Gulp! NYC Mayor Proposes Super-Sized Soda Ban.

[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/healt...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/healt...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:

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?

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?