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  
•       •       •

15802 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
 
2012-07-02 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.
 
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 »






Report