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 222
    More: Followup, manufacturers, New York, American Beverage Association, board of health, deputy mayor, President Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

15807 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2012 at 7:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 10:51:14 PM  
Reading the comments has made me realize that a lot of people underestimate the affect refined (as in separated from the fruit) sugar has on our metabolism.

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

If anyone wants to heap shiat on this video please at least watch it first. Otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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