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  
•       •       •

15805 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 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 22 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