Gulp! NYC Mayor Proposes Super-Sized Soda Ban.

[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/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.

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) 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...gain-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]

the best solution

Want to solve this just end the Corn Subsidizes.