New York Soda Law

[Chris81]

New York City has recently passed a law restricting the sale of soda beverages to no larger than 16 oz. in all restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters.

Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks | Healthland | TIME.com

Does anyone else think this is insane? This is nanny state taken to the extreme ! No doubt that drinking too much soda can be bad for your health but shouldn't those decisions be left to the individual?

The following link is a really fun piece of satire; However it does raise a serious question of how New York really does intend to enforce this law:

New York City Criminals Finding Ways to Enjoy 32oz & Larger Sodas[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]GlossyNews.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

Does anyone else think this is insane? This is nanny state taken to the extreme ! No doubt that drinking too much soda can be bad for your health but shouldn't those decisions be left to the individual?

They have been left to the individual, and the individuals are getting fat and causing a drain on our economy and on our public services, affecting everybody, not just themselves.

But regardless, this isn't nanny state. This law does not prohibit people from consuming lots of soda. It prohibits vendors from selling and marketing giant sodas. These companies are making a lot of money by encouraging people to engage in unhealthy behavior - behavior that's costing the rest of us a lot of money and this law stops that. I'm subsidizing the profits of PepsiCola and 7-11 even though I don't consume their products, and I'm tired of it.

-Dan.

 

[Sistrin]

I'm subsidizing the profits of PepsiCola and 7-11 even though I don't consume their products, and I'm tired of it.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

George Orwell.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

George Orwell.

???

-Dan.

 

[Chris81]

They have been left to the individual, and the individuals are getting fat and causing a drain on our economy and on our public services, affecting everybody, not just themselves.

How is it of the interest of the government that the populous is getting fatter? Also it should be noted that there are a whole lot more causes to obesity than just consuming soft drinks. The causes of Obesity are related mainly to diet, exercise, and genetics. Do we really want the government to enforce laws to restrict the lifestyle choices of their citizens?

But regardless, this isn't nanny state. This law does not prohibit people from consuming lots of soda. It prohibits vendors from selling and marketing giant sodas. These companies are making a lot of money by encouraging people to engage in unhealthy behavior - behavior that's costing the rest of us a lot of money and this law stops that. I'm subsidizing the profits of PepsiCola and 7-11 even though I don't consume their products, and I'm tired of it.

-Dan.

So by enforcing companies to stop the practice of selling giant sodas, this will somehow discourage people's from consuming these beverages in large quantities. I doubt! As you, yourself said this does nothing to stop someone from drinking as much soda as they want. Your argument seems to be that people are incapable of making wise decisions on their own so they need the government to intervene. Since people are easily manipulated by corporations to engage in unhealthy behavior why doesn't the government manipulate the people to engage in healthy behavior?

 

[Vylo]

If you want people to have choice, and have healthy choices, just make sure the establishments are offering smaller sizes as well. No need to restrict how big the sizes can be.

 

[KarateCowboy]

They have been left to the individual, and the individuals are getting fat and causing a drain on our economy and on our public services, affecting everybody, not just themselves.

But regardless, this isn't nanny state. This law does not prohibit people from consuming lots of soda. It prohibits vendors from selling and marketing giant sodas. These companies are making a lot of money by encouraging people to engage in unhealthy behavior - behavior that's costing the rest of us a lot of money and this law stops that. I'm subsidizing the profits of PepsiCola and 7-11 even though I don't consume their products, and I'm tired of it.

-Dan.

I totally agree; which is why we should outlaw abortion, as well as contraceptives. Abortion is not healthy for the body and generally traumatic. Plus, it's draining the economy and federal funds. Likewise, contraceptives encourage promiscuous sex, which leads to increases in STIs. In the 1950s one in 50 teenagers ever contracted an STI. Now it's one in four. Treating these infections is a huge drain on an already taxed health care system.

 

[Chris81]

If you want people to have choice, and have healthy choices, just make sure the establishments are offering smaller sizes as well. No need to restrict how big the sizes can be.

Not a bad idea! When I have gone to eat at many chain food restaurants, I am unable to eat the entire meal. At times there is a sizable chunk of food that goes to waste or that I take home as leftovers. Although as a consumer we also have choice as to where we eat. This is a big reason that I like eating at locally owned establishments. I tend to like restaurants that serve smaller portions of food made with really good ingredients.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How is it of the interest of the government that the populous is getting fatter?

Because obesity-related health issues are a huge drain on our economy, including the public services that governments provide.

Also it should be noted that there are a whole lot more causes to obesity than just consuming soft drinks. The causes of Obesity are related mainly to diet, exercise, and genetics.

And drinking soda a drum at a time would fall under "diet."

Do we really want the government to enforce laws to restrict the lifestyle choices of their citizens?

They already do, all the time. That ship sailed a long time ago. The trick is figuring out the best way to do it.

So by enforcing companies to stop the practice of selling giant sodas, this will somehow discourage people's from consuming these beverages in large quantities. I doubt! As you, yourself said this does nothing to stop someone from drinking as much soda as they want. Your argument seems to be that people are incapable of making wise decisions on their own so they need the government to intervene.

No, my argument is that people are easily manipulated, and if certain options aren't waved in their faces, then people will be less likely to choose them. Your dismissal of my argument is essentially a dismissal of the idea that marketing and packaging design are useless endeavors that have zero positive impact on sales. As any designer and sales exec will tell you, that's ludicrous.

Since people are easily manipulated by corporations to engage in unhealthy behavior why doesn't the government manipulate the people to engage in healthy behavior?

They're trying to. This is part of it. But there's a TON of money out there enticing you to do unhealthy & unwise things and it takes a long time to counteract that. Think of the amount of effort it took to get smoking and drunk driving to be frowned upon by the majority of society.

-Dan.

 

[Chris81]

Because obesity-related health issues are a huge drain on our economy, including the public services that governments provide.

How is obesity-related health issues a huge drain on the economy? For that matter what business of the government to identify and manage what it demes to be a drain on the economy?

Medical expenses are paid by private insurance. Insurance providers are the one who should be stipulating the requirements for maintaining coverage, including higher payments for lifestyle choices.

And drinking soda a drum at a time would fall under "diet."

You didn't get my point. Soda is only one small contributor of an obesity. If we assume that it is the government's business to regulate the health of every individual, we are going to need to get the government a whole lot more involved in the day to day each individual, including the regulation of a daily diet and exercise routine.

They already do, all the time. That ship sailed a long time ago. The trick is figuring out the best way to do it.

Well, it doesn't mean that it is right. People need to be able to make stupid decisions and face the full consequences of those decisions.

No, my argument is that people are easily manipulated, and if certain options aren't waved in their faces, then people will be less likely to choose them. Your dismissal of my argument is essentially a dismissal of the idea that marketing and packaging design are useless endeavors that have zero positive impact on sales. As any designer and sales exec will tell you, that's ludicrous.

People already have plenty of options, the option to buy a 16 oz beverage existed prior to the passage of this law. In actuality this law will probably create a great deal of waste. Let's say I have just finished a 15 mile hike and I am really thirsty. I'm thirsty enough to drink 20 ounces but I can only buy containers of 16 ounces. Meaning I am forces to buy two 16 ounce beverages and throw away the 12 ounces I could not drink. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Regarding the role of marketing efforts, of course they encourage people to buy their product but I still have free will with the capacity to not blindly follow what some add tells me to do.

They're trying to. This is part of it. But there's a TON of money out there enticing you to do unhealthy & unwise things and it takes a long time to counteract that. Think of the amount of effort it took to get smoking and drunk driving to be frowned upon by the majority of society.

-Dan.

So manipulation by the government is a good thing as long as they have my best interest at heart. Good thing to know!

 

[JCSr]

New York City has recently passed a law restricting the sale of soda beverages to no larger than 16 oz. in all restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters.

Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks | Healthland | TIME.com

Does anyone else think this is insane? This is nanny state taken to the extreme ! No doubt that drinking too much soda can be bad for your health but shouldn't those decisions be left to the individual?

The following link is a really fun piece of satire; However it does raise a serious question of how New York really does intend to enforce this law:

New York City Criminals Finding Ways to Enjoy 32oz & Larger Sodas[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]GlossyNews.com

Insane? No.

Look at all of our fat people in America. This is a start. I suggest people get up out of their chairs and go work out.

There is nothing unconstitutional about limiting people to 16oz soft drinks in their cups.

 

[Chris81]

I suggest people get up out of their chairs and go work out.

Better yet, let's make this into a law!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They have been left to the individual, and the individuals are getting fat and causing a drain on our economy and on our public services, affecting everybody, not just themselves.

But regardless, this isn't nanny state. This law does not prohibit people from consuming lots of soda. It prohibits vendors from selling and marketing giant sodas. These companies are making a lot of money by encouraging people to engage in unhealthy behavior - behavior that's costing the rest of us a lot of money and this law stops that. I'm subsidizing the profits of PepsiCola and 7-11 even though I don't consume their products, and I'm tired of it.
-Dan.

Obesity is not the problem that everyone thinks it is here in the US. We can thank the clowns at CSPI - Center for Science in the Public Interest for all of this nonsense. (Ironically enough, they don't value public interest or science, they just push a vegetarian agenda)

They were a big factor behind getting McD's to pull the SuperSize items off of their menu. How did that work out?

(Stats courtesy of CDC)
Pre-2004 removal:
Obesity: 32.2%

Now?:
Obesity: 36.1%

Yeah, removing high calorie items from menus sure works great!

Another problem, CSPI also had a hand in getting to define what's "obese". By the current standard, it's anything over a BMI of 30 (body fat % not accounted for)

Which means that both this guy:

And this guy...

...are both obese.

Yeah, it looks like their calculations are air-tight!

It's also interesting that they classify any BMI over 25 as "overweight"...which means I'm a regular plumper at 6'2" 190lbs.

Also, the cause of death and public health cost numbers they provided were a load of crap too...that's why they had to retract them one month after they published their study:

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the April 20, 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association that estimated the net death toll attributable to obesity to be 25,814 people per year.

This, of course, was quite a downward revision from CDC’s March 1, 2004 claim that obesity caused about 400,000 deaths per year, approaching the toll estimated for smoking.

They found that with the initial calculation, if someone was a BMI of 30+ and died in a car accident (or anything else), the death was attributed to their weight with the way the calculated their first study.

At a little over 25,000 death toll, it puts weight below each of these items in the causes of death category

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

 

[Desk trauma]

Look at all of our fat people in America. This is a start. I suggest people get up out of their chairs and go work out.

If you see this as only a start what other government interventions would you support to force citizens to take better care of them selves and what, if any, limit would you put on how much the state can tell you what to do with your private behavior?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Insane? No.

Look at all of our fat people in America. This is a start. I suggest people get up out of their chairs and go work out.

There is nothing unconstitutional about limiting people to 16oz soft drinks in their cups.

A big problem is obesity among our youth. How would you feel about compulsory agriculture work for students during summer break? They would get lots of exercise, learn work ethic, stay out of trouble, learn about the natural world and productive agriculture, learn about natural foods, and it would solve the agriculture industries need for seasonal labor. It could be managed as part of their education, so we might not even have to pay them for it. Hard work builds character -every American knows that. What better way to solve the problem of inner city teen gangs than to put them to work in the dirt? Would you be for that?

 

[JCSr]

If you see this as only a start what other government interventions would you support to force citizens to take better care of them selves and what, if any, limit would you put on how much the state can tell you what to do with your private behavior?

This is not forcing people to do anything, rather limiting their soda or sweet sugary drink to 16 oz at a time. There is no language in the law which I read which forbids refills.

 

[JCSr]

A big problem is obesity among our youth. How would you feel about compulsory agriculture work for students during summer break? They would get lots of exercise, learn work ethic, stay out of trouble, learn about the natural world and productive agriculture, learn about natural foods, and it would solve the agriculture industries need for seasonal labor. It could be managed as part of their education, so we might not even have to pay them for it. Hard work builds character -every American knows that. What better way to solve the problem of inner city teen gangs than to put them to work in the dirt? Would you be for that?

There is nothing in this law forcing anybody to do anything, so your suggestion that I may be for forced behavior modification is incorrect.

However it is a great idea to teach kids these things of which you speak. I also recommend that people learn to cook food and cut down on restaurant eating in order to have more control over their sugar, salt and fat intake. All of these things must be used with some physical exercise.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How is obesity-related health issues a huge drain on the economy?

It's estimated that diabetes in the US costs us $174 Billion dollars/yr. (Source). That's hardly the only obesity-related medical complication.

For that matter what business of the government to identify and manage what it demes to be a drain on the economy?

Umm... Because the laws say it is. The Constitution gives the federal gov't the right to regulate interstate commerce, and I'm sure if you looked through state constitutions and other municipal charters, you'd find similar language all over the place. Regulating the economy is one of the core functions of gov't.

Medical expenses are paid by private insurance. Insurance providers are the one who should be stipulating the requirements for maintaining coverage, including higher payments for lifestyle choices.

Medicare and Medicaid are public insurance programs, which are partly funded by state & local money.

You didn't get my point. Soda is only one small contributor of an obesity.

I understand that. But is the fact that it's only part of the problem a good reason to ignore it altogether? It seems like low-hanging fruit, to me.

If we assume that it is the government's business to regulate the health of every individual, we are going to need to get the government a whole lot more involved in the day to day each individual, including the regulation of a daily diet and exercise routine.

Your diet isn't being regulated. Commercial packaging is being regulated.

Well, it doesn't mean that it is right. People need to be able to make stupid decisions and face the full consequences of those decisions.

Yeah, that's fine, but you've bought into the libertarian myth that the consequences of an individual's poor choices don't extend beyond that individual. It's not true. Increased medical expenses, strained medical care capacity, and lost productivity affect all of us. I pay for jumbo's soda habit despite the fact that I go to the gym 6 times a week and eat chicken breast and salad all the time.

People already have plenty of options, the option to buy a 16 oz beverage existed prior to the passage of this law.

It did. But they also had a 64 oz waved in their face for only 25 cents more. Now they won't have that temptation.

In actuality this law will probably create a great deal of waste.

It may, but I suspect that people will just reduce their consumption.

Let's say I have just finished a 15 mile hike and I am really thirsty. I'm thirsty enough to drink 20 ounces but I can only buy containers of 16 ounces. Meaning I am forces to buy two 16 ounce beverages and throw away the 12 ounces I could not drink. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

More than likely you'd drink all of it.

Regarding the role of marketing efforts, of course they encourage people to buy their product but I still have free will with the capacity to not blindly follow what some add tells me to do.

It doesn't matter how free you are if your will is easily manipulated.

So manipulation by the government is a good thing as long as they have my best interest at heart. Good thing to know!

But you're ok with corporation manipulation that doesn't have your best interest at heart?!?

-Dan.

 

[JCSr]

Your diet isn't being regulated. Commercial packaging is being regulated.

-Dan.

This should pretty much end this conversation.

 

[conamer]

A big problem is obesity among our youth. How would you feel about compulsory agriculture work for students during summer break? They would get lots of exercise, learn work ethic, stay out of trouble, learn about the natural world and productive agriculture, learn about natural foods, and it would solve the agriculture industries need for seasonal labor. It could be managed as part of their education, so we might not even have to pay them for it. Hard work builds character -every American knows that. What better way to solve the problem of inner city teen gangs than to put them to work in the dirt? Would you be for that?

Arbeit macht frei.