Gulp! NYC Mayor Proposes Super-Sized Soda Ban.

Kaylee

Illuminator
K
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
4,287
See NY Times link.

Or the Chicago Trib 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. 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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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?).
 
CelticRose said:
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?).
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was about to post. This measure is just another well-intentioned but ultimately pointless bit of legislative onanism.
 
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."
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I miss extra-large McDonalds fries. Now I can only get large size for about the same price.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rjh01 said:
You do not need to ban soda, just tax it heavily. Some with anything else that is loaded with sugar.
Click to expand...


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 ......
 
"... 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.
 
LTC8K6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom