidize the growth of corn to make HFCS, give agribusiness all these breaks to make it, keep the price of real sugar artificially high to appease the sugar barons in Florida, and now local governments are going to tax corn syrup at the consumer level. Can't someone draw this into a simple diagram and show it to a politician somewhere?
This is the crux of the whole problem right here in a nutshell.

High-fructose corn syrup may itself be a bogeyman. It's just 55% fructose as opposed to 50% for "normal" sugar. It's fruit sugar.The difference is more complicated than that, but the larger part of the problem is that corn is so cheap it's practically free, and food manufacturers load HFCS into everything, more as a bulk filler than as a sweetener. Sugar was actually once used that way when it was cheap, but to a lesser degree. So even if the idea that HFCS may be worse for your health than sugar has not been disproven, the real issue is the quantity being used in foods. But no one wants to address that issue since corn subsidies are apparently sacrosanct. Telling Americans to use less corn has about the same effect as telling us to use less gasoline.

[kookbreaker]

Coke Zero rules. Its taste is absolutely perfect.

No, it isn't. It tastes closer to real Coke when you have it with food, but on its own it tastes pretty diet-y. better than Diet Coke, but nowhere near Regular Coke.

[LTC8K6]

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/05/bloomberg-soda-health/

It’s starting to make sense now: Michael Bloomberg doesn’t really mind if New Yorkers drink more than 16 ounces of soda, he’s just trying to move some cups.


Is purchasing two 16 oz sodas too much of an inconvenience to help reverse a national health catastrophe?

If all you wanted in the first place was a banned 24 ouncer, Bloomberg just encouraged you to drink eight ounces more than you originally wanted — but anything we can do to help reverse a national health catastrophe, right?

[sadhatter]

The serving sizes sometimes listed are absurd and I doubt are intended to be the actual amount eaten in one go. Like the six packs of small yoghurt cups. On the one of these I looked at, one cup is two servings. They don't seriously intend somebody to make that last two servings or to share it between two people. Put the plastic cover back on and put it back in the fridge for the next day! Find somebody else who wants to eat it to share with!

And therin lies the problem, people like to think that what they want is what the serving size should be. You don't think the yogurt serving is enough so you have 2. This might work out well for you, but to someone who is intending on losing weight, this attitude is the killer of a proper diet.

A serving of food is not something designed to fill you, and that is one huge hurdle people have with food. When a good portion of people reach for that bag of chips their intent is not to taste chips but to feel full.

What satisfies you has very little to do with what is a healthy serving, if there was one bit of diet related information that could help many lose weight, this would be it.

[sadhatter]

You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.

YOu know i am not a soda guy , but this comment kinda bugs me.

Because you now feel diet soda has an acceptable flavor ( the only soda i drink btw.) , now it would be okay to you to ban the others? Isn't that a little you-centric? I know many people who dislike the flavor of diet soda for some reason, so they should just be ignored because someone else doesn't mind it?

At what point do we realize that we should simply mind our own business? People have a right to use their body as they please, whether that be an abortion, tattoo, risky sex, or being a pac-man shaped mass of flesh. Don't like the fact these people cost the health care system money? Fight against the health care system existing. Because saying you should be able to get a broken arm fixed after a boating accident ( or any other activity that could cause injury, that was just an example.), but them getting treatment for weight related issues is wrong, has the same kind of "I do the reasonable thing, everyone else doesn't." egocentric vibe as " They should ban sugary sodas because i don't mind non sugary ones.", and as has been said before we are all in this together.

[sadhatter]

Coke Zero rules. Its taste is absolutely perfect.

I'd say the same thing about spam ( in all seriousness, not playing devil's advocate, i love that ****), so would it be acceptable to ban other kinds of meat because i do?

You really think that certain people's tastes should be used as a yardstick for if something is appropriate to ban? You really better hope that person isn't me unless you really enjoy white castle, energy drinks ( zero calorie, so i am sure you could deal.), pepperoni, s'mores, and spinach as the only sources of food.

You realize your advocating the Demolition man distopia, right?

[Toontown]

At supermarkets, you will encounter numerous morbidly fat people. The contents of their carts will almost invariably include large quantities of sugared soda water. Many require motorized carts to lumber about pitifully.

Put two and two together, and you get four. As in four hundred pounds. Which makes you a non-prod and then kills you.

And the pitiful part is, once you get accustomed to artificial sweetener, the diet sodas taste just as good, besides being totally fear and guilt free.

[sadhatter]

No, it isn't. It tastes closer to real Coke when you have it with food, but on its own it tastes pretty diet-y. better than Diet Coke, but nowhere near Regular Coke.

Here, right here.

I don't even agree with this statement, but it outlines the problem in saying "What, diet soda isn't good enough for you?" and trying to use that as a yardstick of if the ban should be enacted.

Who gets to decide what tastes good enough? And what percentage of people, is it acceptable to ignore?

You can have your opinion all you want, hell, i hold the opinion that liquor objectively 100% of the time tastes worse than non liquor , and any attempt to state otherwise is inbred by societies view that enjoying liquor's taste versus effect makes someone more mature , or manly ( depending on the situation.). But the difference is i would never consider trying to use this as a point in a debate. Once we get past just talking bollocks and get into actual debate, one's opinion on taste goes out the window.

[sadhatter]

At supermarkets, you will encounter numerous morbidly fat people. The contents of their carts will almost invariably include large quantities of sugared soda water. Many require motorized carts to lumber about pitifully.

Put two and two together, and you get four. As in four hundred pounds. Which makes you a non-prod and then kills you.

And the pitiful part is, once you get accustomed to artificial sweetener, the diet sodas taste just as good, besides being totally fear and guilt free.

And if you go into any serial killer's house, you will find some knives. Does that mean knives cause serial killers, or that serial killers tend to abuse knives?

[LTC8K6]

Just take Bloomberg's advice and drink two 16 ounce sodas instead of one 24 ounce soda.

Or just have a milkshake instead. They apparently aren't banned. Or a big old Wendy's Frosty.

[Toontown]

And if you go into any serial killer's house, you will find some knives. Does that mean knives cause serial killers, or that serial killers tend to abuse knives?

Is there anything you won't argue with?

Fattie + cart full of sugar water = fattie abusing sugar water

That was the original observation. It continues to be the original observation.

[Toontown]

No they don't. Diet soda is horrible.


Only because you are not accustomed to the artificial sweetener. Drink diet soda exclusively, and the bitter taste goes away, and the artificial sweetener actually becomes sweeter than sugar. It's not a difficult transition. What is difficult is thinking of an easier way for people to save their lives.

[Daald]

Only because you are not accustomed to the artificial sweetener. Drink diet soda exclusively, and the bitter taste goes away, and the artificial sweetener actually becomes sweeter than sugar. It's not a difficult transition. What is difficult is thinking of an easier way for people to save their lives.

Are you being serious?

[BenBurch]

What the Republican War On Big Gulps shows us is that GOP regard for personal freedoms doesn't include average people who buy soft drinks at 7-11.

[BenBurch]

Are you being serious?

I actually drink Tab because I like the taste. Have since around 1968.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Many critics of the Bloomberg's plan claim that soda drinkers would simply buy two 16 oz drinks to make up for their inability to buy a 24oz drink (or whatever size the large is at the establishment in question). Is there real evidence to support this idea or is it just conjecture? What percentage of soda drinkers would do this? Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller?

[Daald]

Many critics of the Bloomberg's plan claim that soda drinkers would simply buy two 16 oz drinks to make up for their inability to buy a 24oz drink (or whatever size the large is at the establishment in question). Is there real evidence to support this idea or is it just conjecture? What percentage of soda drinkers would do this? Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller?


I think it was pulled from exactly the same place which established that 24oz sodas equal obesity and their removal would help matters. I don't know whose anus that is though.

[ToddH]

Only because you are not accustomed to the artificial sweetener. Drink diet soda exclusively, and the bitter taste goes away, and the artificial sweetener actually becomes sweeter than sugar. It's not a difficult transition. What is difficult is thinking of an easier way for people to save their lives.

Tried drinking diet soda for about six months and could never get used to the taste. For me, the bitter taste never disappeared.

[Xulld]

Many critics of the Bloomberg's plan claim that soda drinkers would simply buy two 16 oz drinks to make up for their inability to buy a 24oz drink (or whatever size the large is at the establishment in question). Is there real evidence to support this idea or is it just conjecture? What percentage of soda drinkers would do this? Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller?

Why else would someone order the largest drink if not that they were thirsty enough to drink it, and why else would there be a problem that needs fixed if the folks who buy the biggest cup, did not drink it all?

When I use to drink soda Id never buy the largest drink becuase I would never drink it all (I have always had issues with sugar, mildly hypoglycemic), I really cant imagine anyone who continues to pay more for that which they will not drink, and conversely if a person wants to pay more and get more I see nothing compelling that would change that just becuase they now needed to buy two smaller amounts to equal the same quantity that they now enjoy.

Being skeptical about this seems contradictory. If the problem exists its becuase people buy large sodas and drink them down. If you have the ability to get that much soda despite the restrictions why would that change your decision on how much soda you wanted to drink? If all else is equal, having two container vs one seems unimportant.

Personally I think a far simpler null hypothesis is that such a miniscule hindrance will do nothing to change human behaviors. I think the positive claim is going to require support. The claim being that this change will have any impact at all . . .

Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller? No, they just stop back through another drive thru once there drinks are extinguished, in half the time.

[Toontown]

Are you being serious?

I used to hate diet sodas, until reality forced me to start drinking them. Now they taste as good as sugar sodas used to taste, and sugar doesn't taste as sweet now. Artificial sweetener now tastes sweeter to me than sugar. Everyone I've spoken with who has switched says the same.

Plus, I've lost 37 pounds in 6 months, and it has stayed off for 7 more. Now me, my bicycle, and a backpack full of diet soda, combined, weighs less than I used to weigh alone. I'm 63 and I can ride a bike like it's a motorcycle (well, a slow motorcycle).

So, bottom line, yeah. I"m serious.

[Toontown]

Tried drinking diet soda for about six months and could never get used to the taste. For me, the bitter taste never disappeared.

May have been related to your eating sugar in food. I've all but eliminated sugar from my diet. No more than an apple's worth a day.

[sadhatter]

Is there anything you won't argue with?

Fattie + cart full of sugar water = fattie abusing sugar water

That was the original observation. It continues to be the original observation.

But the soda isn't what is causing the problem, it is their entire lifestyle, a lifestyle they are entitled to live.

Limiting me getting a large soda, or any soda is not going to change these people's weight, ever look at the amount of calories in pretty much any juice, or hell, milk? Soda, is getting blamed , only because it is an easy target.

Blaming the soda is like blaming the knives, it is not the product's fault, it is the person's fault.

[LTC8K6]

Many critics of the Bloomberg's plan claim that soda drinkers would simply buy two 16 oz drinks to make up for their inability to buy a 24oz drink (or whatever size the large is at the establishment in question). Is there real evidence to support this idea or is it just conjecture? What percentage of soda drinkers would do this? Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller?

It was Bloomberg who said that about buying two 16oz drinks.

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/statuses/209702352456925184?tw_i=209702352456925184&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

Is purchasing two 16 oz sodas too much of an inconvenience to help reverse a national health catastrophe?

I'm not quite sure how purchasing two 16oz drinks instead of one 24 or 32 ounce drink is any better, but I'm not the Mayor.

[LTC8K6]

I think it was pulled from exactly the same place which established that 24oz sodas equal obesity and their removal would help matters. I don't know whose anus that is though.

it was pulled from Bloomberg's, I think.

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/statuses/209702352456925184?tw_i=209702352456925184&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

[The Dark Lord]

Only because you are not accustomed to the artificial sweetener. Drink diet soda exclusively, and the bitter taste goes away, and the artificial sweetener actually becomes sweeter than sugar. It's not a difficult transition. What is difficult is thinking of an easier way for people to save their lives.

Maybe. I hardly see any need to drink horrible tasting soda for however long to get used to the taste though. If I was overweight, sure, but I am not.

[sadhatter]

Many critics of the Bloomberg's plan claim that soda drinkers would simply buy two 16 oz drinks to make up for their inability to buy a 24oz drink (or whatever size the large is at the establishment in question). Is there real evidence to support this idea or is it just conjecture? What percentage of soda drinkers would do this? Was it common practice for a single individual to buy multiple sodas in the days when the portions offered were smaller?

Here is a fun experiment to try yourself.

Take your favorite drink, whether that be water, juice, whatever. Now, next time your thirsty, pour yourself less than you want, and wait and see what happens. You will get more, to spoil it for you. The problem is your thinking about the issue in a manner that makes you think their thought process is , " I loves me some sugar, 30 ounces! Yee haw, i can get even fatter!", when it isn't, they are thirsty, they may be making a horrendous choice, but they are going to drink what they want, and if they don't get an appropriately sized drink , they will simply buy more, whether that is at the grocery store, or the establishment doesn't make any difference.

And the problem is, massive sodas are all about convenience. Let's take me for example, i may like soda of the diet variety, but the premise is the same.

I get the biggest soda possible, why? Because it lets me not have to make more drinks later, plain and simple. A stupidly large soda long outlasts the meal it came with, saves me from dirtying a cup, and costs much less than getting a personal sized soda from a convenience store.

[JJM 777]

Because you now feel diet soda has an acceptable flavor ( the only soda i drink btw.) , now it would be okay to you to ban the others? Isn't that a little you-centric?
Health reasons give a motive for the ban.

But in my infinite kindness I would first wait for technology to create a replacement product that large audiences enjoy as much as the unhealthy original, before banning the original.

[Modified]

Why else would someone order the largest drink if not that they were thirsty enough to drink it

Because it costs only 30% more to get twice as much. It's the same reason I have tubs of spare plumbing fittings, electrical parts, etc. in my garage.

[Toontown]

If people demand free health care from NYC (and they do), then it can be quite reasonably argued that NYC has an equal right to demand some minor improvements in their ludicrously unhealthy habits.

I agree that limiting the size of an unhealthy drink is probably an exercise in futility. OTOH, every little bit helps. If slightly inconveniencing sugar-guzzlers causes them to inadvertently consume a few less ounces of sugar water per day, then over years it will add up to a significant difference.

Even if they only run out of sugar water sooner and have to walk to the neighborhood convenience store more often, even that little bit of extra walking will help over time.

[pgwenthold]

Why else would someone order the largest drink if not that they were thirsty enough to drink it

Because it is the most cost effective.

When a 16 oz drink is $.69, and a 44 oz drink is $.99, why would you buy the 16 oz drink, considering the unit price is twice as much?

If the choice were between a 16 oz drink at $.69 and a 44 oz drink at $1.69, a lot more people would opt for the smaller drink.

[Daald]

If people demand free health care from NYC (and they do), then it can be quite reasonably argued that NYC has an equal right to demand some minor improvements in their ludicrously unhealthy habits.

I agree that limiting the size of an unhealthy drink is probably an exercise in futility. OTOH, every little bit helps. If slightly inconveniencing sugar-guzzlers causes them to inadvertently consume a few less ounces of sugar water per day, then over years it will add up to a significant difference.

Even if they only run out of sugar water sooner and have to walk to the neighborhood convenience store more often, even that little bit of extra walking will help over time.


So, If I do not want free health care, and I am not obese but I would still like the big soda, why are you bothering me? Why am I being punished for other people's problems?

[Toontown]

So, If I do not want free health care, and I am not obese but I would still like the big soda, why are you bothering me? Why am I being punished for other people's problems?

For the same reason that you are being punished by higher taxes to pay for the health care of sugar-water guzzlers. You were born in the wrong universe. It's tough for you.

On the bright side, you can still procure all the sugar water you can carry. In smaller bottles. Still a tough universe though. Goddamn tough universe.

[Daald]

For the same reason that you are being punished by higher taxes to pay for the health care of sugar-water guzzlers. You were born in the wrong universe. It's tough for you.

On the bright side, you can still procure all the sugar water you can carry. In smaller bottles. Still a tough universe though. Goddamn tough universe.

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

ETA:

How does the bright side solve the problem of obesity. All you have left is the incovenience in the end. You might like silly laws but since I have a say as well, my opinion is that it is stupid.

[Toontown]

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

It's a tough universe, but not that tough*. Especially with many fat votes hanging in the balance. They say politics is the art of the possible, but in the case of the obesity epidemic, it doesn't look like anything much is possible.

*Not that tough right away, but in the long run, brutally tough. The bill for excessive sugar-water guzzling will come due. Everything has a price. Everything. The amusement park illusion is just that. Illusion. Fun while it lasts, then the Reaper appears.

[Xulld]

Because it costs only 30% more to get twice as much. It's the same reason I have tubs of spare plumbing fittings, electrical parts, etc. in my garage.

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

If someone wanted to buy soda in bulk they get multiple 2 liters which are unaffected by this change.

[maxpower1227]

Frankly, it amazes me that anyone can drink this amount of liquid at a time anyway.

I can accept the arguments that the government should not ban the sale of obscenely-large sodas, but would it be alright for them to at least require reasonable sizes to be sold as well? It's gotten to the point where the smallest soft drink a person can buy at many restaurants is 20 oz. If the food industry wasn't trying to give us all diabetes by cramming more and more soda down our gullets, there would be no nanny state legislation for anyone to suggest.

[Modified]

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

Well, you're just wrong. Most people will buy more food/drink than they want if they perceive it as a bargain, and once they buy it they will eat/drink all of it if possible, well beyond the amount they "wanted". This may not be true in a grocery store situation, but it is at a gas station, movie theater, restaurant, etc. People will also fill up on bread at a restaurant, even though they know the entree they ordered will be too much for them on its own, because they don't like waiting to eat and the bread is free, then they will stuff themselves trying to finish that entree. People will also clean their plate because throwing out food is perceived as wasteful, but stuffing yourself with food you don't need that will end up as fat is not.

I don't agree with the ban, but I don't see how anyone could go through life and not notice these things.

[Toontown]

The fatties will 'win', loosely speaking. They have the numbers now. 35.7% obesity among those of voting age. That's a powerful voting bloc, and they all want the same thing - carbs!

And the carbs must be packaged in ever larger globules. Two liter sugar-water bottles are no longer sufficient. Cheese puffs must now come in giant sacks.

It's inevitable, like an avalanche in progress. The fatties will not change to suit the country. The country will change to suit the fatties - and then promply collapse from the national equivalent of a heart attack.

Perhaps the most chilling example of the grim trend is the motorized shopping cart, not so long ago unheard of, now ubiquitous and likely to run over your toes if you're not careful.

[Cain]

Problem is... if you create a single-payer universal health-care system, then people will be less likely to needlessly die.

[Cain]

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

If someone wanted to buy soda in bulk they get multiple 2 liters which are unaffected by this change.

It somewhat surprises me to see this argument over and over again. The law targets stupid people who generally fail to even take their own long-term interests into account. How many times have I seen people throw away their drink with a third still in the container?

[mumblethrax]

Man, you know what I could go for? Exactly 27 ounces of Coca Cola.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

ETA:

How does the bright side solve the problem of obesity. All you have left is the incovenience in the end. You might like silly laws but since I have a say as well, my opinion is that it is stupid.

We tried that. It got voted out becuase no one liked soda taxes. (Speaking as somoene who usually has 3 or so mountain dews a night to stay awake, I find this a really dumb idea. But eh.)

[NorfolkAtheist]

The problem is your thinking about the issue in a manner that makes you think their thought process is , " I loves me some sugar, 30 ounces! Yee haw, i can get even fatter!"...

No, I'm not.

I'm just interested in whether the critics who claim that consumers would buy two 16 oz. sodas to make up for the lack of a 24 oz. option are basing this assertion on real statistical data or on their own conjecture. I'm asking this out of real curiosity.

[KoihimeNakamura]

The fatties will 'win', loosely speaking. They have the numbers now. 35.7% obesity among those of voting age. That's a powerful voting bloc, and they all want the same thing - carbs!

And the carbs must be packaged in ever larger globules. Two liter sugar-water bottles are no longer sufficient. Cheese puffs must now come in giant sacks.

It's inevitable, like an avalanche in progress. The fatties will not change to suit the country. The country will change to suit the fatties - and then promply collapse from the national equivalent of a heart attack.

Perhaps the most chilling example of the grim trend is the motorized shopping cart, not so long ago unheard of, now ubiquitous and likely to run over your toes if you're not careful.


:jaw-dropp

[NorfolkAtheist]

Why else would someone order the largest drink if not that they were thirsty enough to drink it, and why else would there be a problem that needs fixed if the folks who buy the biggest cup, did not drink it all?

Other posters have addressed this, but I will point out that this is essentially an argument from incredulity.

Being skeptical about this seems contradictory.

Contradictory to what? Skepticism? If asking for evidence for a positive claim is contradictory to skepticism then I guess I'm not skeptic.

No, they just stop back through another drive thru once there drinks are extinguished, in half the time.

Fair enough, but the point of my asking was to be directed to the evidence showing that this is the case. Can you direct me to your evidence for this claim?

[Cain]

Man, you know what I could go for? Exactly 27 ounces of Coca Cola.

**** you, I wish I posted that. I preferred exactly 12 oz. before my preferences changed to 20 oz.

[Kaylee]

<snip>

... the larger part of the problem is that corn is so cheap it's practically free, and food manufacturers load HFCS into everything, more as a bulk filler than as a sweetener. Sugar was actually once used that way when it was cheap, but to a lesser degree. So even if the idea that HFCS may be worse for your health than sugar has not been disproven, the real issue is the quantity being used in foods. But no one wants to address that issue since corn subsidies are apparently sacrosanct. Telling Americans to use less corn has about the same effect as telling us to use less gasoline.

Telling Americans or telling American agribusiness and food manufacturers? :)

[Kaylee]

So, If I do not want free health care, and I am not obese but I would still like the big soda, why are you bothering me? Why am I being punished for other people's problems?

But, most of us want health insurance, and the cost of our medical care and health insurance premiums is affected by whether all of us as a group take steps to stay healthy.

We know that there is a direct connection between how much sugar we eat and the likilihood that we will get diabetes, vascular problems and cancer as a result.

If we actually do end up getting a national health plan it's probably inevitable that there will be more attempts to curtail the amount of sugar in our food as a way to help keep health costs under control.

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.

Click on anyone of the links in my OP. Mayor Bloomberg's first attempt was to do precisely that -- have a tax placed on sugary drinks. This would have needed to have been approved on the state level and it failed due to heavy lobbying by the fast food and soft drink businesses. PepsiCo even threatened to move their headquarters out of New York State if the sugar tax passed. The state legislators caved-in.

Per the articles, limiting the size of soft-drinks sold in restaurants, fast-food places and other "food-service establishments" seems to be the only thing that Bloomberg can do that doesn't require the cooperation of the NYS legislature or of the federal government. (Bloomberg wanted to ban soft-drink purchases with food stamps but the federal govt refused to go along with that restriction. ) But limiting the size of soft-drinks was not the mayor's first choice.

The bill for excessive sugar-water guzzling will come due.

Not if the corporations continue to have their way. I think that is the problem. In the US, big business has much more power over government than the voters.

AFAICT, most voters think that a sugar tax where the funds raised are spent on health care is a fair way to cover increased costs due to unhealthy choices. But the fast foods and soft drinks companies are absolutely against anything that may interfere with their profits.

Although the large corporations' upper managements just have a small percentage of the votes they still have more influence through lobbyists and political contributions and I don't know of a way to work around that problem considering the way our political system is currently set up.

[LTC8K6]

**** you, I wish I posted that. I preferred exactly 12 oz. before my preferences changed to 20 oz.

So now you have to bring your own big cup or travel mug, buy a small 8oz drink, and a medium 12oz drink, and pour them in your cup. :)

[LTC8K6]

Problem is... if you create a single-payer universal health-care system, then people will be less likely to needlessly die.

So adjust the premiums on the free health care according to BMI then.

Premiums are already adjusted for all sorts of things.

This way, overweight folks pay their share of the cost of the extra free health care they tend to require.

Smokers would pay extra as well.

Diabetics, kidney dialysis patients, etc.

All those whose health care costs a lot more than an average healthy person in their age bracket, would pay more in premiums.

If you use the free insurance more or less, your premiums would be adjusted up or down. It could be adjusted each year, based on your requirements.

[Cain]

So adjust the premiums on the free health care according to BMI then.

Premiums are already adjusted for all sorts of things.

This way, overweight folks pay their share of the cost of the extra free health care they tend to require.

Smokers would pay extra as well.

Diabetics, kidney dialysis patients, etc.

All those whose health care costs a lot more than an average healthy person in their age bracket, would pay more in premiums.

If you use the free insurance more or less, your premiums would be adjusted up or down. It could be adjusted each year, based on your requirements.

I probably would have agreed with this kind of thinking when I was nine: "it's not fair -- he got one chocolate chip more than me!!" Well, today I think poor health is punishment in itself.

Now I have heard of Swedes moderately pissed when they see some fat **** choking down meatballs, or just standing in a line, breathing hard. Good lord, is there anything worse than hearing a grossly obese man breathe? It's not even hot out!

Anyway, health-care ought to be rationed by consequences/needs rather than ability-to-pay. Apply a junk food tax like cigarette, alcohol, and gas taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if some behavioral economist finds that taxing the activity each time someone engages in it is more effective in deterring behavior than premiums adjusted at the end of the year.

[Ian]

Mayor Bloomberg wants to limit the size of soda, but somehow he thinks it's just fine to host a hot dog eating contest:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/michael_bloomberg_s_hot_dog_eating_contests_if_sod a_is_bad_why_is_competitive_eating_good_.html


In 10 minutes, contestants stuff as many hot dogs and buns down their throats as they can manage. During Bloomberg’s tenure, the record has increased from 50 to 68.


So he hosts a hot dog eating contest in which someone is proudly proclaimed champion by eating 68 hot dogs, but is not allowed more than a 16 oz. Coke to wash it down.

[LTC8K6]

I probably would have agreed with this kind of thinking when I was nine: "it's not fair -- he got one chocolate chip more than me!!" Well, today I think poor health is punishment in itself.

Now I have heard of Swedes moderately pissed when they see some fat **** choking down meatballs, or just standing in a line, breathing hard. Good lord, is there anything worse than hearing a grossly obese man breathe? It's not even hot out!

Anyway, health-care ought to be rationed by consequences/needs rather than ability-to-pay. Apply a junk food tax like cigarette, alcohol, and gas taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if some behavioral economist finds that taxing the activity each time someone engages in it is more effective in deterring behavior than premiums adjusted at the end of the year.

But you probably wouldn't have recognized sarcasm when you were 9...

[Alan]

And therin lies the problem, people like to think that what they want is what the serving size should be. You don't think the yogurt serving is enough so you have 2. This might work out well for you, but to someone who is intending on losing weight, this attitude is the killer of a proper diet.

A serving of food is not something designed to fill you, and that is one huge hurdle people have with food. When a good portion of people reach for that bag of chips their intent is not to taste chips but to feel full.

What satisfies you has very little to do with what is a healthy serving, if there was one bit of diet related information that could help many lose weight, this would be it.
The point was that the packaging doesn't always make sense in relation to serving sizes, not that what they consider a serving size is too small.

I'm not saying that food should only come in containers in single-serve units but that packaging matters to how much people eat and I doubt the people making the product intend the serving sizes to be what people have in cases like the yoghurt example (not due to the size of the serve, but the number of servings in the container).

And I don't eat yoghurt, for the record.

[Cain]

But you probably wouldn't have recognized sarcasm when you were 9...

Wot? Can I claim 1:00 am mulligan? And here I thought I was being charitable for not pointing out the premiums in "free" health insurance (which isn't even free).

[Kaylee]

So adjust the premiums on the free health care according to BMI then.

Premiums are already adjusted for all sorts of things.

This way, overweight folks pay their share of the cost of the extra free health care they tend to require.

Smokers would pay extra as well.

Diabetics, kidney dialysis patients, etc.

All those whose health care costs a lot more than an average healthy person in their age bracket, would pay more in premiums.

If you use the free insurance more or less, your premiums would be adjusted up or down. It could be adjusted each year, based on your requirements.

But you probably wouldn't have recognized sarcasm when you were 9...


Well, since you were being sarcastic I won't point out that the BMI can be a really useless health metric. :) Strong men often have a high BMI with very little body fat and elderly people often have a "normal BMI" with very little muscle tone and a lot of fat. Those are just two examples of where the BMI can be useless.


Also, being overweight is not necc. an indicator that one will have a lot of health problems. There have been stats published that show that many overweight people live longer than people who are "normal weight".

If we need to finance runaway health care costs far better to do so with fees on foods that actually cause health problems instead of on physical characteristics that may or may not indicate future health issues. IMHO anyway. :)

I probably would have agreed with this kind of thinking when I was nine: "it's not fair -- he got one chocolate chip more than me!!" Well, today I think poor health is punishment in itself.

I agree that its impossible to make everything fair -- but given the exponential rising costs of heatlh care and given that many health issues are avoidable by simply not eating or drinking large amounts of added sugar -- I'm in favor of a sugar tax.

Apply a junk food tax like cigarette, alcohol, and gas taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if some behavioral economist finds that taxing the activity each time someone engages in it is more effective in deterring behavior than premiums adjusted at the end of the year.

Agreed. :)

[Kaylee]

Mayor Bloomberg wants to limit the size of soda, but somehow he thinks it's just fine to host a hot dog eating contest:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/michael_bloomberg_s_hot_dog_eating_contests_if_sod a_is_bad_why_is_competitive_eating_good_.html



So he hosts a hot dog eating contest in which someone is proudly proclaimed champion by eating 68 hot dogs, but is not allowed more than a 16 oz. Coke to wash it down.

Good chance the mayor isn't going to win the PR campaign on this issue.

At one point I was wondering if the fast food & soft drink industries and the NYC mayor & Board of Health would negotiate and end up compromising by not regulating soft drink serving sizes and allowing a sugar tax to go through. That would be an ideal solution, IMHO.

But now I'm guessing that the corporations are going to aim for a total strikeout.

[JJM 777]

Why not target them directly? Why through roundabout ways?

Create and obesity tax.
This makes sense solves the problem.

A progressive income tax, where all persons with BMI within the range 20 ... 30 pay the same basic tax rate, and persons with a BMI outside of this range pay:

- if BMI > 30: tax rate += ((BMI - 30) * 5)%

- if BMI < 20: tax rate += ((20 - BMI) * 10) %

[Kaylee]

This makes sense solves the problem.

A progressive income tax, where all persons with BMI within the range 20 ... 30 pay the same basic tax rate, and persons with a BMI outside of this range pay:

- if BMI > 30: tax rate += ((BMI - 30) * 5)%

- if BMI < 20: tax rate += ((20 - BMI) * 10) %

That penalizes the very fit people also. And people who are very underweight may be so because of health issues and not because of life style choices.

A sugar tax doesn't have those complications.

You are probably joking, but the average NYC politician would probably take you seriously. :)

[23_Tauri]

You can always buy two smaller instead of one big bottle, so I don´t see how this law helps or bothers anyone.

If I had power, I would consider banning all sugared sodas altogether, in all sizes. Diet versions taste perfectly good nowadays.
Tell me JJM777, is there anything you don't want to ban?

[23_Tauri]

That penalizes the very fit people also. And people who are very underweight may be so because of health issues and not because of life style choices.
Yeah, that really sucks if you have cancer. BMI drops below 15 and bingo! you're sin tax goes up. Catwalk models too, they'd get penalised for staying thin. Anorexics, heck, let's tax the **** outta them too.


You are probably joking, but the average NYC politician would probably take you seriously. :)
And the ironic thing is, if they did then one of the first people who would be hit by the fat tax would be 'Murrica's first lady of healthcare:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/dr-regina-benjamin-us-surgeon-general.jpg

America, you must be the only country in the world which has a clinically obese person in charge of your health-care system.

[LTC8K6]

Well, since you were being sarcastic I won't point out that the BMI can be a really useless health metric. :) Strong men often have a high BMI with very little body fat and elderly people often have a "normal BMI" with very little muscle tone and a lot of fat. Those are just two examples of where the BMI can be useless.


Also, being overweight is not necc. an indicator that one will have a lot of health problems. There have been stats published that show that many overweight people live longer than people who are "normal weight".

If we need to finance runaway health care costs far better to do so with fees on foods that actually cause health problems instead of on physical characteristics that may or may not indicate future health issues. IMHO anyway. :)



I agree that its impossible to make everything fair -- but given the exponential rising costs of heatlh care and given that many health issues are avoidable by simply not eating or drinking large amounts of added sugar -- I'm in favor of a sugar tax.



Agreed. :)

Yes, I was in the US Army and we had those folks who were heavy with muscle who had to get exemptions at physical time. They were heavier than allowed for their height, but they had little body fat.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's always fun to see people being all for freedom .. until it's something they don't like

@Kaylee: Sure, they don't like their profit streams. People also don't like being told what they can drink and how much. Banning sodas and/or taxing them beyond sales tax is.. uh.. ok? It's their own body. We don't HAVE a universal health care system yet so it only hurts them. Let them decide what they want.

[Daald]

But, most of us want health insurance, and the cost of our medical care and health insurance premiums is affected by whether all of us as a group take steps to stay healthy.

We know that there is a direct connection between how much sugar we eat and the likilihood that we will get diabetes, vascular problems and cancer as a result.

If we actually do end up getting a national health plan it's probably inevitable that there will be more attempts to curtail the amount of sugar in our food as a way to help keep health costs under control.


The problem is that you are applying a broad brush. You don't have 100% causation. You eat x amount of sugar and blammo..you are **********. Where is the line? What if that 22 oz drink is shared? What if I throw most of it out. What if I want more ice in it. Etc. etc. Under those circumstances I am staying fit, not adding to the healthcare problem but still getting targeted. Does that seem fair to you? If yes, do you mind if I target you the same way on other things that bother me that could correlate to some societal well being if I force you to do them?



Click on anyone of the links in my OP. Mayor Bloomberg's first attempt was to do precisely that -- have a tax placed on sugary drinks. This would have needed to have been approved on the state level and it failed due to heavy lobbying by the fast food and soft drink businesses. PepsiCo even threatened to move their headquarters out of New York State if the sugar tax passed. The state legislators caved-in.

Per the articles, limiting the size of soft-drinks sold in restaurants, fast-food places and other "food-service establishments" seems to be the only thing that Bloomberg can do that doesn't require the cooperation of the NYS legislature or of the federal government. (Bloomberg wanted to ban soft-drink purchases with food stamps but the federal govt refused to go along with that restriction. ) But limiting the size of soft-drinks was not the mayor's first choice.


So he tried to do something and didn't get the votes. He then goes and does something in a roundabout way that probably will not even get close to achieve what he wanted. It seems to me like a pathetic last **** you. I personally don't like this. Maybe you think it is okay, but the same question as above applies. If in the future some obese major does the opposite will you accept it?

[Xulld]

Well, you're just wrong. Most people will buy more food/drink than they want if they perceive it as a bargain, and once they buy it they will eat/drink all of it if possible, well beyond the amount they "wanted". This may not be true in a grocery store situation, but it is at a gas station, movie theater, restaurant, etc. People will also fill up on bread at a restaurant, even though they know the entree they ordered will be too much for them on its own, because they don't like waiting to eat and the bread is free, then they will stuff themselves trying to finish that entree. People will also clean their plate because throwing out food is perceived as wasteful, but stuffing yourself with food you don't need that will end up as fat is not.

I don't agree with the ban, but I don't see how anyone could go through life and not notice these things.

How do you control for what a person wants in statistical analysis? I see some assertions being made, but no data. What a person needs . . . yea sure, wants? Hmmm

For myself I do not eat past being full, and dont give two ***** about waste. It either goes in the fridge, gets given to the dogs as a rare treat, or tossed in the trash. I dont drink soda at all so that's not an issue.

[Saule]

Tell me JJM777, is there anything you don't want to ban?

I hope you were not smoking when writing that (leaving bad secondary smoke on it, you know) ;)

[Kaylee]

@Kaylee: Sure, they don't like their profit streams.

? The corporations don't like their profit streams?

People also don't like being told what they can drink and how much. Banning sodas and/or taxing them beyond sales tax is.. uh.. ok? It's their own body. We don't HAVE a universal health care system yet so it only hurts them. Let them decide what they want.

We do have a sory of hybrid system where several health care systems are funded by taxpayer dollars:

* Medicare
* Medicaid

* and at least in NY state, programs for people whose income falls below a ceiling that varies depending upon how large their family is or if they are single. In some programs the insured just pay a co-pay. In other programs they pay both a co-pay and a premium. My guess is that at least some of the other states have similar programs.

And for everyone, regardless of whether we each participate in a taxpayers' funded or private health care system -- our health care costs are very much affected by the choices all of us make.

I don't think banning things such as super-size sodas is a good idea though.

I would be in favor of sugar taxes if the raised taxes went to cover medical costs and if they were structured in such a way that it wouldn't make sugary foods a rare luxery for the very few.

It seems a fair way to link health insurance costs to choices that we each can freely make that affect our health vs. linking health insurance costs to genetics or accidents. After all genetics and accidents that have an adverse affect on our health is what we have health insurance for.

If each person's medical costs weren't strongly affected by the choices we all make as a group than I wouldn't be interested in ideas about how to allocate health costs fairly based on the decisions we each make.

[Kaylee]

The problem is that you are applying a broad brush. You don't have 100% causation. You eat x amount of sugar and blammo..you are **********. Where is the line? What if that 22 oz drink is shared? What if I throw most of it out. What if I want more ice in it. Etc. etc. Under those circumstances I am staying fit, not adding to the healthcare problem but still getting targeted. Does that seem fair to you? If yes, do you mind if I target you the same way on other things that bother me that could correlate to some societal well being if I force you to do them?

Well that would be the beauty of a sugar tax if it was intelligently calculated. For people who just have a little bit of sugar as part of their diet, the additional amount of tax paid would be barely noticable.

If someone is eating enough sugar that the odds are extremely likely that they will get diabetes, vascular problems or cancer -- they are helping to defray their medical costs with the taxes they pay. And the folks who make an effort to eat and live healthily will pay less for medical costs which seems only reasonable.


So he tried to do something and didn't get the votes. He then goes and does something in a roundabout way that probably will not even get close to achieve what he wanted. It seems to me like a pathetic last **** you.

That is probably right.

I personally don't like this. Maybe you think it is okay,

No, not really. Government is large enough -- I don't like the precedent this would set if the NYC Board of Health goes ahead and bans super sized soft-drinks in NYC restaurants.

But I can imagine the frustration that may have caused the mayor to come up with this idea. He probably gets a certain amount of funds from the federal and state government to provide care for people insured under Medicare, Medicaid and the various partially taxpayer subsidized programs in the various hospitals and clinics owned by the city. And I bet its not enough and he's having a heck of a time balancing the budget. When he tried to do something about it, large corporations in the fast food and soft drink businessess made sure he failed because they believed that sugar taxes (attempt #1) or not allowing people to purchase soft -drinks with food stamps (attempt #2) would hurt their bottom line.

I do agree with you and think the mayor "acted out". His proposed 3rd solution (banning very large sizes of soda served in restaurants) may well end up giving us an additional problem.

I also think there's another problem that is not being addressed. Large corporations have much more political power than the majority of voters. When there's a conflict between what the majority of voters want vs what a few of the large corporations want -- the latter usually wins even if this has a horrendous effect on our government's budget. Ultimately this is not sustainable but I don't see anyone having serious conversations about how to solve this political problem.

but the same question as above applies. If in the future some obese major does the opposite will you accept it?

Hmm, are you asking me if some people in power say henceforth you must eat a pound of candy before you can have any dinner will I accept it? :D

Seriously, I do agree with you that banning certains sizes of soda was heavy-handed.

It would have been better if say the mayor could have suceeded in forging an agreement among all the states that they would all implement a sugar tax so that PepsiCo's threat to move out of NYS if the sugar tax was passed would have been made meaningless. But that would probably be next to impossible to do. The only thing the mayor had the power to do -- propose a new ban that will almost certainly be passed by the NYC board of health because he had appointed all the regulators sitting on that board is, I agree a very heavy handed approach.

[JJM 777]

That penalizes the very fit people also.
Very fit (=muscular) people have trouble with the upper end of BMI, not the lower end. But then, BMI is a poor tool anyway, but easier for the average layman to measure than fat percentage or something.

And people who are very underweight may be so because of health issues and not because of life style choices.
Expemptions are available with a doctor´s certificate.

Tell me JJM777, is there anything you don't want to ban?
Most things in the world. We are focusing on a problem, obesity, and finding ways to reduce the harm.

[sadhatter]

Health reasons give a motive for the ban.

But in my infinite kindness I would first wait for technology to create a replacement product that large audiences enjoy as much as the unhealthy original, before banning the original.

Again, who gets to decide this, what % of folks do you feel it is okay to say " Well, i know you don't like this, but i do, so deal.", and what health risks would be appropriate to do this for?

Think of it this way, you could easily cram SPAM with a whole crapload of extra vitamins, nutrients, etc. If they did this, would it be okay to then ban all other meats because they are not as healthy? Or do we get to realize that taste, and lifestyle are personal choices, we are all entitled to make?

IT seems to me, if you dislike that money is being spent on medical problems associated with this, you should be reforming the health care system, not trying to institute a Soylent green or demolition man esque series of food bans.

[sadhatter]

Not for a soda you are not going to drink it doesn't, and if you are going to, then this changes nothing.

If someone wanted to buy soda in bulk they get multiple 2 liters which are unaffected by this change.

Say it with me here , convenience.

No one wants to schlep around a 2 liter, and a large soda from most places can easily satisfy thirst needs on a long car trip, or hell, just a day lazing around. Do you really want people who seriously just drink soda to now have to uncap a 2 liter while driving down the highway?

[sadhatter]

We tried that. It got voted out becuase no one liked soda taxes. (Speaking as somoene who usually has 3 or so mountain dews a night to stay awake, I find this a really dumb idea. But eh.)

Kind of a different subject, but....

MD, no longer has caffeine here in canada, and hasn't for quite some time. But i still hear folks talking about how great it is at keeping them up. ( non caffeine junkies tend not to itemize the caffeine on everything they consume, folks like myself on the otherhand, know it down to the mg.)

So i guess my question is, are you somewhere , where they still put caffeine in it, or are you just turning over your bottle now and realizing the extent of the placebo effect?

[sadhatter]

No, I'm not.

I'm just interested in whether the critics who claim that consumers would buy two 16 oz. sodas to make up for the lack of a 24 oz. option are basing this assertion on real statistical data or on their own conjecture. I'm asking this out of real curiosity.

No conjecture needed, the part you snipped from my post rather easily shows you that they will. If your thirsty, you drink, and you drink what you want to drink, these people want to drink soda, they will get soda. There is no trick here, just simple human nature.

[sadhatter]

Mayor Bloomberg wants to limit the size of soda, but somehow he thinks it's just fine to host a hot dog eating contest:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/michael_bloomberg_s_hot_dog_eating_contests_if_sod a_is_bad_why_is_competitive_eating_good_.html



So he hosts a hot dog eating contest in which someone is proudly proclaimed champion by eating 68 hot dogs, but is not allowed more than a 16 oz. Coke to wash it down.

You know what would have been brilliant?

If Bloomberg was actually using this all as a way to illustrate how stupid something like this is. And once the guy ate his 68 hot dogs, placed down a small soda by him, then acted confused when he wanted more.

[sadhatter]

The point was that the packaging doesn't always make sense in relation to serving sizes, not that what they consider a serving size is too small.

I'm not saying that food should only come in containers in single-serve units but that packaging matters to how much people eat and I doubt the people making the product intend the serving sizes to be what people have in cases like the yoghurt example (not due to the size of the serve, but the number of servings in the container).

And I don't eat yoghurt, for the record.

Problem is, this is not being done for some evil reason, it is done because packaging everything in single serving sizes, is incredibly, terrible, almost absurdly wasteful.

A great example is the unit dose system in hospitals. The amount of waste from your standard bottle of medication is not all that much. But when you start to have to package things individually, the amount of waste is just insane.

And this would have real effects for the consumer, besides just screaming **** you to the environment. You would be paying a much higher unit price, as they are not going to just ( no pun intended) eat the cost of this, and if said serving isn't the amount you want, you get to pay this extra twice.

Is it too much to ask for people to understand what a serving is, and intended to be?

[sadhatter]

Tell me JJM777, is there anything you don't want to ban?

Judging by his posts , " Stuff i like" would be the comprehensive list.

[sadhatter]

It's always fun to see people being all for freedom .. until it's something they don't like

@Kaylee: Sure, they don't like their profit streams. People also don't like being told what they can drink and how much. Banning sodas and/or taxing them beyond sales tax is.. uh.. ok? It's their own body. We don't HAVE a universal health care system yet so it only hurts them. Let them decide what they want.

The argument seems to boil down to " I don't want to pay for their fatness, and the issues it causes." , all well and good till you realize something.

What is an okay reason to dip into the health care kitty? Why does the guy who breaks 2 bones a year playing amateur football, get to dip into it, while for some reason the guy who needs to have an ulcer fixed, or any other type of surgery that could be due to or aggravated by bad eating habits, get the short end of the stick?

If we are going to do this, than healthcare would be ran on an "If you could have avoided it" system. any injury, condition, or disease state that is caused , or agrevated by something the person could avoid, is not covered. And that is just not something that jives with the freedom we expect in north america.

And i know a response of "But , amateur sports don't cause as much cost..." is coming, and the problem is, that is not the point at all. It does cost, and said cost could be avoided by people not engaging in the activity. If this is an okay route to take with fat folks, or smokers, then it is the way things need to be done across the board. And do we really want to live in a world where we eat exactly 82 saltine crackers, drink a 1.2 liters of water, and spend our days hoping to **** that we don't accidentally hurt ourselves while doing something we enjoy?

[Kaylee]

Very fit (=muscular) people have trouble with the upper end of BMI, not the lower end.

Ah yes. And rain is wet and ice is cold.

But then, BMI is a poor tool anyway, but easier for the average layman to measure than fat percentage or something.

True. Slightly off topic, but I don't know why anyone still refers to the BMI anymore. The weight-to-height metric (WHtR) (http://www.livestrong.com/article/93638-whtr-the-new-determinant-health-risk/) has been considered the more useful metric for a few years now. But even that one has its limitations, I'm sure. For example: pregnant women, women who have been recently pregnant, Little People, etc.


Expemptions are available with a doctor´s certificate. And unnecc complicated and doesn't address the fact that many overweight people are healthy. A sugar tax targets the issue more directly and doesn't rely on an honor system. Or require people to take a half day or more out of their schedules and pay for a doctor's appt.

[Kaylee]

The argument seems to boil down to " I don't want to pay for their fatness, and the issues it causes." , all well and good till you realize something.

What is an okay reason to dip into the health care kitty? Why does the guy who breaks 2 bones a year playing amateur football, get to dip into it, while for some reason the guy who needs to have an ulcer fixed, or any other type of surgery that could be due to or aggravated by bad eating habits, get the short end of the stick?

If we are going to do this, than healthcare would be ran on an "If you could have avoided it" system. any injury, condition, or disease state that is caused , or agrevated by something the person could avoid, is not covered. And that is just not something that jives with the freedom we expect in north america.

And i know a response of "But , amateur sports don't cause as much cost..." is coming, and the problem is, that is not the point at all. It does cost, and said cost could be avoided by people not engaging in the activity. If this is an okay route to take with fat folks, or smokers, then it is the way things need to be done across the board. And do we really want to live in a world where we eat exactly 82 saltine crackers, drink a 1.2 liters of water, and spend our days hoping to **** that we don't accidentally hurt ourselves while doing something we enjoy?

You raise good points sadhatter. But whenever society deals with shared space and/or resources we basically start telling each other what to do via laws, regulations, fees (and customs).

My neighbors were able to sucessfully make some of their neighbors get in compliance with a noise ordinance law. The neighbors worked late, came home at about 2AM and wanted to relax and party until about 6AM every night. Afterall it was their home! Shouldn't they have the right to unwind after a hard day's work?

Most people, more or less, follow the speed limits. They may have a beautiful piece of machinery and be the most excellant drivers in the world -- but when they are on a public road they still observe the speed limits instead of letting the gas pedal hit the floor.

Business owners follow safety laws even when it's their investment and their property.

Why should health insurance that involves sharing risks with a pool of strangers be any different?

Negotiatiating the boundaries between individual and group rights and liberties takes time. But when/if the health insurance set-up changes in this country I think those boundaries will also end up changing a little.

FWIW, I think big business and government are going to be doing most of the negotiating. These days more and more it appears that the voters are just bystanders while the real decison-making takes place.


ETA: BTW, in case you were thinking that I was one of those skinny people that can eat whatever I like and not gain an ounce that is not so. I have my problems with the scale and have journeyed up and down it's numbers at least half a dozen times.

[JJM 777]

who gets to decide this, what % of folks do you feel it is okay to say " Well, i know you don't like this, but i do, so deal."
There are many possibilities how to organize this, in the current legislations it tends to be either 51% of voting public, or a dictator, or something from between these extremes.

[bigred]

Personally I think Bloomberg's approach is a little heavy handed but I can understand his frustration. There's a direct connection between non-diet sodas, obesity and medical expenses --- and NYC does fund city owned hospitals. I think it's a great idea (to address some of the worst of the "bad products" which are skyrocketing our healthcare costs) but poorly implemented here. It's easy to skirt around and I agree that taxing the heck out of it to make it costly makes more sense.

I'd rather see other approaches taken though. I'd be in favor of requiring all NYC grocery stores and restaurants to have labels on either the items themselves or on the menus I think that would do little, frankly. Did the labels on cigs stop people from smoking? Hardly.

What bothers me is this self-entitled bit ie those that want "free"/cheaper healthcare yet don't want their right to eat tons of unhealthy crapola infringed...even though it's no small part of driving costs up. The problem here, as I suspect others have said (sorry haven't read all replies), is how can you prove someone's obesity/whatever was caused by their eating habits? This isn't like smoking or booze.

Banning sodas and/or taxing them beyond sales tax is.. uh.. ok? It's their own body. We don't HAVE a universal health care system yet so it only hurts them. Let them decide what they want.uh not quite. Given E.R. and Medicare, we do kinda have it, on a limited but significant scale.

Ironically, a much larger % of the so-called lower classes - ie those who more often can't afford health care - are the ones who need it more because their eating/lifestyle is less healthy ie eat more fast food, tons of soda etc etc.

Offhand I vote for less "universal" care if anything, not more. Accountability.

[Kaylee]

I think that would do little, frankly. Did the labels on cigs stop people from smoking? Hardly.

Bigred, my first reaction was are you kidding me? But I did some googling and sure enough -- public information on the link between cancer and smoking correlated with a dip in the percentage of Americans that smoked -- but not as much as one would think.

Laws banning cigarette advertising on TV & radio, and smoking in many public areas appears to have had more of an effect.

Smoking Prevalence Among U.S. Adults, 1955–2010
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

Percentage of High School Students Who Reported Cigarette Use 1991 - 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CDC-chart-current_cigarette_use-1991-2007.png

History of Cigarettes
http://www.ehow.com/about_5436391_history-cigarettes.html

Frankly, I'm surprised. I grew up during the '60s and '70s and my erroneous impression was that the warnings and information campaigns had made much more of an impact.

What bothers me is this self-entitled bit ie those that want "free"/cheaper healthcare yet don't want their right to eat tons of unhealthy crapola infringed...even though it's no small part of driving costs up. The problem here, as I suspect others have said (sorry haven't read all replies), is how can you prove someone's obesity/whatever was caused by their eating habits? This isn't like smoking or booze.

uh not quite. Given E.R. and Medicare, we do kinda have it, on a limited but significant scale.

Ironically, a much larger % of the so-called lower classes - ie those who more often can't afford health care - are the ones who need it more because their eating/lifestyle is less healthy ie eat more fast food, tons of soda etc etc.

Offhand I vote for less "universal" care if anything, not more. Accountability.



As far as insurance goes -- I'm in favor of a single payer system. Under our current system Medicare, Medicaid and insurance provided by large corporations are the 800 lb gorillas. Everyone else either has to either pay much more for the same service or make do without. And in total Americans pay far more for medical care than people in other countries -- and our system isn't even in the top rankings. The only ones who really benefit now under our current system are the top ranking executives of insurance companies and possibly other corporations who gain an easy way to entice people to work for them. If it weren't for the health insurance benefit, I suspect that more people would rather work for smaller companies or for themselves.

I just think that even with a single payer system it should be possible to link expense to a lifestyle that is freely chosen. I'm not in favor of linking premiums to the randomness of genetics and accidents; after all, that's what we want health insurance for.

[Cain]

Insurance, private or public, is a means of pooling risk; inevitably, those in good health end up subsidizing those in poor health. You participate because you don't what group you'll be in. Lack of full information and perfect competition means you are still, in all likelihood, paying for people who double-fist soda.

Maybe one day we'll get to a stage where private insurers install chips on your person so they can document everything you do and adjust your premiums in real time. This would be fine. A single-payer system is tyrannical.

[LTC8K6]

How many calories in a 24 oz Bud at Yankee Stadium?

[Xulld]

Say it with me here , convenience.

No one wants to schlep around a 2 liter, and a large soda from most places can easily satisfy thirst needs on a long car trip, or hell, just a day lazing around. Do you really want people who seriously just drink soda to now have to uncap a 2 liter while driving down the highway?

No no, we agree. I was responding to someone else. Convenience is absolutely the reason, but that falls under what a person wants ultimately.

. . and they may not want to drink it all right now. It might be over time.

Sadhater we are definitely on the same side here.

[bigred]

Bigred, my first reaction was are yoicentage of Americans that smoked -- but not as much as one would think.
Thanks but pls note I didn't say "public information on the link between cancer and smoking" but rather just the cig pack labels. Why anyone would think people who are otherwise all too ready to smoke would go to buy a pack and suddenly ready the label and go "whoaaa! really? Never mind I don't want this" I can't imagine.

And really I am shocked that anyone would think advertising isn't the bigger if not biggest factor for most if not dang near all products. Companies don't pay millions (billions?) planning, strategizing and purchasing ad space for nothing.


If it weren't for the health insurance benefit, I suspect that more people would rather work for smaller companies or for themselves. ? WHAT "health insurance benefit?" Far as I can see the days of big corp's providing free/cheap healthcare to employees is basically gone. Don't buy into the propaganda machine claiming otherwise.

And I'd still rather work for one, tyvm, despite other things I hate about them, for other reasons. Stability, for one.

[Jarlaxle]

I actually drink Tab because I like the taste. Have since around 1968.

Tab? EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Third most-revolting thing I have ever drank. I couldn't even swallow it...I actually retched and spat it everywhere.

[Jarlaxle]

Man, you know what I could go for? Exactly 27 ounces of Coca Cola.

That will be one can (12oz) and one plastic bottle from the 6-pack (17oz/500ml). :)

[Jarlaxle]

This makes sense solves the problem.

A progressive income tax, where all persons with BMI within the range 20 ... 30 pay the same basic tax rate, and persons with a BMI outside of this range pay:

- if BMI > 30: tax rate += ((BMI - 30) * 5)%

- if BMI < 20: tax rate += ((20 - BMI) * 10) %

So, my mother, who has health problems due to being UNDERweight (low BP, hyperthyroid) gets a bonus. My father in law, (5'4", 235lbs and <10% body fat) and my wife (5'8", 165lbs, described by her doctor as "in the physical condition of an Olympic athlete,") gets penalized. Yeah, great plan!

Also, it would penalize ex-smokers...who tend to gain weight! (My uncle added 15lbs when he quit.)

[LTC8K6]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

This sort of nanny stuff is just the way it is in NYC.

I can only assume the citizens are in agreement with it, since Bloomberg still has a job.

[Warrior1461]

Want to solve this just end the Corn Subsidizes.

[Kaylee]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

This sort of nanny stuff is just the way it is in NYC.

I can only assume the citizens are in agreement with it, since Bloomberg still has a job.

What should the citizens of NYC do? Go to war? The mayor and his cronies overrode a voter's referendum that limited NYC politicians to two four-year terms. This was challenged in the federal courts and the Federal judges ruled against the challengers. All that the citizens of NYC could do (peacefully, anyway) was vote to reinstate the term limits again. And as for voting for Bloomberg again -- you can't vote for another strong candidate unless strong candidates choose to run. Well, you could write one in on your ballot, but that's not an effective or easy way to get someone into office.


Terms and term limits (since 1834) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_mayoral_elections)

Direct elections to the mayoralty of the unconsolidated City of New York began in 1834 for a term of one year, extended to two years after 1849. The 1897 Charter of the consolidated City doubled the term to four years which could not be renewed. In 1901, the term limit was removed, but the term halved to two years. In 1905, the four-year term, without limit, was restored. (Mayors Fiorello La Guardia, Robert F. Wagner, Jr. and Ed Koch were later able to serve for twelve years each.) [1] In 1993, the voters approved a two-term (eight-year) limit, and reconfirmed this limit when the issue was submitted to referendum in 1996. In 2008, the New York City Council voted to extend the two-term limit to three terms (without submitting the issue to the voters).[2] Legal challenges to the Council's action were rejected by Federal courts in January and April, 2009.[3] However, in 2010, There was yet another referendum, and it passed overwhelmingly.[4]

Is Term Limit Vote a Big Smack at Mayor? (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/11/is-term-limit-vote-a-big-smack.html)

<snip>

The whopping victory margin by YES voters on yesterday's term limits referendum could be read as a big "take-that" slap at Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn and 28 of her complicit members.

Here's why: The proposition to restore the prior two-term limit passed by a margin of 73.9% (YES) to 11% (NO). The vote spread, based on unofficial results, was 484,139 for YES and 170,824 for NO -- a victory margin of 380,255 votes out of 654,963 cast.

Who wouldn't want to win by that margin? For instance, it's more than three times the 50,597 vote margin that Bloomberg beat Bill Thompson by in last year's mayoral election.

When NYC was forced by federal law to replace the mechanical lever machine Mayor Bloomberg wanted an ATM style machine that had a poor paper trail (a roll of paper with ink that faded rapidly). A few people lobbied very hard for a scanner type machine instead where the voter would mark the ballot directly and the original ballot would be retained in a lock box. For various reasons this type of technology is still inferior to the mechanical lever machine -- but superior to the ATM style one as far as having a paper trail goes.

Luckily we won and got the voting machines that used the scanner technology. It doesn't surprise me that the mayor wanted the machine with the far weaker paper trails.

He obviously has a dictatorial streak.

[Kaylee]

Thanks but pls note I didn't say "public information on the link between cancer and smoking" but rather just the cig pack labels. Why anyone would think people who are otherwise all too ready to smoke would go to buy a pack and suddenly ready the label and go "whoaaa! really? Never mind I don't want this" I can't imagine.

Consider it an effort to keep my posts to a few paragraphs vs a few hundred pages.

I agree its likely that most of the people who got persuaded by the facts to stop smoking or to not start smoking were probably persuaded by the articles that came out first in the various consumer magazines and newspapers.

And really I am shocked that anyone would think advertising isn't the bigger if not biggest factor for most if not dang near all products. Companies don't pay millions (billions?) planning, strategizing and purchasing ad space for nothing.

Indeed they don't. And its an awesome albeit troublesome thing to see it in action now. I see a lot of people swayed by the campaign that includes a powerful image of the mayor in a dress. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/nanny-bloomberg-wears-dress-in-full-page-new-york-times-ad/)

The other side are not innocents in this dispute. The sugar tax was not an unreasonable idea but it dared to get in the way of possibly reducing their profits.

Basically to stay at a reasonable weight most people eventually have to prepare most of their own food most of the time. (Or someone in their family does.) The idea that for a reasonable mark-up one could get healthy entrees and side dishes ready to go either in most restaurants (eat-in or take-out) or in a grocery store and stay at a reasonable weight and be able to get good results on your blood work just isn't realistic. One could argue that the food manufacturers aren't living up to their side of an assumed social contract.

That public conversation isn't really happening. If interested consumers were able to organize and put out a polished campaign of their own -- it would be interesting to see what they might come up with. I personally see most of the corporations involved in the current dispute as a bunch of 4 year olds. Most of the 4 year olds I have known went through a stage where they wanted to play with others, but the games had to be what they wanted to play and they had to be played by their rules 100% of the time.

? WHAT "health insurance benefit?" Far as I can see the days of big corp's providing free/cheap healthcare to employees is basically gone. Don't buy into the propaganda machine claiming otherwise.

And I'd still rather work for one, tyvm, despite other things I hate about them, for other reasons. Stability, for one.

Not me. The last large corporations I worked for were really horrible places to work. I don't miss it at all. What they had in common was the idea that all their employees should be availble 7 by 24 but of course only be paid for a 35 hour week. Late hours every day, cancelled vacations and weekend plans were common for many of their employees. It was like being a modern day serf.

[23_Tauri]

Tab? EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Third most-revolting thing I have ever drank. I couldn't even swallow it...I actually retched and spat it everywhere.
And the first and second are....?

Want to solve this just end the Corn Subsidizes.
Political suicide, hence it won't happen.

[Jarlaxle]

And the first and second are....?

Red Bull and Moxie.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban

Now they are talking about coming for more stuff that's "bad" for you...

[Beerina]

Good chance the mayor isn't going to win the PR campaign on this issue.

At one point I was wondering if the fast food & soft drink industries and the NYC mayor & Board of Health would negotiate and end up compromising by not regulating soft drink serving sizes and allowing a sugar tax to go through. That would be an ideal solution, IMHO.

But now I'm guessing that the corporations are going to aim for a total strikeout.

Why compromise with evil incarnate? Government needs to go down in flames like the overreaching, nosy, intrusive busybodies they are.

I would like to cordially invite them to jump off a cliff and have sex with themselves on the way down.

[Kaylee]

Why compromise with evil incarnate? Government needs to go down in flames like the overreaching, nosy, intrusive busybodies they are.

I would like to cordially invite them to jump off a cliff and have sex with themselves on the way down.

That would be interesting to see.

FWIW, I think the corporations are evil also. I don't believe there are any good guys in this story.

[bigred]

Consider it an effort to keep my posts to a few paragraphs vs a few hundred pages. lol - fair enough

Indeed they don't. And its an awesome albeit troublesome thing to see it in action now. Yep. Always has been. Actually the machinery doesn't bother me half as much as how well it works on the mushy-brained masses. :(

Basically to stay at a reasonable weight most people eventually have to prepare most of their own food most of the time.To some extent or other, yeah, but it can vary. Actually a lot of grocery stores have meals or parts of them they make and sell fresh - I'm not a fan, but my point is you could really minimize how much effort you put into making meals and still eat pretty healthy, though it would cost more.

One could argue that the food manufacturers aren't living up to their side of an assumed social contract. That'd be a weak argument IMO. Food manufacturers, like most any other business, are looking for profits, period. If they can do well selling crappy unhealthy food that people are stupid/lazy enough to buy in great quantities, they have no obligation of any kind to wet-nurse them.

That's the govt's job. :o And I dislike gov't intervention as much as the next guy, but quite frankly we as a people are often incredibly dumb/lazy and only getting worse, so we need it.

I personally see most of the corporations involved in the current dispute as a bunch of 4 year olds. Most of the 4 year olds I have known went through a stage where they wanted to play with others, but the games had to be what they wanted to play and they had to be played by their rules 100% of the time. To be honest, sometimes I see nearly all organizations and/or people that way. We're more like kids than we'd care to admit. eg like kids, we'll do as much stupid/bad stuff as we're allowed to get away with...small wonder then that as our society has gotten much more permissive, we've socially been on a corresponding downward spiral. IMO. And no that's not to imply "things were always better in the good ol days" either. Very general observation. (too general maybe - sorry!)

Not me. The last large corporations I worked for were really horrible places to work.I've worked for a number of them and only one didn't fit that description, frankly. sigh

[Kaylee]

<snip>

Basically to stay at a reasonable weight most people eventually have to prepare most of their own food most of the time.

To some extent or other, yeah, but it can vary. Actually a lot of grocery stores have meals or parts of them they make and sell fresh - I'm not a fan, but my point is you could really minimize how much effort you put into making meals and still eat pretty healthy, though it would cost more.

It's hard to know how much sugar, salt and fat those foods actually have. Everyone loves those three things, it's almost a guaranteed way to make sure that most consumers will like the food -- so often a business will add a lot of those ingredients in. If they were to add a large amount of a different ingredient like say cumin or cardamom or really any other ingredient it would be more of a hit or miss proposition because other ingredients are not as universally well-liked.

I remember going to a community fair/fund raiser with some friends and being so proud of myself for getting a strawberry smoothie instead of ice cream. Then I happened to see the guy making the next batch of smoothies -- the amount of sugar he added was truly mind boggling. The ice cream probably would have been a healthier choice. That is just one example.

So ... unless I have reason to know exactly what is in the food ready to eat -- I usually don't buy it. I can't -- I end up having a weight problem. There have been studies and books written explaining how in particular salt and sugar trigger our appetites and some types of sugar prevent the hormones that suppress our appetite from kicking in. I know it's an issue for me which is why I have to make most of the food that I eat. I resent this, it's so time consuming -- but it's really the only way I can keep the weight off.



One could argue that the food manufacturers aren't living up to their side of an assumed social contract.

That'd be a weak argument IMO. Food manufacturers, like most any other business, are looking for profits, period. If they can do well selling crappy unhealthy food that people are stupid/lazy enough to buy in great quantities, they have no obligation of any kind to wet-nurse them.

You could make that argument in almost any area -- building codes for example. If someone is stupid enough to be willing to buy substandard buildng materials, why is the govt under any obligation to wet-nurse them? And if someone is willing to enter a building without making themselves aware of the quality of the materials used and how the building was constructed? Well, their tough luck if they fall through the floor -- why should they be mollycoddled?

It's probably in all of our interests for most of the members in our communities to be healthy vs not healthy.

It would not be a big stretch for govt to slightly expand their current food regulations and to decide to start handling sugar differently. The govt could decide to handle sugar like alcohol and require all foods with added sugar to be sold in stores designated for that purpose much like most alcohol is legally required to be sold in liquor stores and not allowed to be sold in other stores such as grocery stores. Or they may start requiring manufacturers to explicitly state how much of the sugar in food is added or only allow them to add up to a certain amount per serving in a processed food.

Fast-food corporations and soft-drink manufacturers are huge and wield a lot of political power, but so did the cigarette companies. Eventually, if the majority of society including govt and other large corporations decide that its in their interest to limit sugar -- sugar will be limited. I would bet on that -- I'm just not sure how long it will take.

Bloomberg is just the first politician trying to take on this issue. He won't be the last.

Hopefully the approach taken in the future will be more logical though.


ETA: Ideas of what is OK to sell to the public changes over time. Coca-cola use to have cocaine in it. The UK, and I think the US and France fought China partially over the right to be able to sell opium to China (The Opium Wars). Just a few examples.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's hard to know how much sugar, salt and fat those foods actually have. Everyone loves those three things, it's almost a guaranteed way to make sure that most consumers will like the food -- so often a business will add a lot of those ingredients in. If they were to add a large amount of a different ingredient like say cumin or cardamom or really any other ingredient it would be more of a hit or miss proposition because other ingredients are not as universally well-liked.

I remember going to a community fair/fund raiser with some friends and being so proud of myself for getting a strawberry smoothie instead of ice cream. Then I happened to see the guy making the next batch of smoothies -- the amount of sugar he added was truly mind boggling. The ice cream probably would have been a healthier choice. That is just one example.

So ... unless I have reason to know exactly what is in the food ready to eat -- I usually don't buy it. I can't -- I end up having a weight problem. There have been studies and books written explaining how in particular salt and sugar trigger our appetites and some types of sugar prevent the hormones that suppress our appetite from kicking in. I know it's an issue for me which is why I have to make most of the food that I eat. I resent this, it's so time consuming -- but it's really the only way I can keep the weight off.




You could make that argument in almost any area -- building codes for example. If someone is stupid enough to be willing to buy substandard buildng materials, why is the govt under any obligation to wet-nurse them? And if someone is willing to enter a building without making themselves aware of the quality of the materials used and how the building was constructed? Well, their tough luck if they fall through the floor -- why should they be mollycoddled?

It's probably in all of our interests for most of the members in our communities to be healthy vs not healthy.

It would not be a big stretch for govt to slightly expand their current food regulations and to decide to start handling sugar differently. The govt could decide to handle sugar like alcohol and require all foods with added sugar to be sold in stores designated for that purpose much like most alcohol is legally required to be sold in liquor stores and not allowed to be sold in other stores such as grocery stores. Or they may start requiring manufacturers to explicitly state how much of the sugar in food is added or only allow them to add up to a certain amount per serving in a processed food.

Fast-food corporations and soft-drink manufacturers are huge and wield a lot of political power, but so did the cigarette companies. Eventually, if the majority of society including govt and other large corporations decide that its in their interest to limit sugar -- sugar will be limited. I would bet on that -- I'm just not sure how long it will take.

Bloomberg is just the first politician trying to take on this issue. He won't be the last.

Hopefully the approach taken in the future will be more logical though.


ETA: Ideas of what is OK to sell to the public changes over time. Coca-cola use to have cocaine in it. The UK, and I think the US and France fought China partially over the right to be able to sell opium to China (The Opium Wars). Just a few examples.

... *sigh*

[Kaylee]

... *sigh*

FWIW, I'd be happy with a compromise where food manufacturers were just required to say how much sugar they had added to their product.

Obviously in soda it's all added sugar -- but in other foods it's not that easy to tell.

[coalesce]

Red Bull and Moxie.

Have to agree with you there about Red Bull. It tastes like vile candy.

Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is my demon rum. I love it. However, this thread has made me change how much I drink it. I mainly drink it in the car, either on long weekend drives or working late at night as an exterminator and using it to stay awake (don't like coffee, sorry.) In the past few weeks, I've taken to only drinking half the 20-oz. bottle and pouring the rest out. Otherwise, I will drink it later. I still get the taste (just enough to whet my beak) but don't go overboard like I would want to (drinking a 20-oz. bottle every night I'm out working, which is at least three nights a week.) I'm not saying it will turn me into Charles Atlas, but I have to admit, I'm feeling marginally better about myself.

Michael

[Mary_H]

If you are suggesting that marketers are stupid enough to work on higher brain centres you are going to be deeply disappointed.

There are people's who's full time job it is to work out how to sell you more drinks. [snip]

So in the end the options are to either accept that marketers are going to manage to sell more drink to you or use the law to counter their more effective tactics either through taxes or regulation.

[snip] Companies don't pay millions (billions?) planning, strategizing and purchasing ad space for nothing.[snip]

[snip]Fast-food corporations and soft-drink manufacturers are huge and wield a lot of political power, but so did the cigarette companies. Eventually, if the majority of society including govt and other large corporations decide that its in their interest to limit sugar -- sugar will be limited. I would bet on that -- I'm just not sure how long it will take.

Bloomberg is just the first politician trying to take on this issue. He won't be the last.[snip]

These are the essential issues. What are the costs and benefits of a "Nanny State" versus Nanny Corporations?

When research proves (and it does) that advertising increases profits, we have to wonder whether we actually have any choice in the matter when CocaCola tells us to buy CocaCola.

We hope that the state's mission is to uphold the constitution. We know what the corporations' mission is.

[Myriad]

As of yesterday, the >16oz ban has now been enacted by the New York Board of Health (but does not go into effect yet).

I wonder how easy this is to get around. I were selling giant soft drinks in New York, I would simply offer "combo" deals (16oz - $1.80, 16oz plus an 8oz - $2.05, two 16oz - $2.19, same beverage only) equivalent to whatever sizes I used to sell, bumped up a bit in price for the cost of the extra cup.

(That wouldn't work with self-service soda fountains, but they're not so common in NYC, and anyone who buys a larger size when free refills are offered is an idiot anyway.)

The court drama of nanny state versus soft drink corporate juggernauts will be interesting to watch for the next few months, though. Too bad there's no side to root for. How large a tub of popcorn am I allowed to much on while spectating?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Rolfe]

How much is 16oz in ml, anyway?

Rolfe.

[Laeke]

How much is 16oz in ml, anyway?

Rolfe.

12 ounces is apparently 0.355 L (mostly equivalent to a can.)
16oz = 0.47 L approx.
24oz = 0.7 L approx.

As a filthy European, I think the only thing that should be drunk in a single serving of quantities <= to 16oz is beer, to be honest.

[mumblethrax]

The soft drink industry's astroturf campaign (can't remember what it's called, but it's something ridiculous like "New Yorkers for Choice!") had been playing propaganda ads before movies in New York. The last movie I saw, the audience saw straight through it and started booing. I was impressed, until I remembered I was seeing Moonrise Kingdom. Then I got mad about our hipster mayor telling me what to do.

I'm sure it will be relatively easy to get around, but there's a reason the industry is campaigning against it: they understand what drives consumer behavior to a much greater extent than consumers do.

[Rolfe]

12 ounces is apparently 0.355 L (mostly equivalent to a can.)
16oz = 0.47 L approx.
24oz = 0.7 L approx.

As a filthy European, I think the only thing that should be drunk in a single serving of quantities <= to 16oz is beer, to be honest.


Are you sure you have that symbol the right way round?

That's nearly half a litre. Why would anyone want a single serving of Coke more than that?

Rolfe.

[Laeke]

That's nearly half a litre. Why would anyone want a single serving of Coke more than that?

Rolfe.

I fully get the point about personal responsability and nanny state, but I do agree with you that single-serving that size does look like overconsumption promoted by the industry/sellers under the guise of a "value for size" argument.

That's the outside impression, for what it is worth.

[Rolfe]

I can only imagine that in a hot climate, people are thirsty enough to drink that much. If the object of the exercise is fluid replacement, they should be drinking mostly water.

I really, really like Irn Bru, but I can't imagine drinking that much in a single serving. It doesn't make any sense.

Rolfe.

[Modified]

The engineer designed a cardboard holder to make carrying two cups as convenient as carrying one.

The programmer waited in line, bought one 16oz drink, finished it, checked to see if he was still thirsty, then got back in line...

The mathematician brought two 16oz drinks and poured them into a 32oz cup, thereby reducing the problem to one already solved.

[WildCat]

So presumably someone can still order a 32oz diet soda, but when they're given the cup to go to the self-serve machine they can fill it with regular soda, right?

I'm glad New York City exists, makes Chicago look slightly less stupid.

[schplurg]

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban

Now they are talking about coming for more stuff that's "bad" for you...

Since nobody else commented...

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.


"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.


"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.


.......


The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.


New York City voters oppose 51 - 46 percent Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on the sale of over-sized sugary soft drinks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban#ixzz26Tt5ZhAA

I wonder how many people in this meeting are fat?

The arguments for this can be applied to anything. According to this thread, many people believe that if others are doing things that cost they themselves (or society) money, that something should be done about it.

I pay for public schooling and no child of mine will ever attend one. I/we all pay for a lot of things we don't use or agree with. Yes, kids should be educated - general welfare and all that. I feel the school system is broken though and graduating stupid kids. But I pay.

It seems people want the government to have a bigger role in our lives across the board. How is taxing sugary drinks going to help healthcare costs when insurance companies are priva....oh ya, we want the government providing health care for us, I almost forgot.

It's called personal responsibility. For you to have the freedom to do the things you like to do, you need to accommodate other people who have different interests as well. If someone wants to eat themselve to obesity, that is their decision. Ya, it may cost you more money in some way, but do any of your likes or pleasures cost other people money?

If so, what if they start attacking that next?

I'm sick of the government invading my life, but what worries me much more is that so many people these days seem to feel the opposite. Notice that the USAs financial problems are being blamed on us and not the fact that our federal government is bloated beyond control. They keep wanting more! We must not be taxed enough! They deflect responsibility back on us....we're too fat, we're causing the problems. And people are buying it.

If our government wasn't so obese there would be plenty of tax dollars to go around. Don't get mad at your fat neighbor because your bills are so high.

[WildCat]

Are you sure you have that symbol the right way round?

That's nearly half a litre. Why would anyone want a single serving of Coke more than that?

Rolfe.
Maybe if you were working out in the sun on a very hot day? I can remember drinking a 1 liter Coke from KFC back in the day, and still being thirsty afterwards.

Now I bring my own Diet Coke to work. I only drink the regular Coke out of the fountain, because diet from the fountain tastes like crap for some reason.

[Rolfe]

If that's why you're drinking it, you need to cultivate the habit of drinking something else.

Rolfe.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I can only imagine that in a hot climate, people are thirsty enough to drink that much. If the object of the exercise is fluid replacement, they should be drinking mostly water.

I really, really like Irn Bru, but I can't imagine drinking that much in a single serving. It doesn't make any sense.

Rolfe.

It helps if you realize in places with large drinks such as this the cups are usually fairly stuffed with ice, drastically reducing the amount of drinkable liquid. For soda I have found a bottled 20oz works for me. 591 mL. Going for a 1L soda I often get tired of the sugar before I am finished, and by the time I am thirsty for it again the soda has gone flat. If I get a 32 oz, ~946mL, fountain drink it is pretty close to what I want to drink, getting tired of it right near the end. So I get the impression that a 32 oz fountain drink has close to the same amount of soda as a 20 oz bottle.

However, if I am given small amounts of something I will keep going back to it and end up drinking more than if I just obtained a larger container. I try to avoid packs of cans for that reason, otherwise I will drink one every few hours without thinking as I finish one before getting tired of it, then go grab another when I get thirsty again. For me it is best to stick with water and when I am craving a soda to just go buy a single 20 oz for that one day instead of storing multiple days of soda at home for cheaper.

[Laeke]

So presumably someone can still order a 32oz diet soda, but when they're given the cup to go to the self-serve machine they can fill it with regular soda, right?

I'm glad New York City exists, makes Chicago look slightly less stupid.

May be a stupid question from me, but I am under the impression that the idea here is to capitalize on how lazy people become nowadays when things are not handed to them...

But it is true that cups tends to be filled with a ridiculous amount of ice, too.

[Rolfe]

Not living in such an environment, I find that sort of pattern of drinking very strange. (I've still got an unopened can of Irn Bru in my bag left over from Wednesday, because when I got to the recording venue where I was singing, cups of tea were provided and I didn't need or want anything else.) I drink a cup of tea with a meal, and maybe once or twice a day I'll have a coffee as well. That's it.

When in a hot climate, I carry bottled water, and drink that. It doesn't interfere with my usual tea/coffee/occasional fizz consumption, which doesn't increase.

Rolfe.

[Laeke]

Cups are much less common this side of the pond though, aren't they?
I wouldn't be too surprised that the consumption means would alter the patterns there. I would tend to agree with The Fallen Serpent that pack of cans, for instance, tends to not last as long as a plain bigger bottle even if the total volume is the same: if only because once opened a can has to be finished pretty quickly.

[Rolfe]

Obviously, a bottle with a screw top is essential. I would totally distinguish between drinking as part of "eating and drinking", and essential fluid replacement in the heat. For the latter, you need a sealable container that allows you to drink a mouthful or two as you need it.

Rolfe.

[AvalonXQ]

They've shown that people will eat more or less food if you serve them more or less. That's why most lifestyle diets nowadays recommend you actually buy smaller plates.

It would not surprise me if the same were true of drinks. I know I don't give the size of my drink a second thought; I finish my 12 oz, 20 oz, or 32 oz cup of soda with my meal. I expect if they shrunk the sizes and capped the largest at 20 oz, I'd never notice.

[WildCat]

If that's why you're drinking it, you need to cultivate the habit of drinking something else.

Rolfe.
That was back in the 80s, bottled water was still a novelty then. Sometimes we'd have abig cooler with ice water in it, but that got disgusting after a while.

Now it's diet soda for me at work, water has no caffeine. And I never much liked coffee.

[dudalb]

Sad it is not in Chicago.We could do a whole new TV version of "The Untouchables" with Eliot Ness busting Al Capone and Frank Nitti for selling 32 ounce sodas....

[Myriad]

Not living in such an environment, I find that sort of pattern of drinking very strange. (I've still got an unopened can of Irn Bru in my bag left over from Wednesday, because when I got to the recording venue where I was singing, cups of tea were provided and I didn't need or want anything else.) I drink a cup of tea with a meal, and maybe once or twice a day I'll have a coffee as well. That's it.

When in a hot climate, I carry bottled water, and drink that. It doesn't interfere with my usual tea/coffee/occasional fizz consumption, which doesn't increase.


That's pretty typical, but it might not be enough for many people's health. I'm supposed (as in, doctor's orders) to drink a minimum 64 oz (a bit less than 2 liters) every day, and except on hot days, to do that I have to measure out that much in a bottle in the morning and pace myself to finish it by the end of the day. (On hot days I deliberately drink more.) As a result I'm never thirsty; if I drink nothing it's about a day before I start feeling thirsty.

I switched from sweetened tea and soda to water when I started doing that, because otherwise it would have been a big increase in calories. I suspect that many people who order a giant 32oz/1-liter soft drink have drunk almost nothing else the entire day, maybe a cup of coffee or two since waking (or even, since dinner the evening before). Really, wouldn't you almost have to be dehydrated to be able to drink that much at one time?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[OnlyTellsTruths]

It helps if you realize in places with large drinks such as this the cups are usually fairly stuffed with ice, drastically reducing the amount of drinkable liquid. For soda I have found a bottled 20oz works for me. 591 mL. Going for a 1L soda I often get tired of the sugar before I am finished, and by the time I am thirsty for it again the soda has gone flat. If I get a 32 oz, ~946mL, fountain drink it is pretty close to what I want to drink, getting tired of it right near the end. So I get the impression that a 32 oz fountain drink has close to the same amount of soda as a 20 oz bottle.

Sonic is especially bad at that.

I've gotten drinks at Sonic that are filled with crushed ice and then the drink is added. That's like 80 percent ice.

They sell a "Route 44" fountain soda, 44 ounces. It has maybe one 12 ounce can worth of soda in it if you are lucky.

[Jarlaxle]

Maybe if you were working out in the sun on a very hot day? I can remember drinking a 1 liter Coke from KFC back in the day, and still being thirsty afterwards.

Now I bring my own Diet Coke to work. I only drink the regular Coke out of the fountain, because diet from the fountain tastes like crap for some reason.

The mix is off. Someone needs to call the fountain service people to fix it.

[rwguinn]

woopsie!
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/11/news/companies/soda-ban/?hpt=hp_t1

[Alareth]

Sonic is especially bad at that.

I've gotten drinks at Sonic that are filled with crushed ice and then the drink is added. That's like 80 percent ice.

They sell a "Route 44" fountain soda, 44 ounces. It has maybe one 12 ounce can worth of soda in it if you are lucky.

When ordering drinks I specify "light ice" for this very reason.

[shemp]

woopsie!
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/11/news/companies/soda-ban/?hpt=hp_t1

Damn activist judges!

(Actually, I agree with the ruling and hope it's upheld.)

[Sam.I.Am]

But has the Food Court issued a ruling yet?