New York Soda Law

[Vylo]

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

Here is some of the rationale:

Many people will simply try to eat drink what is infront of them. So if you give them a 64 ounce drink instead of a 16, they will end up drinking more, even if they would have been sated by a 16 ounce drink. So giving them the 16 ounce drink, they drink less soda.

2 problems with this.

1) even if you are satisfied by the smaller drink, there is a decent chance you will end up thirsty later. Before anyone says, "but you could just drink water then!" You could have just drank water to start.

2) Instead of banning a certain size drink, one would think it would make more sense to offer smaller sizes, or better deals (value meals, whatever) that use the small drink sizes. Then people get to choose.

 

[HalfoffSale]

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

It has to do with how accepting you are of using psychology offensively.

Just as a repulsive hypothetical, if a manufacturer of Rape Awareness Bracelets discovered having red bracelets made rape rates significantly increase, he could exploit that. If he uses that psychology to increase rape rates which increases his sales and profit, and some years down the road some scientists discover why he has the most successful business, should he be allowed to continue selling red bracelets for his "freedom" or should the public be protected from his manipulation (though still allow him to sell other colors).

That's the debate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

How am I incorrectly using BMI stats?

I'm not saying I agree with their statistics, that's why I'm opposing the idea that there's an "obesity epidemic".

 

[HalfoffSale]

If BMI is the measurement the CDC and CSPI are using to formulate their studies, I think that's what should be discussed.

I'll gladly discuss it with someone who has shown they understand the measure and can apply it correctly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll gladly discuss it with someone who has shown they understand the measure and can apply it correctly.

By all means, enlighten us

How am I applying it incorrectly?

 

[HalfoffSale]

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

By all means, enlighten us

I already explained where you were wrong. You claimed it has nothing to do with populations and everything to do with individuals, which is completely wrong. You then doubled down. You continued to apply it to individuals. For example, the point you made about the wrestler is textbook misapplication. I'm willing to discuss it with someone who can understand and apply it correctly, which you have shown yourself unable or unwilling to do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I already explained where you were wrong. You claimed it has nothing to do with populations and everything to do with individuals, which is completely wrong. You then doubled down. You continued to apply it to individuals. For example, the point you made about the wrestler is textbook misapplication. I'm willing to discuss it with someone who can understand and apply it correctly, which you have shown yourself unable or unwilling to do.

Okay, well then tell us how you would apply the statistic.

 

[HalfoffSale]

Okay, well then tell us how you would apply the statistic.

Apply it to what? Your problem is being unable to read the data presented by the CDC and CSPI correctly. If you are unable to read and extrapolate a statistic at a fundamental level, I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. I already explained that it is completely unacceptable for use on individuals, and is exclusively designed to measure populations. If you are still confused as to why this is, I suggest you do some research or enroll in a statistics class.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Apply it to what? Your problem is being unable to read the data presented by the CDC and CSPI correctly. If you are unable to read and extrapolate a statistic at a fundamental level, I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. I already explained that it is completely unacceptable for use on individuals, and is exclusively designed to measure populations. If you are still confused as to why this is, I suggest you do some research or enroll in a statistics class.

???

Directly from the CDC website:

The terms "overweight" and "obesity" refer to body weight that’s greater than what is considered healthy for a certain height.
The most useful measure of overweight and obesity is body mass index (BMI). BMI is calculated from your height and weight

Being overweight puts you at risk for many health problems. The more you weigh, the more likely you are to develop:

Coronary heart disease
High blood pressure
Type 2 diabetes
Gallstones
Breathing problems
Certain cancers


It seems to me that you're just dodging at this point.

BMI is calculated from an individual's height and weight. They evaluate the health issues and costs from other people in your BMI range to determine the risks.

In the case of CDC and CSPI, they lump BMI 25 to BMI 40 all in the same range which is the problem. A person in BMI range 25-30 (which is 1/3 of Americans) has no greater health risks or costs than a person in the 20-25 range, but since they were lumped in with the BMI 40 folks, it threw the stats off and manufactured a scare.

Now please, if you have a different way you'd like to evaluate the stats, please share with the group. All you're doing is just replying with patronizing posts without actually providing your method.

If your issue is that it's unacceptable to use to evaluate an individual, than your beef is with the CDC, not me.

I ask again, please post your method of evaluating these statistics and contribute to the thread. If you're just here to patronize with "you don't get it, maybe you should take a class" kinds of posts, kindly move along to another thread. It may be coincidence, but I've noticed that every thread I've posted in in the last few days is shortly followed with you nitpicking or posting things along the lines of "you're wrong, but I'm not going to explain why you're wrong because you won't 'get it' "

 

[HalfoffSale]

I ask again, please post your method of evaluating these statistics and contribute to the thread. If you're just here to patronize with "you don't get it, maybe you should take a class" kinds of posts, kindly move along to another thread. It may be coincidence, but I've noticed that every thread I've posted in in the last few days is shortly followed with you nitpicking or posting things along the lines of "you're wrong, but I'm not going to explain why you're wrong because you won't 'get it' "

I did explain where your error was. You continue your mistake here. You are accusing the CDC of "manufacturing a scare" and applying BMI to individuals, when in reality you are simply reading their website wrong and not understanding their data. Since you are so insistant, I'll step through it.

Directly from the CDC website:

The terms "overweight" and "obesity" refer to body weight that’s greater than what is considered healthy for a certain height.
The most useful measure of overweight and obesity is body mass index (BMI). BMI is calculated from your height and weight

Being overweight puts you at risk for many health problems. The more you weigh, the more likely you are to develop:

This is all true. Your conclusions are off however. BMI is calculated from your height and weight. That is true. To finish the calculation, you factor in the averages of groups and then you can apply it. It's like saying your family's average height is 5'6. It's true that I calculated your family's average hight from measuring yours, but that you're 6' does not negate the measure.

BMI is calculated from an individual's height and weight. They evaluate the health issues and costs from other people in your BMI range to determine the risks.

Yes, this is also true. Again, you are misunderstanding how statistics work. To continue the analogy, if I stated families with an average height of 5'6 are more likely to have pizza for dinner, your family not having pizza does not negate my statistics. You are applying a group average(likelihood that 5'6 average family has pizza) to an individual(likelihood that your family had pizza.)

Thus, the CDC is not saying that someone with a BMI of 25-30 will have higher costs, just that they are more likely too. In individual cases, such as with your wrestler, other metrics are used.

In the case of CDC and CSPI, they lump BMI 25 to BMI 40 all in the same range which is the problem. A person in BMI range 25-30 (which is 1/3 of Americans) has no greater health risks or costs than a person in the 20-25 range, but since they were lumped in with the BMI 40 folks, it threw the stats off and manufactured a scare.

I did not previously dispute your conclusion here. I am a logic software engineer, not a healthcare costs specialist. I don't know why they decided to set the lower bound there, and I'm not going to presume to know an answer. I do know however that your reasoning of an individual in BMI range 25-30 being fit is a flawed logical argument, and an misapplication of BMI.


Now, if you read up on statistics theory and application, and still come to the same conclusion as above, I'll be glad to throw in my two cents.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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

Because people are less likely to consume four 16oz sodas than they are one 64oz soda, which is the entire point of all of this.

-Dan.

 

[dollarsbill]

This reminds me of how it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol that is responsible for the violent deaths of MILLIONS, but it's a crime to smoke pot. How pathetic.

 

[RedPaddy]

I find it very odd that those in favor of this limitation on individual liberties claim it is because it costs us $174B. Now, just to be clear, this cost is not that born by the government. It is the cost for medical care and lost productivity. If it is the medical care cost that is concerning, then getting the government out of this business would be the logical step. The lost productivity, I am having a hard time getting a grasp of. If someone can explain this I'd appreciate it.

yet they are often the same group that has no problem with Kathleen Sebelius (D) spending $800,000 to open an IHOP in Columbia Heights - a trendy DC neighborhood, $100M for political conventions every few years, spending $2.6M to train Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, or the $146M price for government employees to upgrade their flights to business class.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I find it very odd that those in favor of this limitation on individual liberties

Did you not read the rest of this thread? This isn't a limitation on personal liberties; it's a limitation on commercial packaging.

claim it is because it costs us $174B. Now, just to be clear, this cost is not that born by the government. It is the cost for medical care and lost productivity. If it is the medical care cost that is concerning, then getting the government out of this business would be the logical step.

It's borne by society, whether that is government, individuals, private insurance companies, or medical facilities, it's being paid by someone. That's money that could be used to improve society, but instead, it's being used to ward off a preventable disease.

The lost productivity, I am having a hard time getting a grasp of. If someone can explain this I'd appreciate it.

Time out of work. If you're out sick and not as productive as you could have been.

yet they are often the same group that has no problem with Kathleen Sebelius (D) spending $800,000 to open an IHOP in Columbia Heights - a trendy DC neighborhood, $100M for political conventions every few years, spending $2.6M to train Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, or the $146M price for government employees to upgrade their flights to business class.

Generally, when I find stuff like this, it's usually BS that some pundit wants to parade around to make himself look good. I looked up the flight upgrade one - turns out the biggest offender of that was the State Department whose people fly abroad all of the time. Gov't rules prohibit an upgrade beyond coach unless the international flight is more than 14 hours, which IMO is absurd. If I were expected to fly overseas for business on a regular basis, I would not expect to sit in a cramped coach seat all the time either.

-Dan.

 

[RedPaddy]

Did you not read the rest of this thread? This isn't a limitation on personal liberties; it's a limitation on commercial packaging.

the packaging is still allowed to be bought and sold - if empty. that's a red herring.

It's borne by society, whether that is government, individuals, private insurance companies, or medical facilities, it's being paid by someone.

No, it is borne by individuals. Where else do we ever see anything even remotely close to this restriction on indiviudal liberty? The product can be purchased in diferent packaging or the same packaging in diferent retail outlets. I know of no other restriction on any product that is similar.

That's money that could be used to improve society,

It is not the government's money, it is individual's money to be spent any way they please.

but instead, it's being used to ward off a preventable disease.

While there are thinbgs you can do to lower risk, diabetes is not preventable. I along with every male member of my family, other than my minor children, going back several generations are diabetic. Your claim is not supported by science. Weight can be A factor, but it is not THE sole cause.

Time out of work. If you're out sick and not as productive as you could have been.

how does that cost anyone anything?

 

[JCSr]

the packaging is still allowed to be bought and sold - if empty. that's a red herring.

How many times have you sat down at a restaurant and bought an empty cup?

 

[iluvatar5150]

the packaging is still allowed to be bought and sold - if empty. that's a red herring.

Really? That's your argument? What's being restricted is selling a product in certain quantities.

No, it is borne by individuals. Where else do we ever see anything even remotely close to this restriction on indiviudal liberty? The product can be purchased in diferent packaging or the same packaging in diferent retail outlets. I know of no other restriction on any product that is similar.

Then you obviously don't buy much medicine. Ibuprofen sold over the counter is limited to 200mg doses, but with a prescription, can go much higher. But there's nothing stopping you from buying a bottle OTC and taking 4+ doses on your own.

As I've stated repeatedly, the issue here is marketing and the manner in which it's delivered to consumers. Sold at a restaurant, it's designed to be consumed in one sitting vs a 2liter bottle sold at room temperature, which is designed to be consumed over multiple sittings.

It is not the government's money, it is individual's money to be spent any way they please.

I'll remember that next time I want to throw a party and buy some hookers & cocaine for my guests.

While there are thinbgs you can do to lower risk, diabetes is not preventable. I along with every male member of my family, other than my minor children, going back several generations are diabetic. Your claim is not supported by science. Weight can be A factor, but it is not THE sole cause.

There are multiple factors, but in many cases, yes, Type 2 diabetes is preventable. Beyond that, part of managing its symptoms is diet control.

how does that [time out of work] cost anyone anything?

You're either not making money or your boss is paying you for not being there.

-Dan.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is all true. Your conclusions are off however. BMI is calculated from your height and weight. That is true. To finish the calculation, you factor in the averages of groups and then you can apply it. It's like saying your family's average height is 5'6. It's true that I calculated your family's average hight from measuring yours, but that you're 6' does not negate the measure.

Agreed.

I'm not saying that one person in the 25-30 range being healthy negates the statistics for the averages of the 25-30 range. I'm stating that the 25-30 range has no more risks & costs associated than the 20-25 range based on the data collected from the 2 ranges.

I think there's a disconnect here and you think I'm talking about something other than what I'm trying to explain.

My major beef with their stats is that they conducted there studies using the following as their ranges.

20-25
25-45

...when I think they'd get more usable results if they broke it out into

20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45

Yes, this is also true. Again, you are misunderstanding how statistics work. To continue the analogy, if I stated families with an average height of 5'6 are more likely to have pizza for dinner, your family not having pizza does not negate my statistics. You are applying a group average(likelihood that 5'6 average family has pizza) to an individual(likelihood that your family had pizza.)

Thus, the CDC is not saying that someone with a BMI of 25-30 will have higher costs, just that they are more likely too. In individual cases, such as with your wrestler, other metrics are used.

Again, I understand that it's just about the liklihood and they're not saying that someone will have highter costs. I think you're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.

I did not previously dispute your conclusion here. I am a logic software engineer, not a healthcare costs specialist. I don't know why they decided to set the lower bound there, and I'm not going to presume to know an answer. I do know however that your reasoning of an individual in BMI range 25-30 being fit is a flawed logical argument, and an misapplication of BMI.

I'm also a software developer and not a healthcare specialist, however I never stated that a 25-30 BMI means you're fit. I just stated that according to the overall stats from that group, they're not anymore likely to rack up health care costs than someone in the 20-25 group.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did you not read the rest of this thread? This isn't a limitation on personal liberties; it's a limitation on commercial packaging.

Limitation on commercial packaging doesn't work. I hasn't worked in the past, why would we try it again and waste more money?

In 2004 when CSPI lobbied to get the SuperSize, Biggie Size, and King Size removed from menus...it had absolutely no positive effect on the dietary habits of Americans.

They tried again when they made them put the complete nutritional info on fast food wrappers...still didn't change anything, people still ate it.

They put warnings on tobacco products, 1/5 of the population still smoke.

 

[JCSr]

Limitation on commercial packaging doesn't work. I hasn't worked in the past, why would we try it again and waste more money?

In 2004 when CSPI lobbied to get the SuperSize, Biggie Size, and King Size removed from menus...it had absolutely no positive effect on the dietary habits of Americans.

They tried again when they made them put the complete nutritional info on fast food wrappers...still didn't change anything, people still ate it.

They put warnings on tobacco products, 1/5 of the population still smoke.

How is it wasting money?

Nobody put a warning on the cups, they made a law limiting the size of the cup. The cigarette comparison is faulty.