New York Soda Law

[JCSr]

Well, making vendors change their selection is making them do something. However, in your same vein, we could not force them to do this, but simply limit their choices by law until it's a natural choice. How about then?

Are you in favor of the government requiring that restaurants and food vendors to keep cold food 41 degrees and lower and hot food 140 degrees and over?

 

[mattyoung]

And we're too ignorant to choose? Are politicians more healthy than the rest of us? Corrupt? Yes. Healthy? No.

And that should be my choice. As should be buying a large drink.

a) As a whole yes, apparently.
b) Yea it is your choice so buy another one, and another one, and another one.

 

[JCSr]

And we're too ignorant to choose? Are politicians more healthy than the rest of us? Corrupt? Yes. Healthy? No.

And that should be my choice. As should be buying a large drink.

When was the last time you went into a restaurant and ordered a soda? Did the bring you out a large gulp 44 oz belly buster, or did they bring you a regular 16 oz glass with a straw? Did they oblige when you asked for a refill or did the server simply ask if you needed a refill?

You can still drive to a convience store and get your large gulp 44 oz belly buster.

Where is the problem?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not a bad thing that Big Brother can tell us what we can drink? Or what size fries we can order? Big Brother is alive and global.

Global? This was an action by the CITY of New York.

-Dan.

 

[dollarsbill]

a) As a whole yes, apparently.
b) Yea it is your choice so buy another one, and another one, and another one.

No, it's my choice not to. But I want that choice.

 

[dollarsbill]

When was the last time you went into a restaurant and ordered a soda? Did the bring you out a large gulp 44 oz belly buster, or did they bring you a regular 16 oz glass with a straw? Did they oblige when you asked for a refill or did the server simply ask if you needed a refill?

You can still drive to a convience store and get your large gulp 44 oz belly buster.

Where is the problem?

The problem is it's none of their business if I want to have a large drink.

 

[JCSr]

The problem is it's none of their business if I want to have a large drink.

Apparently it is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your first link isn't working, but going off your summary of it, that's only an increased risk of death. That doesn't mention an increase in medical expenses for treatable conditions.

-Dan.

Do you have any studies to support this?

The studies I've found pertaining to the costs are all flawed in terms of how the conducted the tests.

When calculating the costs, they didn't break out the BMI groups they way they should have to get their stats.

From the CDC/JOEM joint study:
Results of the study revealed that within the high BMI range of 25 to 45 kg/m, medical and pharmaceutical costs were significantly higher than those whose BMI was within the normal range.

25 to 45? that's too wide of a range. That would include both a person who is 6 foot 1 & 180lbs and a person who is 5 foot 10 and 450lbs in the same group for stat purposes.

Essentially with the study they did it worked somethign like this, they took 5 morbidly obese people (450lbs) and one 180lbs person and that was one group...then they took six 170lbs people and put them in the other group.

Calculated the healthcare costs (which would obviously be higher for group A since they have 5 people who are 450lbs), and concluded that a the 180lbs person racked up 45% more in healthcare costs than the 170lbs person based on the averages of the two groups.

In an independent study done by a doctor in Norway, who was nice enough to break out the costs in to more granular BMI groups:

For persons with BMIs of 20 to 24.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $261

For persons with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $268


For persons with BMIs of 30 to 34.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $302


For persons with BMIs of 35 to 39.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $840


For persons with BMIs of 40 kg/m(2)+, mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $1,189


For the CDC style study, the lumped all the green together and compared that to the blue.

However, when the groups are broken out, it tells a very different story.

Other studies (like this one http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11810/09-08-obesity_brief.pdf) have been done that conclude essentially the same thing...which is costs don't start shooting up until you hit that BMI 35 mark.
(If you were 6 foot... that would be the 265lbs mark)

According to the stats, a 6 foot person who weighed 240 actually averages less healthcare costs that a person who is 6 foot and 160.

 

[Sistrin]

a) As a whole yes, apparently.

Here is a picture of health:

And another:

And a few more:

Yeah, these are the people we want telling us about our health.

 

[mpok1519]

Really?

Notice my "lol" at the end of the post?

 

[HalfoffSale]

THANK YOU! That is exactly what I've been talking about (in this thread and in others on the topic). People will eat more if it's put in front of them, and they're more inclined to just consume one serving, regardless of how big it is. From that link:



Of course it's manipulation.

-Dan.

I agree it's manipulation. There's so much talk of the government and freedom, but shouldn't I be protected from manipulation of my biology? Even animals do it, so it's not exactly a "learned western thing" as others are suggesting. It's innate, because previously you never knew where your next meal was coming from. It's not like this is something new either. There are all sorts of ways to manipulate people, from the Authority Shock tests to that Mystery guy having a show devoted to conning women at bars.

In this case we literally have a discovered science that allows one to bypass normal human behavior, so I would think discussing protections from manipulation would be relevant here. And to those opposing the ban on grounds of "freedom of choice," how far are you willing to go? Am I allowed to use other forms of manipulation and other psychology tricks?

 

[HalfoffSale]

Do you have any studies to support this?

The studies I've found pertaining to the costs are all flawed in terms of how the conducted the tests.

When calculating the costs, they didn't break out the BMI groups they way they should have to get their stats.

From the CDC/JOEM joint study:
Results of the study revealed that within the high BMI range of 25 to 45 kg/m, medical and pharmaceutical costs were significantly higher than those whose BMI was within the normal range.

25 to 45? that's too wide of a range. That would include both a person who is 6 foot 1 & 180lbs and a person who is 5 foot 10 and 450lbs in the same group for stat purposes.

Essentially with the study they did it worked somethign like this, they took 5 morbidly obese people (450lbs) and one 180lbs person and that was one group...then they took six 170lbs people and put them in the other group.

Calculated the healthcare costs (which would obviously be higher for group A since they have 5 people who are 450lbs), and concluded that a the 180lbs person racked up 45% more in healthcare costs than the 170lbs person based on the averages of the two groups.

In an independent study done by a doctor in Norway, who was nice enough to break out the costs in to more granular BMI groups:

For persons with BMIs of 20 to 24.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $261

For persons with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $268


For persons with BMIs of 30 to 34.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $302


For persons with BMIs of 35 to 39.9 kg/m(2), mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $840


For persons with BMIs of 40 kg/m(2)+, mean (+/-SE) annual costs of prescription drugs, outpatient services, inpatient care, and all medical care averaged $1,189


For the CDC style study, the lumped all the green together and compared that to the blue.

However, when the groups are broken out, it tells a very different story.

Other studies (like this one http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11810/09-08-obesity_brief.pdf) have been done that conclude essentially the same thing...which is costs don't start shooting up until you hit that BMI 35 mark.
(If you were 6 foot... that would be the 265lbs mark)

According to the stats, a 6 foot person who weighed 240 actually averages less healthcare costs that a person who is 6 foot and 160.

You do understand BMI is a measure of populations, not individuals, right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You do understand BMI is a measure of populations, not individuals, right?

No it's not. It's body mass index for the individual.

Calculate Your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator

Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has nothing to do with "populations". Every person has an individual BMI

 

[HalfoffSale]

No it's not. It's body mass index for the individual.

Calculate Your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator

Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has nothing to do with "populations". Every person has an individual BMI

I do get tired of correcting your use of science and statistics.

From the wikipedia article YOU linked. First paragraph of "Usage."

While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys, which found the BMI to be the best proxy for body fat percentage among ratios of weight and height;[4][5] the interest in measuring body fat being due to obesity becoming a discernible issue in prosperous Western societies. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I do get tired of correcting your use of science and statistics.

From the wikipedia article YOU linked. First paragraph of "Usage."

And I get tired of you trying derail this debate with semantics.

yes, it's used for population studies...but it's calculated by height & weight of the individual.

In the way the studies they were using were conducted, they were measuring the BMI's of the individuals who participated in the studies.

Yes, they use the average BMI ranges for the groups. However the data they compile is derived from the BMI calculations they performed on the individuals.

Even if you want to view the BMI stats in terms of populations, I've already proven that there's no significant health care costs or mortality risks for populations in the 25-29.9 BMI range. You can't justify government-regulated diets based on junk science.
Why don't you address the stats rather than trying to refocus the debate on use of terminology?

According to the stats, the group that is statistically at higher risk of cost and mortality only makes up ~2% of the population. The amount of money that would be saved by forcing a diet on them would be offset by the cost of regulation and enforcement. (Not to mention some of the extremely obese are a victim of their genetics and no diet in the world would ever make them thin)

 

[HalfoffSale]

And I get tired of you trying derail this debate with semantics.

yes, it's used for population studies...but it's calculated by height & weight of the individual.

In the way the studies they were using were conducted, they were measuring the BMI's of the individuals who participated in the studies.

Yes, they use the average BMI ranges for the groups. However the data they compile is derived from the BMI calculations they performed on the individuals.

Even if you want to view the BMI stats in terms of populations, I've already proven that there's no significant health care costs or mortality risks for populations in the 25-29.9 BMI range. You can't justify government-regulated diets based on junk science.
Why don't you address the stats rather than trying to refocus the debate on use of terminology?

According to the stats, the group that is statistically at higher risk of cost and mortality only makes up ~2% of the population. The amount of money that would be saved by forcing a diet on them would be offset by the cost of regulation and enforcement. (Not to mention some of the extremely obese are a victim of their genetics and no diet in the world would ever make them thin)

I'm not sure why you're doubling down on incorrectly using statistics. I'm on your side in this debate. Banning larger cups is stupid. However, if you'd like to continue misapplying the metric, then by all means proceed.

 

[mattyoung]

Here is a picture of health:

And another:

And a few more:

Yeah, these are the people we want telling us about our health.

It would apply to these people if they were in New York as well!

 

[pgp_protector]

Green Police: Audi Super Bowl Ad - YouTube

 

[pgp_protector]

a) As a whole yes, apparently.
b) Yea it is your choice so buy another one, and another one, and another one.

So why is it OK to sell them 4 x 16 ounce drinks but not ok to sell 1 x 64 ounce drink ?

 

[conamer]

So why is it OK to sell them 4 x 16 ounce drinks but not ok to sell 1 x 64 ounce drink ?

Because tha nanny state feels better now that they have their way.