Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Soda industry uses facts to fight NYC ban. Just kidding, they're going full R.J. Reynolds   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Followup, manufacturers, New York, American Beverage Association, board of health, deputy mayor, President Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

15824 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2012 at 7:09 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-07-01 05:12:51 PM  
Wrong. The cigarette companies lied, and hid the contents of what they were selling.

Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product, and break it down into categories and percent of recommended daily intake.

Can't ask more than that. Beyond that, its personal choice.
 
2012-07-01 05:22:33 PM  
WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.
 
2012-07-01 05:22:43 PM  
What size is that can, citizen?
 
2012-07-01 05:26:36 PM  
That's just silly, you can't smoke soda.
 
2012-07-01 05:50:59 PM  

Jamdug!: WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.


Also, even if someone drinks way too much soda... they're going to find it somewhere. Its not like anyone... even soda addicts... get most of their soda from restaurants.

If this really was a priority (and it absolutely should not be, and is unconstitutional in my mind)... you'd only allow citizens so much soda per day.

Ok, so you can't sell soda more than 16 ounces? I want 32 ounces... guess what I'm going to do?
 
2012-07-01 06:25:34 PM  
The hilariously hypocritical thing is that Bloomberg's own company provides free unlimited sodas to its employees.
 
2012-07-01 06:34:45 PM  
I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.
 
2012-07-01 06:36:08 PM  
img4.imageshack.us

//you sound fat
 
2012-07-01 07:13:58 PM  
This is bullshiat, unless it's illegal, the only way government should have a say in what you can or can't drink, smoke, or eat is if they're actually paying for our healthca........oops....nevermind.
 
2012-07-01 07:14:07 PM  

minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.


This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.
 
2012-07-01 07:15:12 PM  
They need to go full Tonya Harding.

/seriously, there isn't a more important issue for NYC than 20oz sodas?
 
2012-07-01 07:15:47 PM  

Albert: This is bullshiat, unless it's illegal, the only way government should have a say in what you can or can't drink, smoke, or eat is if they're actually paying for our healthca........oops....nevermind.


Psssssst hey buddy there is no free healthcare. Its either you buy it or get taxed for not having it... But you go ahead and believe in unicorns ok...
 
2012-07-01 07:17:22 PM  

minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.


Same here. I can drink soda made with real sugar without a problem.
 
2012-07-01 07:17:26 PM  
Unlike smoking, pop isn't physiologically addictive, doesn't cause your neighbors to inhale carginogens at a level thought but not demonstrated to be dangerous, and arguably isn't as lethal.

/you crazy NYers know it's really called pop, right?
 
2012-07-01 07:19:16 PM  

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.


That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.
 
2012-07-01 07:19:58 PM  
Next up, pastrami sandwiches and NY pizzas. Those two things have killed more children than any form of liquid candy.
 
2012-07-01 07:20:03 PM  
Oh, should say hello to the "people who think there's some vast difference between HFCS and sucrose", like sugar is some kind of health and taste miracle.
 
2012-07-01 07:20:14 PM  

aerojockey: Unlike smoking, pop isn't physiologically addictive, doesn't cause your neighbors to inhale carginogens at a level thought but not demonstrated to be dangerous, and arguably isn't as lethal.

/you crazy NYers know it's really called pop, right?


It could be argued that sugar is physiologically addictive.
 
2012-07-01 07:23:32 PM  

downstairs: Wrong. The cigarette companies lied, and hid the contents of what they were selling.

Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product, and break it down into categories and percent of recommended daily intake.

Can't ask more than that. Beyond that, its personal choice.


Eh, maybe not quite the same, but I have no doubt that they're going to resort to lying.

When Mayor Nutter in Philadelphia proposed a soda tax a few years ago, the soda lobby claimed it would result in the elimination of thousands of jobs using some highly fuzzy math. So basically they claimed that any attempt to discourage people from drinking drinks high in sugar would be bad for the economy.

They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.
 
2012-07-01 07:24:20 PM  

TheManofPA: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.

That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.


Kids, don't try this at home. Let your school's janitor mop up your vomit.
 
2012-07-01 07:24:23 PM  
Death on rye.

foodists.ca
 
2012-07-01 07:25:26 PM  
Farva wants his liter of cola.

It's for a cop so make it good.

Hold the spit.
 
2012-07-01 07:28:03 PM  

Jamdug!: WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.


I seem to remember the exact same sentiment about tobacco.

Well, that sheep has been sheared pretty well. Right now it's soda. In the interim, we've had bans on foie gras and trans fats as well as some talks about restricting salt. I'm imagining later, we'll be seeing some bans or restrictions on fat content, simple carbohydrates, etc.

Me today, you tomorrow applies in spades here.
 
2012-07-01 07:28:33 PM  
attention span of a retarded fruit fly
Psssssst hey buddy there is no free healthcare. Its either you buy it or get taxed for not having it... But you go ahead and believe in unicorns ok...

---------------------------

Ohh, silly me! I said paying, meant to say.....

This is bullshiat, unless it's illegal, the only way government should have a say in what you can or can't drink, smoke, or eat is if they're actually running and controlling our healthca........oops....nevermind.
 
2012-07-01 07:29:10 PM  
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-07-01 07:29:13 PM  

aerojockey: Unlike smoking, pop isn't physiologically addictive, doesn't cause your neighbors to inhale carginogens at a level thought but not demonstrated to be dangerous, and arguably isn't as lethal.

/you crazy NYers know it's really called pop, right?


They ran out of ways to fark with smokers. They need to find someone else to go after.
 
2012-07-01 07:29:15 PM  

aerojockey: /you crazy NYers know it's really called pop, right?


It would appear as though "soda" is the older name, by almost 300 years ("soda" is first attested in 1558; "pop" in 1812)*. Not that what came first is correct, necessarily, but there's certainly significant precedent there.

___
* Von Schneidemesser, L. (1996). Soda or Pop? Journal of English Linguistics, 24(4), 270-287.
 
2012-07-01 07:29:22 PM  

downstairs: Ok, so you can't sell soda more than 16 ounces? I want 32 ounces... guess what I'm going to do?


Have a refill?

While it is not a particularly good fight to start because Americans are rather childish about being told "no.". The reality is that lots of people drink too much soda and other sugary beverages. At home and work, I use a smaller cup, and refill it if I want more. I really don't see how this is much of an issue at the end of the day.

We get all the free beverages we want at work (soda, coffee, tea, etc). However, the cup size is limited to 16 ounces. I don't believe one person ever complained.
 
2012-07-01 07:30:40 PM  

pedrop357: Me today, you tomorrow applies in spades here.


Some people don't get how this works.
 
2012-07-01 07:33:19 PM  

thornhill: downstairs: Wrong. The cigarette companies lied, and hid the contents of what they were selling.

Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product, and break it down into categories and percent of recommended daily intake.

Can't ask more than that. Beyond that, its personal choice.

Eh, maybe not quite the same, but I have no doubt that they're going to resort to lying.

When Mayor Nutter in Philadelphia proposed a soda tax a few years ago, the soda lobby claimed it would result in the elimination of thousands of jobs using some highly fuzzy math. So basically they claimed that any attempt to discourage people from drinking drinks high in sugar would be bad for the economy.

They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.


Ummm no the soda industries attack is pretty straightforward and true. - Do you really want the govt to tell you what you can and cant drink?
 
2012-07-01 07:35:47 PM  

Harry_Seldon: While it is not a particularly good fight to start because Americans are rather childish about being told "no."


What some call childish, others call jealousy guarding of liberties.

The reality is that lots of people drink too much soda and other sugary beverages.

Well, that's like your opinion man.

We get all the free beverages we want at work (soda, coffee, tea, etc). However, the cup size is limited to 16 ounces. I don't believe one person ever complained.

Not quite relevant seeing as how your beverage is free. What if you had to pay and didn't get free refills?

One very possible next step in all of this is to ban free refills in order to prevent people from "circumventing" the ban on large containers. The words "skirt" and "loophole" will be tossed around liberally when describing how merchants are operating and why this new regulation is needed. This kind of incrementalism only happens constantly.
 
2012-07-01 07:41:09 PM  

downstairs: Wrong. The cigarette companies lied, and hid the contents of what they were selling.

Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product, and break it down into categories and percent of recommended daily intake.

Can't ask more than that. Beyond that, its personal choice.


Yeah. We are obviously to stupid to choose the right stuff to ingest.

/i'm being snarky in a grumpy way
 
2012-07-01 07:42:57 PM  

Digitalstrange: Do you really want the govt to tell you what you can and cant drink?


It seems to be the city government is trying to tell you -how much- you can drink, and even then you can purchase larger quantities at the grocery store. The state government already has similar laws about how much alcohol you can drink. If I remember correctly you can't be drunk in public and a bar can get in trouble for serving you if you are over the limit.
 
2012-07-01 07:43:24 PM  

downstairs:
Ok, so you can't sell soda more than 16 ounces? I want 32 ounces... guess what I'm going to do?


Well, obviously fatties like you will stop at nothing to get their fix of sugar water (or HFCS Water, whatever), but the fact of the matter is most normal human beings won't get two sodas. They'll buy one and they'll be happy with it.

It's more psychological than physiological. If we perceive something to be a single serving container, we will usually stop at one. A few years ago, Dannon reduced the size of their yogurt containers, from 8 oz to 6. There was a small drop off at first, but people went back to buying them.
 
2012-07-01 07:43:30 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: [img4.imageshack.us image 640x426]

//you sound fat


I just wanna know if they have those shirts in XL or larger.
 
2012-07-01 07:43:58 PM  
New York your nanny state insanity would be funny if it didnt spread to the rest of the do-gooders out there.
 
2012-07-01 07:44:02 PM  

downstairs: Jamdug!: WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.

Also, even if someone drinks way too much soda... they're going to find it somewhere. Its not like anyone... even soda addicts... get most of their soda from restaurants.

If this really was a priority (and it absolutely should not be, and is unconstitutional in my mind)... you'd only allow citizens so much soda per day.

Ok, so you can't sell soda more than 16 ounces? I want 32 ounces... guess what I'm going to do?


Here's Bloomie's master plan--increase sales tax revenue. Two 16 oz sodas gonna cost you more than a 32 oz-er. Profit.
 
2012-07-01 07:47:04 PM  
After drinking sodas with real sugar in them, I noticed that HFCS sodas taste kind of slimy. Almost as if there's a film lining my mouth afterwards. Unfortunately, sodas with real sugar on them cause my teeth to become very sensitive. So it looks like I can't win either way.
 
2012-07-01 07:47:32 PM  
I for one, welcome our newly diabetic, morbidly obese sweating fellow subway passengers on the hottest month of the year -- thanks to beverage makers who can't seem to remove that expensive sugar/corn syrup from their captive audience's blood stream. At least the companies are picking up the tab for the astronomical medical expenses of their marketing victims. Too bad the Manhattan Cocaine Dealers and teh friendly NY Drug Cartel didn't get on the band wagon, too. Along with the WV Gun Dealers Sellers Assoc.
 
2012-07-01 07:48:20 PM  
The government should have no say in what size a soda (or any product) a consumer can buy. I would, however, be all for a huge farking tax on any food containing high fructose corn syrup. It can be justified using the same logic used to justify cigarette taxes.
 
2012-07-01 07:49:30 PM  

tortilla burger: After drinking sodas with real sugar in them, I noticed that HFCS sodas taste kind of slimy. Almost as if there's a film lining my mouth afterwards. Unfortunately, sodas with real sugar on them cause my teeth to become very sensitive. So it looks like I can't win either way.


When I drink a real sugar cola I'm quite satisfied afterwards. With an HFCS drink, I want another. It's like crack.
 
2012-07-01 07:54:23 PM  

drongozone: downstairs: Jamdug!: WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.

Also, even if someone drinks way too much soda... they're going to find it somewhere. Its not like anyone... even soda addicts... get most of their soda from restaurants.

If this really was a priority (and it absolutely should not be, and is unconstitutional in my mind)... you'd only allow citizens so much soda per day.

Ok, so you can't sell soda more than 16 ounces? I want 32 ounces... guess what I'm going to do?

Here's Bloomie's master plan--increase sales tax revenue. Two 16 oz sodas gonna cost you more than a 32 oz-er. Profit.


So the people drinking more soda and using more health care dollars pay more tax? I can't say I disagree with this at all.
 
2012-07-01 07:54:28 PM  
/off to get a yard of beer at my local.
 
2012-07-01 07:54:40 PM  

pedrop357: Harry_Seldon: While it is not a particularly good fight to start because Americans are rather childish about being told "no."

What some call childish, others call jealousy guarding of liberties.

The reality is that lots of people drink too much soda and other sugary beverages.

Well, that's like your opinion man.

We get all the free beverages we want at work (soda, coffee, tea, etc). However, the cup size is limited to 16 ounces. I don't believe one person ever complained.

Not quite relevant seeing as how your beverage is free. What if you had to pay and didn't get free refills?

One very possible next step in all of this is to ban free refills in order to prevent people from "circumventing" the ban on large containers. The words "skirt" and "loophole" will be tossed around liberally when describing how merchants are operating and why this new regulation is needed. This kind of incrementalism only happens constantly.


Fundamentally, liberty goes along with personally responsibility. You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.
 
2012-07-01 07:55:26 PM  

OgreMagi: The government should have no say in what size a soda (or any product) a consumer can buy. I would, however, be all for a huge farking tax on any food containing high fructose corn syrup. It can be justified using the same logic used to justify cigarette taxes.


Just stop subsidizing it.
 
2012-07-01 07:55:37 PM  
Poor, uneducated people basically need to have their options limited, because let's be honest, they make horrible decisions.
 
2012-07-01 07:58:57 PM  
But I can still get my huge Jamba Juice, right?

/cuz it's so much better for me.
 
2012-07-01 08:02:33 PM  

Harry_Seldon: Fundamentally, liberty goes along with personally responsibility. You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.


There is no responsibility to the community to care for one's health. That is the very opposite of personal responsibility. Nice try though.

Interestingly enough, it's people like you who try to subvert and interfere with personal responsibility wherever it occurs.

A lot of these "problems" will work themselves out when the nanny staters among us stop trying to shield people from the natural consequences of their actions.
 
2012-07-01 08:03:15 PM  

AllUpInYa: But I can still get my huge Jamba Juice, right?

/cuz it's so much better for me.


8/10
 
2012-07-01 08:04:21 PM  
From what I've read diet sodas are exempt, right? Maybe this will encourage Coke/Pepsi to try out some more inventive diet soda flavors. I miss diet coke with lemon, and diet dr pepper berries and cream.

/HFCS soda makes my mouth feel sticky
//diet is better for you anyway
///never tried the real sugar kind so I can't compare
 
2012-07-01 08:05:18 PM  
Lets just get right to the point and outlaw fat people.
 
2012-07-01 08:05:31 PM  
You can still get these, right?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-01 08:06:02 PM  
Oddly enough, it's extremely hard to find any tasty drinks with less than 30g of sugar per 12oz that aren't full diet. And no, I'm not going to pay just as much for a 7.5 and be a little less refreshed. I love Pepsi Next for that, because I actually need some carbs to start out the day at work, but not that much. It's funny how hard it is to leave the sweet cravings behind at first, though, when you grew up eating and drinking nothing but sugar-loaded stuff, and it's almost impossible to satisfy a sweet craving on the go without having to load up on sugars or throw out half a drink.

And bars, you're just as bad about this, plying mixers with double the sugar content of regular soda, so people can get wasted while feeling like they're drinking Kool-Aid or soda. Can you at least freaking stock one reduced-sugar or diet mixer, besides diet coke?

/Would try sugar-free beer.
//Would probably not enjoy it.
 
2012-07-01 08:08:19 PM  
I like how people think they have free will in this matter. You know the movie They Live? With a century of consumer psychology behind marketing and product development, we essentially live in that world today.

CSB:
My father was head of R&D for a food company. He brought a huge project to market. They fired the entire R&D department. Nobody wanted to hire a PhD chemist with 25 years experience, except for the snack food companies. Why did they want him? Because there had been recent breakthroughs in understanding the role of smell in short-circuiting decision making. They were playing around with dyes and perfumes that literally bypassed the thinking part of your brain and went straight to the "I WANT!" reptilian portion.

Now, he turned all those positions down and in a couple of years got an actual chemist job with a small pharmaceutical that needed a PhD to sign paperwork from the FDA. However, they soon started releasing a LOT more flavored varieties of classic snacks. The gunk factor on chips, for example, shot up tremendously.

Most people have no idea how little control they actually have over their decisions when it comes to food. Oh, there's the ILLUSION of choice, of self control. But look around you. Most fat people (myself included) know exactly what is needed. But the additives in snack food (including soda) have been manipulated to a point where it is psychologically addictive. And at that point, you lose control without realizing it.

Unfortunately we can't roll back the clock on R&D, we can't ban the various things that the food companies (who were led by the tobacco companies-- their main business in the US these days is snack food) have done to manipulate things like that. But it can't be allowed to continue unanswered because it is killing us. Literally.
 
2012-07-01 08:10:29 PM  

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: Psssssst hey buddy there is no free healthcare. Its either you buy it or get taxed for not having it... But you go ahead and believe in unicorns ok...


Can we name the unicorns "Medicare" and "Medicaid"?
 
2012-07-01 08:11:07 PM  
Remember when people took even a little personal responsibility for their actions?
 
2012-07-01 08:11:28 PM  
Also, fellow Americans, don't be surprised when the next target is caffeine. Sure, our society largely runs on it now, but that didn't stop the prohibition of alcohol.

AllUpInYa: But I can still get my huge Jamba Juice, right?

/cuz it's so much better for me.


One difference is, you'd be surprised how much fiber and protein is in them, so they're marginally better, if not massively. Plus they're so freaking expensive anyway.
 
2012-07-01 08:12:03 PM  

pedrop357: Harry_Seldon: Fundamentally, liberty goes along with personally responsibility. You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.

There is no responsibility to the community to care for one's health. That is the very opposite of personal responsibility. Nice try though.

Interestingly enough, it's people like you who try to subvert and interfere with personal responsibility wherever it occurs.

A lot of these "problems" will work themselves out when the nanny staters among us stop trying to shield people from the natural consequences of their actions.


If you are overweight, please don't sit near me in public spaces and events. I am tired of fat people spilling over into my personal space as they exercise their freedom to be fat.
 
2012-07-01 08:13:22 PM  

foxyshadis:
/Would try sugar-free beer.
//Would probably not enjoy it.


Alcohol has calories in it all on its own. The fermentation process takes care of most of the sugar, but it creates alcohol, so you don't really lose anything calorie-wise.

Hard alcohols should for the most part be sugar free (though flavored/spiced rums and vodka may contain added sugars/HFCS along with the flavorings).
 
2012-07-01 08:13:33 PM  

aerojockey: Unlike smoking, pop isn't physiologically addictive, doesn't cause your neighbors to inhale carginogens at a level thought but not demonstrated to be dangerous, and arguably isn't as lethal.

/you crazy NYers know it's really called pop, right?


Actually, there's some fairly pointed evidence that sugar is addictive--increased intake screws with some set points and messes with your metabolism. You crave it, and require more to get the same level of satisfaction. So, not only does sugar = calories, it makes you want more sugar, and it makes your body get fat more easily.

Also, fructose in particular is supposed to be pretty nasty for your metabolism.

Science-y scuttlebutt has it a lot of biochemists who do relevant work are cutting sugars out of their diets.
 
2012-07-01 08:13:51 PM  

Wangiss: OgreMagi: The government should have no say in what size a soda (or any product) a consumer can buy. I would, however, be all for a huge farking tax on any food containing high fructose corn syrup. It can be justified using the same logic used to justify cigarette taxes.

Just stop subsidizing it.


That would be a good start. I'm almost always against subsidies of any kind. The one exception would be emerging technology that needs a bit of a temporary kickstart (with emphasis on the temporary part). Though given the lesson learned from Solyndra, maybe even that exception is a bad idea.
 
2012-07-01 08:15:12 PM  
Look, when adults are concerned, I'm all for freedom of choice. Even poor choices. But is this really what the Founders fought for? The right to express-lane diabetes?

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Poor, uneducated people basically need to have their options limited, because let's be honest, they make horrible decisions.


Well, yeah, as you say "uneducated" - why else would poor folks get payday loans, use rent-to-own stores, vote Republican? Uninformed choice is hardly freedom of choice in any real sense.
 
2012-07-01 08:15:53 PM  
Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea, but the plan is just stupid. You can't pass a law telling American's not to be fat-asses. They'll find a way.
 
2012-07-01 08:17:37 PM  

Wangiss: Just stop subsidizing it.


Is there ANY good reason to keep subsidizing corn?

Difficulty: "to win votes" or "to get re-elected" do not qualify.
 
2012-07-01 08:18:19 PM  

thedarkjedi: Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea, but the plan is just stupid. You can't pass a law telling American's not to be fat-asses. They'll find a way.


it is really difficult to reason with people in words anymore. This is a much better approach...

imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-01 08:21:13 PM  

Harry_Seldon: If you are overweight, please don't sit near me in public spaces and events. I am tired of fat people spilling over into my personal space as they exercise their freedom to be fat.


Sounds like an issue to be taken up with the owner/authority of the space.

Last I checked, it still takes several steps from the large drink stage to the flabbing-all-over-Harry stage. They have to:
1.)Drink a lot of soda
2.)Get fat
3.)Go to a public place
4.)Lard out beyond their paid for space

If they exercise or simply luck out on genetics between 1 and 2, then 4 can't happen. If they go to a public event with big seats or buy 2 seats, 4 doesn't happen.
 
2012-07-01 08:21:29 PM  

Harry_Seldon: You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.


Explain the logic underlying this "you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health" claim. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but I'm keen to hear how you arrive at this idea.
 
2012-07-01 08:22:13 PM  

thornhill: They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.


It is true Bloomberg's ban is inconsistent in ways that seem to tell the poor what to do while leaving the rich free to make their own decisions. Soda limited at 16 ounces but you can still get a 31 ounce concoction at Starbucks. The law is snobbish in the extreme.
 
2012-07-01 08:23:06 PM  

ciberido: Harry_Seldon: You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.

Explain the logic underlying this "you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health" claim. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but I'm keen to hear how you arrive at this idea.


This.
 
2012-07-01 08:23:24 PM  

TheManofPA: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.

That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.


To be fair, even with water, that would be a very difficult challenge that would leave most people feeling very uncomfortable afterwards.

I don't think, though, that it is hard to drink 32 ounces of soda. It's a lot, no doubt, but as long as you aren't trying to do it too fast (like less than 10 minutes), and it is going down with some food, that is not too difficult to consume.
 
2012-07-01 08:24:21 PM  

Nem Wan: thornhill: They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.

It is true Bloomberg's ban is inconsistent in ways that seem to tell the poor what to do while leaving the rich free to make their own decisions. Soda limited at 16 ounces but you can still get a 31 ounce concoction at Starbucks. The law is snobbish in the extreme.


That's the main thing.
 
2012-07-01 08:24:51 PM  
Article used the word "fatness". Where's that meow troll.
 
2012-07-01 08:25:31 PM  
Does anybody have a link to the actual language of the new code? I have an idea of how it may be possible to still provide drinks over 16 oz. In NYC but the language will need to be parsed to validate it.
 
2012-07-01 08:25:54 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: foxyshadis:
/Would try sugar-free beer.
//Would probably not enjoy it.

Alcohol has calories in it all on its own. The fermentation process takes care of most of the sugar, but it creates alcohol, so you don't really lose anything calorie-wise.

Hard alcohols should for the most part be sugar free (though flavored/spiced rums and vodka may contain added sugars/HFCS along with the flavorings).


For liquor, yeah, but regular beer has a ton of carbs left over, stouts having the most and light beers obviously having the least. For a lager or ale residual sugars & starches will account for about half the calories, alcohol being the other half. Wine is mostly sugar-free, aside from those sweet dessert wines.
 
2012-07-01 08:27:17 PM  
lol i support banning all this shiat after seeing what y'all did to smokers. let's not just pick and choose whose personal nonvictim choices we're going to legislate, eh?
 
2012-07-01 08:27:43 PM  

OgreMagi: tortilla burger: After drinking sodas with real sugar in them, I noticed that HFCS sodas taste kind of slimy. Almost as if there's a film lining my mouth afterwards. Unfortunately, sodas with real sugar on them cause my teeth to become very sensitive. So it looks like I can't win either way.

When I drink a real sugar cola I'm quite satisfied afterwards. With an HFCS drink, I want another. It's like crack.


Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.
 
2012-07-01 08:27:44 PM  

pedrop357: If they exercise or simply luck out on genetics between 1 and 2, then 4 can't happen.


Sadly, I lucked out on the "don't get fat" genetics, but not at all on the "have good teeth" genes. The amount I've spent on my teeth is probably a lot more than I would have being a fatty...
 
2012-07-01 08:29:58 PM  

thenewmissus: Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.


Natural or Throwback are the most common identifiers in big brands, and any made for non-US consumption and reimported will be made with real sugar (because it's so much cheaper than corn without the tariffs). Otherwise you have to go look in your specialty drink section.

If you have a Rocket Fizz nearby, they stock a ton of real sugar and diet drinks (along with HFCS) from hundreds of brands around the world.
 
2012-07-01 08:31:35 PM  
How about we make everything except water and vegetables illegal? Will that make the "I hate what everyone else does and I want them doing what I think is right" people happy?
 
2012-07-01 08:33:23 PM  

foxyshadis: aside from those sweet dessert wines.


Don't go messin' wiff my ice wine dammit!!!
 
2012-07-01 08:33:40 PM  

ciberido: Harry_Seldon: You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.

Explain the logic underlying this "you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health" claim. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but I'm keen to hear how you arrive at this idea.


Your community is your friends, family, coworkers, etc. You are socially embedded in a society whether you like it or not. It was clear from the Humanism school of thought that liberty and freedom required personal responsibility. James Madison was pretty clear on this concept.

If you act in ways that recklessly impair your health, you are externalizing the costs of your behavior on to your local community. I have a cowoker who have all the chronic problems of type 2 diabetes. He misses work, his coworkers have to do more work. He have increased health care costs which have to be subsidized by his healthier coworkers. His family and friends are impacted by his health issues in myriad of ways. His children suffer from his diminished capacity, and potential impact on his earning power.

Yet, he continues to eat poorly, and not manage his health. His community has to carry his sad sack because he has the freedom to not eat better, watch his weight, and follow medical advice.
 
2012-07-01 08:33:49 PM  

Komplex: Well, obviously fatties like you will stop at nothing to get their fix of sugar water (or HFCS Water, whatever), but the fact of the matter is most normal human beings won't get two sodas. They'll buy one and they'll be happy with it.

It's more psychological than physiological. If we perceive something to be a single serving container, we will usually stop at one. A few years ago, Dannon reduced the size of their yogurt containers, from 8 oz to 6. There was a small drop off at first, but people went back to buying them.


This. When buying one of the weenie 8 ounce cokes in Europe when I first moved here and had one of my rare indulgances of sugar water, I would complain about it - but rarely if ever bothered to buy the 3 additional ones that would have made it an american sized serving.
 
2012-07-01 08:34:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: pizza


Came here to say this. If Bloomberg really cares about New Yorkers eating healthy, he'll ban pizza and those mile high pastrami sandwiches at Carnegie Deli. Then they need to cut back on their drinking, cause that's just empty calories, so close the bars at midnight at the latest. I hope he tries even one of these things, because then he'll be run out of town on a rail like he should be.
 
2012-07-01 08:36:20 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: Does anybody have a link to the actual language of the new code? I have an idea of how it may be possible to still provide drinks over 16 oz. In NYC but the language will need to be parsed to validate it.


Illogical loopholes were exposed in the first article I read about this. If you're a "grocery" establishment, including convenience stores, even if you have a self-serve soda fountain identical to one at McDonald's, you're exempt.
 
2012-07-01 08:36:43 PM  
grassroots-style

Lolwut?
 
2012-07-01 08:37:10 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about we make everything except water and vegetables illegal? Will that make the "I hate what everyone else does and I want them doing what I think is right" people happy?


Fruit?
 
2012-07-01 08:37:15 PM  

aerojockey: Oh, should say hello to the "people who think there's some vast difference between HFCS and sucrose", like sugar is some kind of health and taste miracle.


The bottom line is, anything full of dissolved fructose (sucrose is half fructose, and becomes exactly half fructose and half glucose a few seconds after entering your stomach) is horrible for you. Not that you can pour cane sugar down your gullet by the bag or anything, but your body knows very well how to store unlimited amounts of glucose.

Get the fructose out of your diet and you'll have more energy, feel better and lose weight. Difficulty level: good luck getting away... It's in soda, gatorade, even bread, and fruit drinks are loaded with sucrose.
 
2012-07-01 08:37:55 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about we make everything except water and vegetables illegal? Will that make the "I hate what everyone else does and I want them doing what I think is right" people happy?


Sure why not. People are already spending 2 dollars at Starbucks buying a plastic bottle of water. Raise it to 3, let the government take that markup and we'd fix the economy in just a few months.
 
2012-07-01 08:38:43 PM  
What ever happened to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

big soft drinks make me happy
 
2012-07-01 08:39:45 PM  
TheManofPA : That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes.

64 ounces is half a gallon, I couldn't drink that much water in 10 minutes.
 
2012-07-01 08:40:23 PM  

Harry_Seldon: ciberido: Harry_Seldon: You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.

Explain the logic underlying this "you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health" claim. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but I'm keen to hear how you arrive at this idea.

Your community is your friends, family, coworkers, etc. You are socially embedded in a society whether you like it or not. It was clear from the Humanism school of thought that liberty and freedom required personal responsibility. James Madison was pretty clear on this concept.

If you act in ways that recklessly impair your health, you are externalizing the costs of your behavior on to your local community. I have a cowoker who have all the chronic problems of type 2 diabetes. He misses work, his coworkers have to do more work. He have increased health care costs which have to be subsidized by his healthier coworkers. His family and friends are impacted by his health issues in myriad of ways. His children suffer from his diminished capacity, and potential impact on his earning power.

Yet, he continues to eat poorly, and not manage his health. His community has to carry his sad sack because he has the freedom to not eat better, watch his weight, and follow medical advice.


The logical conclusion of this argument is to do away with all personal freedom and enforce socially harmony. Look on the bright side, that when you pay extra for someone else's freedom you're also buying your own freedom. You may have the perfect authoritarian plan but the politician who actually gains the power to enforce it is not going to use your plan. He's going to use his plan, and it's probably going to take away something you like.
 
2012-07-01 08:40:43 PM  
i49.tinypic.com

wtf is this guy's problem?
 
2012-07-01 08:46:42 PM  

Harry_Seldon: If you act in ways that recklessly impair your health, you are externalizing the costs of your behavior on to your local community. I have a cowoker who have all the chronic problems of type 2 diabetes. He misses work, his coworkers have to do more work. He have increased health care costs which have to be subsidized by his healthier coworkers. His family and friends are impacted by his health issues in myriad of ways. His children suffer from his diminished capacity, and potential impact on his earning power.


The issue of work is between him, his coworkers, and the employer. If one guy misses work too much, fire him so he stops imposing costs on the rest.

The issue of increased health care costs pushing everyone else's insurance rates up should be taken up with with insurance company. His increased claims should justify increased premiums.

As for his family, well that's really their problem. Unless you think the government should step into make sure no one's decisions ever "diminishes" their capacity to the point that it upsets their family. As for earning power, I guess that means the government should step in and require him to seek promotions lest his earning power stagnate.

Your definition of personal responsibility is the precise opposite.
 
2012-07-01 08:47:39 PM  

Nem Wan: The logical conclusion of this argument is to do away with all personal freedom and enforce socially harmony. Look on the bright side, that when you pay extra for someone else's freedom you're also buying your own freedom. You may have the perfect authoritarian plan but the politician who actually gains the power to enforce it is not going to use your plan. He's going to use his plan, and it's probably going to take away something you like.


THIS!

Their freedom is your freedom. Otherwise, it's me today and you tomorrow.
 
2012-07-01 08:50:32 PM  

Nem Wan: The logical conclusion of this argument is to do away with all personal freedom and enforce socially harmony.


There is no logical conclusion other than their is always a tension between freedom and responsibility. There is a tension between doing whatever we want, and what we should so. I am not arguing in favor of Bloomberg's silly plan. It is very clear to me that we all crave freedom, but we also have responsibility to our society. It is the nature of our entire cooperative venture of civilization.

I'm more concerned about people having the freedom from want. Freedom that flows from inclusion. Freedom that flows from economic security. Freedom from private economic power that has no bounds. Freedom from exercise of arbitrary power, etc.
 
2012-07-01 08:53:26 PM  

pedrop357: Nem Wan: The logical conclusion of this argument is to do away with all personal freedom and enforce socially harmony. Look on the bright side, that when you pay extra for someone else's freedom you're also buying your own freedom. You may have the perfect authoritarian plan but the politician who actually gains the power to enforce it is not going to use your plan. He's going to use his plan, and it's probably going to take away something you like.

THIS!

Their freedom is your freedom. Otherwise, it's me today and you tomorrow.


Yeah man, exactly. And why do we even have to have a standard of weights and measures! What if I don't like ounces OR metric, what if I want to use my own system???... I should have the FREEDOM to choose how I measure things, and businesses are just shackled and bogged down by those regulations... it's not fair!

Your life is already incredibly regulated.... deal with it.

/font: Sardonica.
 
2012-07-01 08:56:46 PM  

Harry_Seldon: pedrop357: Harry_Seldon: While it is not a particularly good fight to start because Americans are rather childish about being told "no."

What some call childish, others call jealousy guarding of liberties.

The reality is that lots of people drink too much soda and other sugary beverages.

Well, that's like your opinion man.

We get all the free beverages we want at work (soda, coffee, tea, etc). However, the cup size is limited to 16 ounces. I don't believe one person ever complained.

Not quite relevant seeing as how your beverage is free. What if you had to pay and didn't get free refills?

One very possible next step in all of this is to ban free refills in order to prevent people from "circumventing" the ban on large containers. The words "skirt" and "loophole" will be tossed around liberally when describing how merchants are operating and why this new regulation is needed. This kind of incrementalism only happens constantly.

Fundamentally, liberty goes along with personally responsibility. You have the liberty to largely consume as much manufactured food products as you can afford; but you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health. Freedom and personal responsibility go together. That is why Americans can be so childish. They want unlimited liberty to do as they please, but also want no personal responsibility for their actions, especially where those actions have long term potential consequences.


Err, not exactly. Responsibility to your community would be fascism, not freedom.

/not that I disagree with the point you're making
 
2012-07-01 08:56:56 PM  
Seems reasonable. 16oz is already 2 8oz servings. If you really want 4 servings worth of your soda, just get a refill or buy multiple.

People are really bad with numbers. If someone drinks a 32 oz beverage with their lunch, they'll think they had "a coke" with lunch. You make them get 4 8oz cups of and they'll realize that they drank a lot of coke.

Similarly, I think it'd make sense for restaurants to be limited to serving a maximum of some fixed set of calories at a time. Let the customer ask for more. No need to limit the total amount served, tax, or even require charging for each serving. Just let it be more obvious to the consumer how much they are consuming. A person is much more likely to consume a giant 3000 Calorie meal if you put it on the plate all at once than if you brought it out 700-800 Calories at a time.
 
2012-07-01 08:58:04 PM  

Albert: This is bullshiat, unless it's illegal, the only way government should have a say in what you can or can't drink, smoke, or eat is if they're actually paying for our healthca........oops....nevermind.


Government's not paying for my health care.

/Stay outta my fridge, bedroom, and torture dungeon shackle laden exercise basement.
 
2012-07-01 08:58:22 PM  

Harry_Seldon: I'm more concerned about people having the freedom from want. Freedom that flows from inclusion. Freedom that flows from economic security. Freedom from private economic power that has no bounds. Freedom from exercise of arbitrary power, etc.


Yet, your solution largely seems to hand the power to remove freedom over to "the community" (eg., government). Instead of a corporation stealing your freedom, 51% of your neighbors can decide that you having barbeques and drinking beer every weekend will hurt your earning power, and thus are no longer allowed.

Hell, 51% can decide that you can't take a lower paying job because to do so would lower your taxes, thus cheating the community of your "fair share".

Your city can decide that your love of deep fried foods has to be curbed because you might get fat, might need medical attention, might not have insurance, AND might not have enough money to pay for your care. So because of a possible issue 4 or 5 degrees removed from your behavior, "the community" can deprive you of various freedoms.

Nothing about that about that is anything but arbitrary or excessive.
 
2012-07-01 08:59:48 PM  
Appropriate, since IIRC huge sugar intake encourages gastric cancer.
 
2012-07-01 09:07:04 PM  

erik-k: aerojockey: Oh, should say hello to the "people who think there's some vast difference between HFCS and sucrose", like sugar is some kind of health and taste miracle.

The bottom line is, anything full of dissolved fructose (sucrose is half fructose, and becomes exactly half fructose and half glucose a few seconds after entering your stomach) is horrible for you. Not that you can pour cane sugar down your gullet by the bag or anything, but your body knows very well how to store unlimited amounts of glucose.

Get the fructose out of your diet and you'll have more energy, feel better and lose weight. Difficulty level: good luck getting away... It's in soda, gatorade, even bread, and fruit drinks are loaded with sucrose.


I've had soda that was flavored entirely with glucose... it was kind of nasty, not very sweet and left an aftertaste like aspartame, kind of like powdered sugar, so 100% cutting out fructose isn't possible. Maybe the answer is getting manufacturers to switch from HFCS-55 to HFCS-42 (which actually has less fructose than cane sugar), with the added benefit to consumers of being a little less sweet and therefore a little less addictive. For the existing fructose addicts, I don't know what to say.
 
2012-07-01 09:07:52 PM  
I drink like 4 sodas a year and most of those are when I cook pancakes. Sprite or 7-up instead of sugar and water/milk in pancakes is awesome.
 
2012-07-01 09:12:38 PM  
how about they just legalize what's edible and make illegal what's not

so no 32 oz cokes
but 12 oz is fine
 
2012-07-01 09:21:32 PM  

Nem Wan: Benjimin_Dover: Does anybody have a link to the actual language of the new code? I have an idea of how it may be possible to still provide drinks over 16 oz. In NYC but the language will need to be parsed to validate it.

Illogical loopholes were exposed in the first article I read about this. If you're a "grocery" establishment, including convenience stores, even if you have a self-serve soda fountain identical to one at McDonald's, you're exempt.


Wut? Who has to comply with it then? That would seem to imply that pretty much everybody would be exempt.

/really would like to see the language of the law
//have to break out the negative Google terms to try and get rid of all the news stories about it
///I haven't seen one yet have the language and the first bazillion hits are all news stories
 
2012-07-01 09:23:02 PM  
soda tastes like crap, anybody who avoids the stuff for longer than a few months realizes this
 
2012-07-01 09:23:26 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: //diet is better for you anyway


Hardly. There's some pretty solid research out there showing that artificial sweeteners tend to cause people to overindulge, so grabbing a diet soda can actually cause a person to eat and/or drink more than if they had gotten a traditionally sweetened drink.
 
2012-07-01 09:27:34 PM  

DidyoumeanDark: /off to get a yard of beer at my local.


Yep. As long as they don't fark with our 40s.
 
2012-07-01 09:28:50 PM  
minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.


I'm not sure what to make of HFC- can anyone point to research that shows it is metabolized differently from sucrose (which already includes a monomer of fructose to begin with)? Also, purely from a caloric intake perspective, sucrose is not as sweet as HFC, and it takes more sucrose to generate the same sweetness. Compare the calorie listings on a sucrose coke to an HFC coke- it's usually in the range of 10-20 calories higher per serving.

I will agree on the taste and the "feeling" after consumption
 
2012-07-01 09:31:39 PM  

Albert: This is bullshiat, unless it's illegal, the only way government should have a say in what you can or can't drink, smoke, or eat is if they're actually paying for our healthca........oops....nevermind.


Yep. If you're gonna go in... go all in.
When a super fat co-worker voted against smoking in bars (that he doesn't even go to) I told him, "Your time will come."

First they came for the homos, but I wasn't a homo, so I didn't really give a shiat if they can get married. No wait, I guess I do... "NO."
Then they came for the smokers, but I don't smoke, so fark those farkers. Then they came for the fatties and.... wtf what about my riiiiiights?!

Lol. Oz caps? It's just the beginning, fatso. Enjoy.
 
2012-07-01 09:51:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: foxyshadis:
/Would try sugar-free beer.
//Would probably not enjoy it.

Alcohol has calories in it all on its own. The fermentation process takes care of most of the sugar, but it creates alcohol, so you don't really lose anything calorie-wise.

Hard alcohols should for the most part be sugar free (though flavored/spiced rums and vodka may contain added sugars/HFCS along with the flavorings).


people, especially the internet people tonight it appears, need to realize that something that starts out as "sugar free" but contains alcohol isn't sugar free.

alcohol is just a giant carbohydrate chain that your body immediately breaks down into smaller sugars to further process.

this is the exact same as labeling candies with 95% sugar content "fat free". sure they are, until someone eats a ton of them and does nothing in the next day or so to actually consume those free calories. once they've successfully watched their television for a day, that "fat free" candy is going to be saved as fat.

/magic isn't it?
//drinks a ton, just bikes more to make up the difference.
 
2012-07-01 09:59:42 PM  

Digitalstrange: thornhill: downstairs: Wrong. The cigarette companies lied, and hid the contents of what they were selling.

Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product, and break it down into categories and percent of recommended daily intake.

Can't ask more than that. Beyond that, its personal choice.

Eh, maybe not quite the same, but I have no doubt that they're going to resort to lying.

When Mayor Nutter in Philadelphia proposed a soda tax a few years ago, the soda lobby claimed it would result in the elimination of thousands of jobs using some highly fuzzy math. So basically they claimed that any attempt to discourage people from drinking drinks high in sugar would be bad for the economy.

They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.

Ummm no the soda industries attack is pretty straightforward and true. - Do you really want the govt to tell you what you can and cant drink?


Tell me, how are they doing that? people love to say how stupid it is because they'll just buy 2 drinks.
 
2012-07-01 10:02:28 PM  

Ed Finnerty: What size is that your can, citizen?

 
2012-07-01 10:02:47 PM  
Is that 16 oz limit including the ice or not?

Because I've had many occasions where I'd order a 20oz soda and get about 16oz of ice.
 
2012-07-01 10:06:27 PM  

juvandy: minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.

I'm not sure what to make of HFC- can anyone point to research that shows it is metabolized differently from sucrose (which already includes a monomer of fructose to begin with)? Also, purely from a caloric intake perspective, sucrose is not as sweet as HFC, and it takes more sucrose to generate the same sweetness. Compare the calorie listings on a sucrose coke to an HFC coke- it's usually in the range of 10-20 calories higher per serving.

I will agree on the taste and the "feeling" after consumption


HFCS has to be used in larger quantities (approximately twice as much) compare to cane sugar because it is much less sweet. So instead of using 10 grams of cane sugar, they would have to use 20 grams of HFCS for the same amount of sweetness. This leads to increased amounts of sugar, in general, in your drinks. That alone is reason enough to avoid them. It's similar to what many manufacturers do when they make low-carb or sugar-free products. They double or triple the amount of fat in it, add some artificial sweetener and put in small print on the back "Not a low calorie food". If you're buying processed food, you're gonna get screwed one way or the other.

As to whether or not it's metabolized differently, I don't know as IANA nutritionist. Good luck finding any reliable results, however. There hasn't been enough time for any real research to be done on it since the big hullabaloo about HFCS began. However, the FDA slapped down their request to call it "Corn Sugar" because it only exists in a liquid form, so it's different enough in my eyes.
 
2012-07-01 10:06:40 PM  
I remember when my high school removed the soda machines. I used to have a mini ice chest in my locker stocked full of Mountain Dew. Sold cans for $1 each, and those fatties paid it.

/in middle school they had no soda but sold Yoohoo. Wtf...
 
2012-07-01 10:07:00 PM  
In other news, I like the swastikas on the building in that article. :P
 
2012-07-01 10:07:12 PM  

wildcardjack: Is that 16 oz limit including the ice or not?

Because I've had many occasions where I'd order a 20oz soda and get about 16oz of ice.


You have to fully commit to the "running man" dance move when ordering.

//too obscure?
 
2012-07-01 10:10:56 PM  
Man, we are a pathetic society. We start freaking out because our "freedom" to drink buckets of pop at restaurants is "under attack."

We are a generation with no perspective.
 
2012-07-01 10:13:10 PM  
RTFA, blinked, read it again and pounded my head against the wall.

FIRST: You need to start worrying. Your freedoms are being taken away in record numbers over the last 20 years. No one seems to give a f**k.

Now, you need to be concerned over major food industries, who have bastardized your food for decades in the name of profits. Since the 1970's I've watched portion sizes double and triple, seen fast foot places go nuts with advertising and give-aways to draw in the kids and adults, saw the invention of the bucket sized Big Gulp drink and watched the savage fight against listing the ingredients of food on the containers.

Even now, not everything is listed. Coke does not have to post the contents of it's top secret recipe, nor does Heinz Ketchup. Other companies disguise ingredients under 'assorted spices and natural flavorings'.

Remember the Great Margarine Cover-up? Several major brands boasted about no cholesterol but included trans-fats that TURNED INTO CHOLESTEROL once consumed. Then there was the big fuss about whole milk, which eventually got it removed from school food pyramids and replaced by water -- even though soft drink companies had moved into the schools with soda machines like a tidal wave through a desert.

Look how Frito-Lay had managed to hog the majority of aisle space for it's products by offering discounts and enticements to companies to do so. Not ONE of their products can be considered even close to healthy -- not unhealthy either, and have a surprisingly low amount of good nutrients considering they're made from corn, cheese and potatoes.

They do, however, have a lot of calories and salts.

One by one, all of the prime items of a normal, tasty diet have gone up in price to levels unheard of for nearly 100 years: all meats, most fish, popular fresh vegetables and most fruits. People turn to cheaper things, often cut with various not real healthy stuff used as inexpensive fillers.

Cellulose -- a form of wood pulp -- is now allowed in your foods as a bulk filler. It has no nutritional value. It will not harm you either. 75% of your hamburgers come from ONE major company, which sells to other distributors, who slap their name on the product. The main company likes to toss in cellulose in the mix. That gives them a greater profit since they use less meat.

I like soda but even I agree that the stuff made with real sugar is better. Sometime in the late 60's, soda companies started dumping in anything that could be used as a sweetener and Pepsi opened the door to dumping in large amounts of caffeine.

I'll bet you didn't know that those cartons of FRESH ORANGE JUICE contain juice probably a year old, held in storage, which removes all of the flavor, so the companies have to add in flavor packs before the stuff is processed for sale.

The same companies which make scent packs for perfume producers make these flavor packs. The contents are NEVER listed on the containers.

I trust you all recall the recent 'Pink meat slime' companies tried to push off on schools and such. You probably never heard of the MEAT GLUE used to seamlessly bind a mass of meat into a roast. The enzyme is so hazardous that the workers need to wear masks so as not to breath in the dust -- which might turn their lungs into a solid mass. Apparently, after the 'roasts' set for several hours, wrapped tightly in plastic, the 'glue' is cured and safe to be around and eat.

But, you're still being lied to. That $50 beef roast probably came from several cows and some scrap cuttings.

Since the 70's, we've been steadily pushed to eat more and more, often tasty, greasy krap that is fattening and contains far too much fat. TV even entices you with assorted food programs based on sheer gluttony. (Worlds best sandwich. Man verses food. Professional eaters.)
Read the labels on TV dinners and find that some contain enough salt, sugars, calories and cholesterol to clog the arteries of a lumberjack. Yet they're advertised as delicious, filling, a great substitute for folks who don't have the time to cook and a treat for kids.

Soda companies dump in sugars which aren't listed as sugars, flavors which never even came from anything close to a real fruit and clog your TV and tablets up with specially designed advertising, psychologically crafted to hit your demographic.

The more you guzzle, the more profits they make.

My Grandpaw made is own root beer in barrels during the depression. He used easily obtainable ingredients and used cane sugar. No preservatives. My Mom said that whenever he produced a couple of barrels, their house got real popular. It was cheap enough for him to make it even during one of the worst economic times in our history.

There aint much similarity to the makings of his root beer and most of the stuff on the market today.

Maybe it is time to start cracking down on some of these industries. Obviously, the average citizen isn't smart enough to realize that guzzling the krap hurts them in the long run and the major companies are only interested in profits.

If you die from a stroke or heart attack caused by obesity, well, you can't prove it was from their product so your heirs can't sue.
 
2012-07-01 10:13:19 PM  
Come now, Bloomberg just wants to to serve and obey and guard men from harm.
 
2012-07-01 10:14:29 PM  

Chummer45: Man, we are a pathetic society. We start freaking out because our "freedom" to drink buckets of pop at restaurants is "under attack."

We are a generation with no perspective.


Yeah, we fight molehills now in order to keep from fighting mountains later. We have lots and lots of perspective in that we've seen over and over where this kind of crap goes.

You understand the principle of "death by a thousand cuts"? Well, this is yet another 'little' cut.
 
2012-07-01 10:16:32 PM  
I only live may 25 miles to NYC as the "pick your bird" flies...I RARELY go to the city because it's a cesspool. I have no clue why people live there or want to visit on vacation. I worked there for 3 years in midtown and downtown (back to NJ when 9/11 hit). NYC is just so "not american". It should be it's own country. I've traveled all over this country and it's the only place like itself...not EVEN close to anything else. If they annexxed NYC, fine with me.
 
2012-07-01 10:20:15 PM  
HFCS has to be used in larger quantities (approximately twice as much) compare to cane sugar because it is much less sweet. So instead of using 10 grams of cane sugar, they would have to use 20 grams of HFCS for the same amount of sweetness.

Read what I said first. HFCS is sweeter than cane sugar, and most sucrose drinks have higher calorie loads than HFCS drinks. Example:

A 12 oz can of coke in the US (HFCS) has 140 calories, or 11.66 calories per oz

A 350 ml (11.83 oz) can of coke in Australia (sucrose) has 161 calories, or 13.61 calories per oz

Sucrose-based drinks carry more calories than HFCS
 
2012-07-01 10:29:41 PM  

pedrop357: You understand the principle of "death by a thousand cuts"? Well, this is yet another 'little' cut.


not really. you're still free to guzzle as much as you want. this is just limiting the serving size. buy two if you want more.
 
2012-07-01 10:34:58 PM  

ciberido: Wangiss: Just stop subsidizing it.

Is there ANY good reason to keep subsidizing corn?

Difficulty: "to win votes" or "to get re-elected" do not qualify.


Any politician who criticizes the public for being fat who doesn't also demand an end to corn subsidies should be run out of down. Tarring and feathering beforehand is highly recommended.

Also, the high tariffs on sugar imports should be eliminated. The countries that would most benefit tend to be extremely poor and could use the money we would send to them. Sugar is bad for you, but HFCS is far worse.
 
2012-07-01 10:38:11 PM  

juvandy: HFCS has to be used in larger quantities (approximately twice as much) compare to cane sugar because it is much less sweet. So instead of using 10 grams of cane sugar, they would have to use 20 grams of HFCS for the same amount of sweetness.

Read what I said first. HFCS is sweeter than cane sugar, and most sucrose drinks have higher calorie loads than HFCS drinks. Example:

A 12 oz can of coke in the US (HFCS) has 140 calories, or 11.66 calories per oz

A 350 ml (11.83 oz) can of coke in Australia (sucrose) has 161 calories, or 13.61 calories per oz

Sucrose-based drinks carry more calories than HFCS


See, here's the thing I wonder about with those labels. How accurate are they? Basic nutrition info is that carbs are 4 kcal per gram (fat is 9 kcal/gram, alcohol is 7 kcal/gram). So that 39 grams of sugar listed on a 12 ounce coke should be 156 kcal, not the 140 listed on the label. I can't seem to find the nutrition info for an Australian coke, so I can't compare the two myself.

That is interesting to see, though. I wonder what kind they actually use in production, because the type of HFCS is important, but not labeled on products in any way. From wikipedia:

Per relative sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.[21]
HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose; HFCS 42 is less sweet than sucrose.
HFCS is cheaper in the United States as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.[22] Since the mid 1990s, the United States federal government has subsidized corn growers by $40 billion.[23][24]
HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.[25]
- Link (New Window) -

So it could be sweeter, less sweet or the same, depending on the type used in production (or which happens to be cheaper, maybe?). Might be part of the confusion in info I've seen out there. Thanks for the heads up!
 
2012-07-01 10:41:26 PM  

juvandy: Sucrose-based drinks carry more calories than HFCS


That's because fructose and glucose are both in free form in HFCS. Makes it sweeter than the disaccharide. But the liver has to spend more time with fructose to make it usable in the body. The glucose your body can put right to work.

Not saying it's better or worse, actually. Sugar isn't any good for you either. And I'm not to thrilled with juice, seeing as how fruit is full of fiber along with sweetness. There's an argument to be made that most fruit is on par with candy, and that our main stays should be mostly plants and protein.
 
2012-07-01 10:43:45 PM  

OgreMagi: Any politician who criticizes the public for being fat who doesn't also demand an end to corn subsidies should be run out of down. Tarring and feathering beforehand is highly recommended.


For bonus irony points, use HFCS as the feather adhesive.

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but as a card-carrying nanny state fan, I still say Bloomberg's Big Gulp ban (all the more ironic because it doesn't ban actual Big Gulps) is farking retarded. Spend the money you'd use to enforce this thing on public service ads, if you must, but there comes a point where people have to be allowed to dig their own graves.

Y'know what I'd like to see? Requiring restaurants to have a poster or diorama with transparent soda cup replicas containing powdered sugar (or an inert white powder sugar-lookalike) in the volume of the amount of sugar the soda would contain. If someone isn't dissuaded from drinking a soda by seeing a fistful of sugar in the bottom of the cup, there isn't much you can really do to stop them.
 
2012-07-01 10:52:51 PM  
Rik01, interesting read. Got a little squirrelly at the end and your bumper touched the wall a couple times, but... nicely done.

Scotch. Islay scotch is still ok, right?
 
2012-07-01 10:54:29 PM  

Isildur: Come now, Bloomberg just wants to to serve and obey and guard men from harm.


ftfm

Btw, if you want to hear the 1950 radio show version of that 1947 SF tale, download this and skip to the beginning of the actual story at 1m:58s in.
 
2012-07-01 10:57:02 PM  

06Wahoo: TheManofPA: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.

This^^^

Also try to drink 32oz of full sugar soda.. ya its not really possible without getting sick.

That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.

To be fair, even with water, that would be a very difficult challenge that would leave most people feeling very uncomfortable afterwards.

I don't think, though, that it is hard to drink 32 ounces of soda. It's a lot, no doubt, but as long as you aren't trying to do it too fast (like less than 10 minutes), and it is going down with some food, that is not too difficult to consume.


That's a good point. If I'm hydrating I will drink 100+ oz, but I do it over the course of an entire day and I spend a LOT of time recycling.
 
2012-07-01 11:02:32 PM  
It isn't just obesity that is a problem. People are also rotting their teeth out from all of that sugar and acid in soda. Just do a GIS of Mountain Dew mouth.
 
2012-07-01 11:03:20 PM  

06Wahoo: To be fair, even with water, that would be a very difficult challenge that would leave most people feeling very uncomfortable afterwards.


I'm pretty sure sugar (or rather the chemical result of metabolizing sugar) attaches to the receptors in the brain that tell you when you are full, so the message can't be passed along and in fact your brain thinks you are starving and makes you want more. This is how come we can drink big gulps and feel ok with it. Your tummy might feel bloated but your brain doesn't think you are full yet.

Citation - LONG arse video about how sugar works at about the 1:06:30 mark ish.... If you don't want to watch a 90 minute video about the biochemistry of sugar, here is a condensed 11min version.
 
2012-07-01 11:10:20 PM  

kg2095: Sugar - The Bitter Truth, Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics


Drat, I took too long wording my post and scanning through the video for the leptin quote .. you pipped me =)
 
2012-07-01 11:11:51 PM  
there's a disturbing number of folks here that agree with this asshattery.
 
2012-07-01 11:24:11 PM  

TheManofPA: That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.


64-oz of water in one go is unpleasant.
 
2012-07-01 11:24:35 PM  

BlippityBleep: there's a disturbing number of folks here that agree with this asshattery.


There's also a disturbing number of people in this thread who think that limits are bans and that anarchy is liberty. I don't agree with this approach to the problem, but I also don't think it's the end of liberty and freedom as we know it. Just because I can't buy a 5 gallon jug of whiskey at Walmart doesn't mean we're in prohibition.
 
2012-07-01 11:25:03 PM  

thornhill: They also claimed it was a tax on the poor because the poor arguing that soda consumption makes up a larger proportion of their budget than middle class and rich people. While not a lie, that's a flat out disingenuous argument.


But one that hits at home against a democratic mayor. His power base -- poor urban blacks -- hated the tax.
 
2012-07-01 11:28:35 PM  

altrocks: BlippityBleep: there's a disturbing number of folks here that agree with this asshattery.

There's also a disturbing number of people in this thread who think that limits are bans and that anarchy is liberty. I don't agree with this approach to the problem, but I also don't think it's the end of liberty and freedom as we know it. Just because I can't buy a 5 gallon jug of whiskey at Walmart doesn't mean we're in prohibition.


setting a limit is an abuse of power, and the extra packaging has negative environmental effects. seriously, who the fark cares what size soda somebody wants, and how the fark is this an important enough topic to bring up in ANY city?
 
2012-07-01 11:30:22 PM  

erik-k: It's in soda, gatorade, even bread, and fruit drinks are loaded with sucrose.


That's because fruit is loaded with fructose.
 
2012-07-01 11:31:41 PM  

This text is now purple: TheManofPA: That's a 64oz challenge. Try drinking 64 oz of regular Pepsi or Coke in under 10 minutes. It can be done mind you, but most end up throwing up and a fair number that do finish end up just feeling bleh and laying down.

64-oz of water in one go is unpleasant.


You think that is bad, you should try two liters.
 
2012-07-01 11:31:46 PM  

Harry_Seldon: I'm more concerned about people having the freedom from want. Freedom that flows from inclusion. Freedom that flows from economic security. Freedom from private economic power that has no bounds. Freedom from exercise of arbitrary power, etc.


You can't have the first four without the fifth one.
 
2012-07-01 11:47:38 PM  

BlippityBleep: altrocks: BlippityBleep: there's a disturbing number of folks here that agree with this asshattery.

There's also a disturbing number of people in this thread who think that limits are bans and that anarchy is liberty. I don't agree with this approach to the problem, but I also don't think it's the end of liberty and freedom as we know it. Just because I can't buy a 5 gallon jug of whiskey at Walmart doesn't mean we're in prohibition.

setting a limit is an abuse of power, and the extra packaging has negative environmental effects. seriously, who the fark cares what size soda somebody wants, and how the fark is this an important enough topic to bring up in ANY city?


Like I said, I don't agree with the solution Bloomberg is trying, but at least he IS trying. Basically, instead of going with the way he basically banned all smoking form the city, he's trying what was seen in The Fifth Element.

i.imgur.com

Control the amount consumed in an effort to improve the quality of the public's health. I can't say I disagree with the desired outcome, but the method seems sloppy and inefficient in the current situation. It's not going to stop anyone from getting refills, or buying 2 drinks or just bringing their own 2-liter along with them. And, as you pointed out, there are unintended environmental consequences to selling more, but smaller quantities. Even so, that doesn't make this the worst idea ever, or even the worst idea this year.

As for how important it is, that's a matter of what you find important. If the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes aren't a concern to you, then I guess this isn't very important at all. For a public official dealing with millions of citizens, many of whom are obese, diabetic and sucking up a lot more resources because of it, it might be a much greater concern.
 
2012-07-01 11:48:14 PM  
I hope they win. This is just stupid. No, dumbassberg, you shouldn't be allowed to force people to be healthy. Deal with it.
 
2012-07-01 11:52:15 PM  

treesloth: I hope they win. This is just stupid. No, dumbassberg, you shouldn't be allowed to force people to be healthy. Deal with it.


Are you saying, Bloomberg is a soda jerk?
 
2012-07-01 11:54:52 PM  
I guess I'll just have to buy more bottles to get the same amount of cola.

Drink makers should be thrilled anyways, their 16 oz bottles always sell for a huge mark up over 2 liters

All this ban does is make more money for cola companies and creates more garbage.

Way to go.
 
2012-07-01 11:56:24 PM  

altrocks: For a public official dealing with millions of citizens, many of whom are obese, diabetic and sucking up a lot more resources because of it, it might be a much greater concern.


But we cant teach them portion control because then they might start spending inside their limits as well as eating inside their limits. Which results in an economic collapse.
 
2012-07-02 12:01:41 AM  

fluffy2097: altrocks: For a public official dealing with millions of citizens, many of whom are obese, diabetic and sucking up a lot more resources because of it, it might be a much greater concern.

But we cant teach them portion control because then they might start spending inside their limits as well as eating inside their limits. Which results in an economic collapse.


Lies. Healthier foods aren't subsidized and thus end up costing about the same, if not more, than the processed crap most people eat. The economics of it work just fine, and the food companies are good at adapting to new health crazes. Just look at how quickly the fat-free, cholesterol-free, carb-free, Trans-Fat-Free, Gluten-free stuff has come and gone over the last 15 years or so, depending on the current fad. They'll just decide to up production on the 16 oz. line of sodas to appease the law, while selling 8 oz. versions of their "juice" and labeling it as having "No HFCS", even though it will have just as much sugar, if not more, than the sodas. Many are doing that already, in fact.

Money will be made, regardless. People will always spend what they don't have on what they don't need. It's human nature.
 
2012-07-02 12:03:10 AM  
Who gives a Fark about anything in New York?!
 
2012-07-02 12:16:40 AM  
Is it unrealistic to hope that people may take an interest their own health just to feel better? Better quality of life? I know the coke or dasani or general mills people must love obesity. It maximizes shareholder value.
 
2012-07-02 12:17:50 AM  

altrocks: Lies.

Idiot.

Obesity is not caused caused so much by the American diet. It is primarily caused by caloric intake, which is a result of the American inability to have any restraint whatsoever.

High fructose corn syrup is, at most 65% fructose instead of 50% fructose that you find in "real sugar" If you drink 2 liters of sugared soda a day, you are going to have the same problems you're going to have from HFCS, because it's the same shiat.

Replace all the unhealthy shiat with healthy shiat and people will STILL be obese because they are still cramming over 9000 calories a day down their gullets when they only need 1500.

Insisting on smaller packaging is just going to create more garbage.
 
2012-07-02 12:21:40 AM  

conjecture and hearsay: Is it unrealistic to hope that people may take an interest their own health just to feel better? Better quality of life? I know the coke or dasani or general mills people must love obesity. It maximizes shareholder value.


The 16 oz bottle is coke and pepsi's money maker. I don't see why they'd fight it at all except for appearances.

Go look at the price per ounce on a 2 liter of coke vs a 16 oz bottle. If anything, soda companies lose money off fat people who drink a 2 liter every day. They want you to buy a 16oz bottle as an impulse buy every time you leave a store.
 
2012-07-02 12:39:52 AM  

wildcardjack: Is that 16 oz limit including the ice or not?

Because I've had many occasions where I'd order a 20oz soda and get about 16oz of ice.


When I worked in fast food, we were told to fill the cups 3/4 full of ice to save product.
 
2012-07-02 12:47:11 AM  

fluffy2097: altrocks: Lies.
Idiot.

Obesity is not caused caused so much by the American diet. It is primarily caused by caloric intake, which is a result of the American inability to have any restraint whatsoever.

High fructose corn syrup is, at most 65% fructose instead of 50% fructose that you find in "real sugar" If you drink 2 liters of sugared soda a day, you are going to have the same problems you're going to have from HFCS, because it's the same shiat.

Replace all the unhealthy shiat with healthy shiat and people will STILL be obese because they are still cramming over 9000 calories a day down their gullets when they only need 1500.

Insisting on smaller packaging is just going to create more garbage.


The REAL problem is the lack of exercise the average American does. If people got out and walked more, swam more, played with their kids more, just more physical activity every day would greatly help. You can eat whatever and however much you like, as long as your expenditure is equal to or greater than your intake you'll be fine. Not saying that eating less and better isn't important, but you can eat the healthiest, least-bad-for-you food you want, if you're not working your body it's gonna turn into fat regardless.

Take a walk, you dumplings.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:31 AM  
Oh just buy another soda and walk around with two fattie.

Wait... Fatties are lazy, no way they'll walk around with 2, or get up to walk AAAAALLLLLL the way back to the soda machine for a refill, refill it, add ice, put the top back on and walk AAAAALLLLL the way back to their trough of food.

/WIN
 
2012-07-02 01:05:18 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Are you saying, Bloomberg is a soda jerk?


That-- yeah, that right there, what you did.

I saw it.
 
2012-07-02 01:25:52 AM  

minoridiot: I've stopped buying soft drinks with HFC syrup. For whatever reason, soft drinks with HFC sit heavy in my stomach and make me feel bloated. I've noticed that soft drinks made with real sugar do not have the effect, and actually taste better. If they are going to ban anything, it should be HFC syrup.


But they're equally disastrous for your health.
 
2012-07-02 01:26:18 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The REAL problem is the lack of exercise the average American does. If people got out and walked more, swam more, played with their kids more, just more physical activity every day would greatly help. You can eat whatever and however much you like, as long as your expenditure is equal to or greater than your intake you'll be fine. Not saying that eating less and better isn't important, but you can eat the healthiest, least-bad-for-you food you want, if you're not working your body it's gonna turn into fat regardless.

Take a walk, you dumplings.



Ah yes the sedentary lifestyle. A major component to our lack of portion control. We do so little we can't eat little enough to stay calorie neutral and not be hungry.

20 minutes of cardio every day is all it takes and you get huge health benefits.
 
2012-07-02 01:48:13 AM  

Rik01: If you die from a stroke or heart attack caused by obesity, well, you can't prove it was from their product so your heirs can't sue.


The meat glue enzyme stuff is scary if it's true, but almost 99% of this comes down to self-restraint personal responsibility. I pay attention to what I eat, and I don't spend more money than I have to. It requires very little effort (though, admittedly more than running through the drive-thru), but I'm not the least bit fat. Why are you?
 
2012-07-02 02:02:56 AM  
Why is it so hard to get lightly sweetened beverages? I don't want diet, all artificial sweeteners taste like ass (yes Stevia, you too) I don't particularly like HFCS and I don't always want a pound of sugar in my drinks.

How about a nice refreshing iced tea with lime / lemon and A LITTLE sugar, maybe 20 cals in a half litre serving.

/ Austin's own "Sweet Leaf" does in fact have an unsweetened variety, but only foodie/ specialty places (like the ones that have real Cadbury chocolate) stock it
 
2012-07-02 02:03:44 AM  
Today marks exactly 6 months that I haven't had a drink of pop, and I don't miss it at all most of the time. Still, these laws are stupid and unconstitutional. Soda isn't illegal you can't tell people they can't buy or sell it.
 
2012-07-02 02:16:19 AM  

Wangiss: OgreMagi: The government should have no say in what size a soda (or any product) a consumer can buy. I would, however, be all for a huge farking tax on any food containing high fructose corn syrup. It can be justified using the same logic used to justify cigarette taxes.

Just stop subsidizing it.


^^^
QFT

1:15 for context.
 
2012-07-02 02:22:58 AM  

ParaHandy: Why is it so hard to get lightly sweetened beverages? I don't want diet, all artificial sweeteners taste like ass (yes Stevia, you too) I don't particularly like HFCS and I don't always want a pound of sugar in my drinks.


Insufficient sales.
 
2012-07-02 02:44:52 AM  
C'mon folks, did you honestly think that a mayor who supports his "private army" stopping and frisking people based solely on their race was going to not make dietary decisions for you? Did you honestly think that Bloomberg was going to stop with the black folks? Mike Bloomberg is nothing more than a useless piece of shiat that fancies himself king.
 
2012-07-02 02:51:29 AM  
I don't see how anyone lives in NYC.

It's bad enough physically being mushed together with so many people, but they just can't seem to mind their own f*cking business.

Besides, I thought New Yorkers were supposed to be tough guys - why do you let your government roll over you so easily?
 
2012-07-02 03:01:59 AM  

mephisto6:

Scotch. Islay scotch is still ok, right?


Healthy, even. Something about moderate alcohol use having an anti-oxidant something something.

Point being, scotch is tasty, and anybody who doesn't like Islays is a poopyhead. And thanks, more for me.
 
2012-07-02 03:09:14 AM  

Skyfrog: unconstitutional.


I'm sorry, but what are you smoking?

It's a regulation. On serving size. There is no limit to how much you can guzzle whatsoever, the only limit is to how much you can get in a cup. That is being done to make fatasses realize that that soda in their hands is not one serving, it's four. They are still free to buy the 3 other servings, and the restaurant is free to provide them with unlimited refills.

There is no "freedom to have sodas in bucket size" enshrined in the constitution. To say that this is unconstitutional displays an amazing lack of understanding of the Constitution, what freedom is and isn't, and well, everything really. It's just an astonishingly dumb thing to say.

Governments regulate things. Even food. Or is adding formaldehyde to the beef just free speech for the slaughterhouse?
 
2012-07-02 03:39:35 AM  

cptjeff: It's just an astonishingly dumb thing to say.

Governments regulate things. Even food. Or is adding formaldehyde to the beef just free speech for the slaughterhouse?


You're comparing large sodas to putting formaldehyde in food? Speaking of astonishingly dumb things to say. Banning large drinks will have no affect at all on obesity, none. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, like these lawmakers.
 
2012-07-02 03:44:30 AM  
Perhaps some of you don't know enough about the differences between freedom and liberty. They aren't the same.

Example?

I am free to kill you.

I am not at liberty to do so.

We give up liberties to partake in society. Freedom is oft removed by force, more often by force of law. Make of it what you will.

Ho hum...

Carry on... But take that into account in the future lest I need to type it in vain again.
 
2012-07-02 03:46:18 AM  

Hand Banana: Banning large drinks will have no affect at all on obesity, none. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, like these lawmakers.


Probably not, but if this is the start of reducing portion size to more normal levels, then it may have impact. Retraining people about a sensible portion size is not a bad thing. Maybe you have some sensible suggestions that will help that dont feel so heavy handed?
 
2012-07-02 03:51:18 AM  
Likwit

but I'm not the least bit fat. Why are you?

Sorry to dissapoint you. For my age and height (5 111/2) I drift between 195 and 210 lbs. Normal blood pressure. Dr. is satisfied with my weight. Got that damn over the hill spare tire a bit though.
 
2012-07-02 03:53:13 AM  

cptjeff: Skyfrog: unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking?

It's a regulation. On serving size. There is no limit to how much you can guzzle whatsoever, the only limit is to how much you can get in a cup. That is being done to make fatasses realize that that soda in their hands is not one serving, it's four. They are still free to buy the 3 other servings, and the restaurant is free to provide them with unlimited refills.

There is no "freedom to have sodas in bucket size" enshrined in the constitution. To say that this is unconstitutional displays an amazing lack of understanding of the Constitution, what freedom is and isn't, and well, everything really. It's just an astonishingly dumb thing to say.

Governments regulate things. Even food. Or is adding formaldehyde to the beef just free speech for the slaughterhouse?


So life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means nothing to you? Soda is not illegal, if people want to buy it by the gallon they have a right to. This is just some political BS to say he's fighting obesity, and a huge waste of time. There is an obesity problem but this is not the way to deal with it.
 
2012-07-02 03:55:37 AM  

Rik01: Got that damn over the hill spare tire a bit though.


Maybe you should drink less soda?

//sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
2012-07-02 04:01:00 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Hand Banana: Banning large drinks will have no affect at all on obesity, none. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, like these lawmakers.

Probably not, but if this is the start of reducing portion size to more normal levels, then it may have impact. Retraining people about a sensible portion size is not a bad thing. Maybe you have some sensible suggestions that will help that dont feel so heavy handed?


Portion sizes are already ridiculously small, read those nutrition labels some time. One serving is five potato chips? Still the information is there for those who care and those who don't will continue to be fat. Making drink sizes smaller will just mean people will buy two.
 
2012-07-02 04:12:44 AM  
When am I going to get a tax break because I am not fat? Oxford gives me a break on my health insurance because I have a gym membership. Now I want a tax break for actually using the farking thing.
 
2012-07-02 04:35:18 AM  

cptjeff: Skyfrog: unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking?

It's a regulation. On serving size. There is no limit to how much you can guzzle whatsoever, the only limit is to how much you can get in a cup. That is being done to make fatasses realize that that soda in their hands is not one serving, it's four. They are still free to buy the 3 other servings, and the restaurant is free to provide them with unlimited refills.

There is no "freedom to have sodas in bucket size" enshrined in the constitution. To say that this is unconstitutional displays an amazing lack of understanding of the Constitution, what freedom is and isn't, and well, everything really. It's just an astonishingly dumb thing to say.

Governments regulate things. Even food. Or is adding formaldehyde to the beef just free speech for the slaughterhouse?


The super-size-soda ban isn't unconstitutional, no. It's moronic, overly intrusive to insufficient benefit - but not unconstitutional. Something can be bad policy without being unconstitutional - or for that matter, something can theoretically be unconstitutional even if it's good policy (I forbear from giving examples because they would be off-topic).
 
2012-07-02 05:09:33 AM  

Hand Banana: Portion sizes are already ridiculously small, read those nutrition labels some time. One serving is five potato chips? Still the information is there for those who care and those who don't will continue to be fat. Making drink sizes smaller will just mean people will buy two.


Those 5 chips is when you already ate the recommended 2000 - 2500 calories a day. If you eat a bag of chips on a Saturday nothing bad will happen, when you eat a bag of chips a day in addition to "regular" food you will most likely get fat.

Most people who buy 2 cups instead of one will, in a bit of time, stop buying the second one. They will start finding it bothersome or due to social pressure because they are (imagining) being ridiculed for having 2 cups sitting next to one meal or because they feel they made their "statement" and will drop back to the habit of buying one drink.

Is this magically going to stop obesity? No. is it helping? Yes. Cutting a serving down to 16 oz from 24 oz reduces calorie intake by up to 5% of the daily recommended calorie intake. Even a 1000 mile journey starts with the first step.
 
2012-07-02 05:53:56 AM  

DerAppie: Hand Banana: Portion sizes are already ridiculously small, read those nutrition labels some time. One serving is five potato chips? Still the information is there for those who care and those who don't will continue to be fat. Making drink sizes smaller will just mean people will buy two.

Those 5 chips is when you already ate the recommended 2000 - 2500 calories a day. If you eat a bag of chips on a Saturday nothing bad will happen, when you eat a bag of chips a day in addition to "regular" food you will most likely get fat.

Most people who buy 2 cups instead of one will, in a bit of time, stop buying the second one. They will start finding it bothersome or due to social pressure because they are (imagining) being ridiculed for having 2 cups sitting next to one meal or because they feel they made their "statement" and will drop back to the habit of buying one drink.

Is this magically going to stop obesity? No. is it helping? Yes. Cutting a serving down to 16 oz from 24 oz reduces calorie intake by up to 5% of the daily recommended calorie intake. Even a 1000 mile journey starts with the first step.


Sorry but it is not the governments job to play nanny and tell us how much Coke we can buy at one time. If people can't take personal responsibility then that's their problem, leave the rest of us and the government out of it.

/and no in on the planet earth opens a bag of chips and just eats five.
 
2012-07-02 06:08:01 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com

This shirt though, nope; just getting paid to do this.
 
2012-07-02 06:16:57 AM  

Hand Banana: Sorry but it is not the governments job to play nanny and tell us how much Coke we can buy at one time. If people can't take personal responsibility then that's their problem, leave the rest of us and the government out of it.


It's not just their problem. The morbidly obese require more expensive ambulances, more expensive medical equipment, more expensive rescue equipment (fire fighters can't get a 300kg person out of a building in the same way the do a 75kg person) and let us not forget the whole slew of changes the (governmental) buildings need to keep them fattie accessible due to the ADA classification. All those costs, and several others, are borne by the society they live in. The freedom of people to be fat infringes on the freedom of society to not pay for people choosing to be fat. And all people need to do is stand up, walk to the counter with their cup and ask for a refill. It's not as if there is some limit to how much crap they can eat or drink and refilling the cup reduces garbage.

/and no in on the planet earth opens a bag of chips and just eats five.

Very true. I eat snacks by the pack, not handful. No, I'm not fat.
 
2012-07-02 06:47:31 AM  
I always wonder how the ideal of liberty and equality got turned around to mean restriction and authoritarianism.
Because if I were to go back in time and tell someone this would all end with the government deciding what you could drink and how much, they'd wonder what I've been smoking.

/and I would have to say "Nothing... We aren't allowed to smoke ANYTHING!!"
 
2012-07-02 07:38:41 AM  
"a grassroots-style coalition created by the beverage industry."

huh?
 
2012-07-02 07:59:01 AM  

Harry_Seldon: We get all the free beverages we want at work (soda, coffee, tea, etc). However, the cup size is limited to 16 ounces. I don't believe one person ever complained.


A pint of coffee every serving would finish me off.

I'm up for that more often than not.
 
2012-07-02 07:59:51 AM  

cptjeff: There is no "freedom to have sodas in bucket size" enshrined in the constitution. To say that this is unconstitutional displays an amazing lack of understanding of the Constitution, what freedom is and isn't, and well, everything really. It's just an astonishingly dumb thing to say.


you're way too smart for a thread filled with people who are passionate defenders of what they imagine the constitution to be.
 
2012-07-02 08:06:37 AM  

Hand Banana: Banning large drinks will have no affect at all on obesity, none. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, like these lawmakers.


could you provide a reason for thinking reducing portion size will have no positive effect on weight loss? there is a body of evidence that suggests people adjust their expectations for being full based on the amount of food in front of them. Pollan cites one interesting study in The Omnivore's Dilemma where people ate soup from a bowl that, unbeknownst to them, would refill from the bottom. They ended up eating a ridiculous amount of soup just trying to finish the bowl

tl;dr if you serve people more they will eat more; if you serve people less they might eat less
 
2012-07-02 08:13:15 AM  

Harry_Seldon: If you are overweight, please don't sit near me in public spaces and events. I am tired of fat people spilling over into my personal space as they exercise their freedom to be fat.


And I am tired of listening to hateful bigots as they exercise their freedom to be loudmouth asshats. So I guess neither of us get what we want.
 
2012-07-02 08:18:46 AM  
ciberido: Explain the logic underlying this "you also have a responsibility to your community to care for your personal health" claim. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but I'm keen to hear how you arrive at this idea.

Harry_Seldon: Your community is your friends, family, coworkers, etc. You are socially embedded in a society whether you like it or not. It was clear from the Humanism school of thought that liberty and freedom required personal responsibility. James Madison was pretty clear on this concept.

If you act in ways that recklessly impair your health, you are externalizing the costs of your behavior on to your local community. I have a cowoker who have all the chronic problems of type 2 diabetes. He misses work, his coworkers have to do more work. He have increased health care costs which have to be subsidized by his healthier coworkers. His family and friends are impacted by his health issues in myriad of ways. His children suffer from his diminished capacity, and potential impact on his earning power.

Yet, he continues to eat poorly, and not manage his health. His community has to carry his sad sack because he has the freedom to not eat better, watch his weight, and follow medical advice.


That's a very sad story, but you failed to include any actual argument.
 
2012-07-02 08:21:04 AM  

lecavalier: When am I going to get a tax break because I am not fat? Oxford gives me a break on my health insurance because I have a gym membership. Now I want a tax break for actually using the farking thing.


gyms don't MAKE you skinny
i was 150 lbs 8% BF before getting the gym
now i'm 201 lbs 19.82% BF
and i go every day practically
 
2012-07-02 08:23:51 AM  

thenewmissus: Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.


The one that's come up before on Fark a number of times is Mexican coke. Sounds like an illegal drug but it's just Coca-Cola made in México,
 
2012-07-02 08:25:53 AM  

highbrow45: "a grassroots-style coalition created by the beverage industry."

huh?


Since the co-opting of the Tea Party by the GOP, the term "grassroots" has been rendered irrelevant other than to answer the trivia question "What sixties band was Creed Bratton a member of?"
 
2012-07-02 09:01:36 AM  
The fat farks think it's a constitutional right to not have to get a refill when they want more sugar water in their gullets.
 
2012-07-02 09:09:46 AM  

BolloxReader: Oh, there's the ILLUSION of choice, of self control. But look around you. Most fat people (myself included) know exactly what is needed. But the additives in snack food (including soda) have been manipulated to a point where it is psychologically addictive. And at that point, you lose control without realizing it.


I think that's some bullshiat logic to keep from taking personal responsibility.

Yeah, companies make their products as desirable as possible.

But if you logically know what's making you fat you have the ability to either do something about it or don't.

I'm overweight. I don't eat very much of what would be considered "junk" food. But like most people, I do have an inclination toward salty and fatty foods, though I don't consume many sugary foods, especially drinks. Because I like these foods, that's the type of foods I prepare far too often. I can't blame junk food companies because I'm preparing these foods often from scratch with fairly natural ingredients. Whipping cream isn't formulated to be addictive, but boy is it more tasty than something like skim milk in foods.
People will seek out these type of foods regardless of whether they prepare it themselves, or get it pre-prepared, if they associate the taste of that food with a good feeling. The junk food companies don't HAVE to use some kind of special formulation to make people want them. Salt + fat, or large amounts of sugar are generally craved by humans the world over, especially if they've eaten these foods as children. It's an evolutionary trait that causes us to seek out the most calorie laden foods in order to put on enough weight to survive as long as possible during times when food isn't available. The big problem now, in the U.S. and other western countries, is that food is ALWAYS available, 24/7. And we haven't figured out how to turn this evolutionary trait off, or fully deal with it in modern society.

Just because junk food companies produce foods with those qualities doesn't take personal responsibility off the person eating them. Nor does it put major responsibility specifically on the manufacturers of those foods. Background is also a factor. Children can be taught to curtail our natural cravings for food, by being taught proper eating habits, being given smaller amounts, healthier foods, and teaching to take responsibility and make healthier choices. In essence, it's not necessarily that children are taught to overeat (though they can be taught to eat more than naturally inclined), but that they're not taught to deal with those urges and think before stuffing their mouthes.
People that are taught to think before eating, and make better choices, are more likely to consume junk foods moderately without mindlessly eating a whole bag of chips or something. Unfortunately, many Americans are not being taught positive eating behaviors, and if you look back on your upbringing you can probably spot things that taught these behaviors, or see a lack of teaching more responsible behaviors.
One major thing is parents giving their children junky foods as a reward, a bribe, or to show their love. I've noticed this seems to be becoming even more common, as a lot of parents don't even want to make their children eat a healthy food if they say they don't like it or throw a tantrum. So they give in because it's easier, thus cementing a bad behavior that will be used throughout the child's life.

Sedentary lifestyle is also a MAJOR issue in obesity. Can you blame that on junk food manufacturers? Even if you do overeat and make poor choices, you can always go to the gym and work it off. Are the manufacturers stopping you from doing that? No, you are. Because, again, when someone is not taught to make good choices during their childhood, they will probably not do it as an adult, or at least it will be much harder to get themselves to do so. Someone whose parents take them out to play sports, and run around, and do physical activities on a constant basis, will be more likely to continue to be physically active as an adult. But nowadays people are being taught the opposite, and it has been getting worse year after year as more people keep their children indoors, don't engage in physical activities with them, and put them in front of a video game or tv to babysit them.

Americans culturally have all kinds of issues that lead to obesity and health problems. And the junk food companies aren't the main people to blame, at least their formulations aren't.
Advertising (the result of which largely relates to people engaging in activites that keep them bombarded with such - like tv watching) , upbringing, sedentary lifestyle, and food availability are some of the main factors.
 
2012-07-02 09:29:14 AM  

december: tl;dr if you serve people more they will eat more; if you serve people less they might eat less


and if ants had ipods they might listen to Metallica.
 
2012-07-02 09:38:33 AM  
I am curious, is it illegal to sell the large cups? If not, someone should buy some up and sell the large, empty cups outside of theaters. That way people could go in, buy a couple small sodas and then dump the contents into the larger cup.
 
2012-07-02 09:42:33 AM  

thornhill: When Mayor Nutter in Philadelphia proposed a soda tax a few years ago, the soda lobby claimed it would result in the elimination of thousands of jobs using some highly fuzzy fizzy math. So basically they claimed that any attempt to discourage people from drinking drinks high in sugar would be bad for the economy.

 
2012-07-02 09:46:25 AM  

ciberido: thenewmissus: Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.

The one that's come up before on Fark a number of times is Mexican coke. Sounds like an illegal drug but it's just Coca-Cola made in México,


Where I'm at we have Mexican Coke, Pepsi Throw Back, Dr. Pepper with Imperial Cane Sugar, Heritage Big Red, and a few others. And for reasons I don't fully understand, most of the soft drink manufactures will make kosher versions of their drinks with real sugar for Jewish holidays.
 
2012-07-02 10:01:28 AM  

Mock26: I am curious, is it illegal to sell the large cups? If not, someone should buy some up and sell the large, empty cups outside of theaters. That way people could go in, buy a couple small sodas and then dump the contents into the larger cup.


Yeah that will show the mayor a thing or two.
 
2012-07-02 10:02:00 AM  

minoridiot: ciberido: thenewmissus: Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.

The one that's come up before on Fark a number of times is Mexican coke. Sounds like an illegal drug but it's just Coca-Cola made in México,

Where I'm at we have Mexican Coke, Pepsi Throw Back, Dr. Pepper with Imperial Cane Sugar, Heritage Big Red, and a few others. And for reasons I don't fully understand, most of the soft drink manufactures will make kosher versions of their drinks with real sugar for Jewish holidays.


As I recall it's because corn is not considered kosher during passover.
 
2012-07-02 10:24:22 AM  
downstairs: "Soda companies have, for decades... like anyone that sells a food/drink product... been forced to list exactly what is in their product"

Yes and no. They get a pass on some things ('caramel color' vs 4-methylimidazole) and they have to list ingredients in order of quantity, but they don't have to break down the ratios of said quantity (60% water, 30% corn syrup vs 70% water, 20% corn syrup -- not a huge deal for most sodas, but for products that contain multiple sweetners, it's more relevant).

And "serving size" has been a joke for decades.

Also, fountain drinks, which are the ones at issue here, have been exempt from any sort of nutritional information requirement. Largely, because it's impossible to be precise (who knows how full you'll get it, how much ice, etc). But let's not kid ourselves: they could trivially ballpark some calorie counts. Even if they game the system and get to say a 32oz fountain drink is only 75% soda, they could slap a "300" on the menu somewhere.
 
2012-07-02 11:34:12 AM  

Hand Banana: minoridiot: ciberido: thenewmissus: Excuse my ignorance, but which sodas have real sugar in them? I thought all of them (other than diet) was made with HFCS.

The one that's come up before on Fark a number of times is Mexican coke. Sounds like an illegal drug but it's just Coca-Cola made in México,

Where I'm at we have Mexican Coke, Pepsi Throw Back, Dr. Pepper with Imperial Cane Sugar, Heritage Big Red, and a few others. And for reasons I don't fully understand, most of the soft drink manufactures will make kosher versions of their drinks with real sugar for Jewish holidays.

As I recall it's because corn is not considered kosher during passover.


but vicodin is thank heavens
 
2012-07-02 11:39:07 AM  

DerAppie: The freedom of people to be fat infringes on the freedom of society to not pay for people choosing to be fat.


Take that up with the people who made society pay for everyone's weight problems.
 
2012-07-02 12:01:32 PM  
If the government is paying for anyone's healthcare, it has the right to also pass restrictions like this. Don't want the government telling you what to eat, drink, smoke, etc.? Get the government out of healthcare, then you can pay your insurance provider a higher premium to offset the stupid risks you're taking.

// I support personal choice, but also personal risk. I shouldn't have to pay higher rates to cover your idiocy, any more than I should be able to dictate what you can eat, drink, or smoke.
 
2012-07-02 12:24:12 PM  

DerAppie: The freedom of people to be fat infringes on the freedom of society to not pay for people choosing to be fat.


Hmmm... Sounds like we should consider making people pay for their own stupidity. Interesting... I like the way you think.

Yes, I think people should pay their own way for the results of their own stupid decisions. Yes, they should have to pay for that themselves. Yes, they pay extra for the wide-load ambulance. Yes, they should pay for special accommodations, physical and medical, that stem from their bad choices. Yes, "they" should be "we", because I'm also overweight, so I fully recognize that this would kick me in the crotch. I'm not grossly so, but I would be healthier if I dropped a decent percentage of my mass.
 
2012-07-02 12:41:56 PM  

treesloth: DerAppie: The freedom of people to be fat infringes on the freedom of society to not pay for people choosing to be fat.

Hmmm... Sounds like we should consider making people pay for their own stupidity. Interesting... I like the way you think.

Yes, I think people should pay their own way for the results of their own stupid decisions. Yes, they should have to pay for that themselves. Yes, they pay extra for the wide-load ambulance. Yes, they should pay for special accommodations, physical and medical, that stem from their bad choices. Yes, "they" should be "we", because I'm also overweight, so I fully recognize that this would kick me in the crotch. I'm not grossly so, but I would be healthier if I dropped a decent percentage of my mass.


Right there with ya. This is why I support a sin tax on it, similar to what they do with tobacco. The only down side I see is that the revenue from it would probably just go to more subsidies for corn growers or something instead of health care for us fatties.
 
2012-07-02 12:49:09 PM  

altrocks: Right there with ya. This is why I support a sin tax on it, similar to what they do with tobacco. The only down side I see is that the revenue from it would probably just go to more subsidies for corn growers or something instead of health care for us fatties.


I don't know about a sin tax... that hits people for whom it's not a "sin"... casual users, people who use only in social situations, people who can handle it... good heavens, people would think I'm talking about cocaine, not soda. I say hit them directly. I don't like the idea of the government getting more authority, mainly because of crap like this... I'm probably a little twitchy right now, though, so I might read my own comment and disagree with it later.
 
2012-07-02 12:53:48 PM  

treesloth: altrocks: Right there with ya. This is why I support a sin tax on it, similar to what they do with tobacco. The only down side I see is that the revenue from it would probably just go to more subsidies for corn growers or something instead of health care for us fatties.

I don't know about a sin tax... that hits people for whom it's not a "sin"... casual users, people who use only in social situations, people who can handle it... good heavens, people would think I'm talking about cocaine, not soda. I say hit them directly. I don't like the idea of the government getting more authority, mainly because of crap like this... I'm probably a little twitchy right now, though, so I might read my own comment and disagree with it later.


A sin tax would just mean that SodaStream sales would go through the roof
 
2012-07-02 12:54:39 PM  

pedrop357: DerAppie: The freedom of people to be fat infringes on the freedom of society to not pay for people choosing to be fat.

Take that up with the people who made society pay for everyone's weight problems.


You mean society? Just look at obesity figures and you'll see that a lot of people will make claims services they are entitled to, but who are to fat to be able to use them. Some lawsuits from relatives because of dead teracetacea, or the teracetacea themselves, later and voila, collective cost increase.
 
2012-07-02 01:03:50 PM  

bhcompy: A sin tax would just mean that SodaStream sales would go through the roof


Forget the machines... some people would probably just start drinking the syrup straight.
 
2012-07-02 01:05:44 PM  

treesloth: bhcompy: A sin tax would just mean that SodaStream sales would go through the roof

Forget the machines... some people would probably just start drinking the syrup straight.


Some already do. Ugh.
 
2012-07-02 02:33:41 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The fat farks think it's a constitutional right to not have to get a refill when they want more sugar water in their gullets.


Exactly right! It is!

way south: I always wonder how the ideal of liberty and equality got turned around to mean restriction and authoritarianism.
Because if I were to go back in time and tell someone this would all end with the government deciding what you could drink and how much, they'd wonder what I've been smoking.

/and I would have to say "Nothing... We aren't allowed to smoke ANYTHING!!"


Amen.
 
2012-07-02 03:09:22 PM  
I'm confused. Why does the author of TFA keep saying 'soda' when he means 'pop'?
 
2012-07-02 03:37:39 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm confused. Why does the author of TFA keep saying 'soda' when he means 'pop'?


No idea... Perhaps he doesn't know that it covers all forms of Coke-- root beer, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, etc?
 
2012-07-02 07:54:06 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: lecavalier: When am I going to get a tax break because I am not fat? Oxford gives me a break on my health insurance because I have a gym membership. Now I want a tax break for actually using the farking thing.

gyms don't MAKE you skinny
i was 150 lbs 8% BF before getting the gym
now i'm 201 lbs 19.82% BF
and i go every day practically


Wow, if your BF has more than doubled with exercise, you have one or more issues. I would guess you: 1) altered your diet in an unwise way, 2) have an ineffective exercise plan, or 3) are using an inaccurate measure of body composition. Most measure of body composition have a wide margin of error, so it's most likely that the 8% and 19.82% values the culprits. If you actually feel more fat/less fit now than you were before, maybe you should revise the diet and workout.

However, I guess you make a valid point. I see people at the gym every day who are exercise ineffectively (if you are going to invest time and money in a gym membership and exercise--research how to get the most of it or get a few sessions with a trainer, people!). I would like to think that any exercise is better than no exercise and generally that is true. Even if you stay fat/get more fat, exercise and getting one's butt off the couch is still going to enhance overall health. Research shows that overweight exercisers are often more protected from disease than skinny sedentary people. I think people should get rewarded for healthy behaviors like going to the gym. Such rewards would probably be more effective than penalties.

/personal trainer

Rik01

I generally agree with your post except for a few points.

The cellulose thing...well, while I am not going to dispute where companies get their cellulose from (maybe it's tree bark?)...cellulose is a general component in plants' cell walls. It's not that special or rare. I eat it every time I eat a green vegetable and I don't consider the ingestion of cellulose to be that scandalous.

Also, both the pink slime and meat glue have been allll over the media lately. Infuriating, but not new and not scary unless you are trying to sell people a faux prime cut that they might not cook all the way through. I think all ingredients should have to be listed on all foods. I try to avoid dubious mystery ingredients by purchasing whole and unprocessed foods.
 
2012-07-02 08:02:23 PM  

ciberido: That's a very sad story, but you failed to include any actual argument.


I believe the argument is there is no unlimited freedom to do whatever the fark you want because individual behavior often externalizes costs on other people.
 
2012-07-03 08:16:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Mock26: I am curious, is it illegal to sell the large cups? If not, someone should buy some up and sell the large, empty cups outside of theaters. That way people could go in, buy a couple small sodas and then dump the contents into the larger cup.

Yeah that will show the mayor a thing or two.


Who cares about showing the mayor a thing or two. Someone could make some money off of this. Sure, not a lot of money, but it would still be something.
 
2012-07-03 07:18:42 PM  

Harry_Seldon: ciberido: That's a very sad story, but you failed to include any actual argument.

I believe the argument is there is no unlimited freedom to do whatever the fark you want because individual behavior often externalizes costs on other people.


Yes, but that's hardly an argument. I mean, you're not going to find anyone (who isn't an anarchist or Objectivist) who's going to claim to be in favor of "unlimited freedom to do whatever the fark you want."

It's like you're arguing for censorship of all pornography by saying that freedom of speech isn't limitless and citing as your example the cliche that it's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Of course there are and should be limits on free speech. Nobody (well, practically nobody) disputes that. We only argue about where to draw the line.

What you failed to do was give an argument about why the line should be drawn HERE and not THERE.
 
2012-07-03 09:27:33 PM  

ciberido: Harry_Seldon: ciberido: That's a very sad story, but you failed to include any actual argument.

I believe the argument is there is no unlimited freedom to do whatever the fark you want because individual behavior often externalizes costs on other people.

Yes, but that's hardly an argument. I mean, you're not going to find anyone (who isn't an anarchist or Objectivist) who's going to claim to be in favor of "unlimited freedom to do whatever the fark you want."

It's like you're arguing for censorship of all pornography by saying that freedom of speech isn't limitless and citing as your example the cliche that it's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Of course there are and should be limits on free speech. Nobody (well, practically nobody) disputes that. We only argue about where to draw the line.

What you failed to do was give an argument about why the line should be drawn HERE and not THERE.


I thought the argument was pretty simple: Everyone needs to be covered by health insurance, and everyone needs to pay. Mire importantly, health insurance should not be tied to your job, and some kind of single payer would be preferable.
 
2012-07-04 12:06:12 AM  

Harry_Seldon: I thought the argument was pretty simple: Everyone needs to be covered by health insurance, and everyone needs to pay. Mire importantly, health insurance should not be tied to your job, and some kind of single payer would be preferable.


I'm saying that we agree on basic principles, but we disagree on where exactly to draw the line. If I want to convince you that it should be here and not there, or conversely, you want to convince me that it should be there and not here, then we've got to argue the specifics of here-vs-there.

Or, to try a different tack (and make it more a matter or principle), I would say "saving money" is not sufficient reason to restrict someone's freedom. I support limits on smoking, for example, because the harm to others is damage to their health. I don't support laws that require me to keep myself healthy, because the only harm I'm doing to society is (at most) economic, and that's simply not enough harm to justify the restriction.

In the interest of being reasonable, I'd be willing to reconsider if someone were to convince me that the economic damage was truly huge.

Hand Banana: Portion sizes are already ridiculously small, read those nutrition labels some time. One serving is five potato chips? Still the information is there for those who care and those who don't will continue to be fat. Making drink sizes smaller will just mean people will buy two.


I seem to recall an article on Fark a few months back about a proposed law that would force those portion sizes on the "nutritional information" labels in the USA to be more realistic.

But I'm too fat and lazy to go look it up for you.
 
2012-07-04 12:29:44 AM  

ciberido: In the interest of being reasonable, I'd be willing to reconsider if someone were to convince me that the economic damage was truly huge.


What about the human cost?
 
2012-07-04 01:33:16 AM  

Harry_Seldon: ciberido: In the interest of being reasonable, I'd be willing to reconsider if someone were to convince me that the economic damage was truly huge.

What about the human cost?


I would say the human cost is greatest in those countries with the least freedom.
 
Displayed 221 of 221 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report