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 81
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-01 05:12:51 PM
8 votes:
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 10:13:10 PM
4 votes:
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 07:15:47 PM
4 votes:

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 06:34:45 PM
4 votes:
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 10:10:56 PM
3 votes:
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 08:33:40 PM
3 votes:

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 07:54:40 PM
3 votes:

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 07:49:30 PM
3 votes:

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 07:48:20 PM
3 votes:
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 07:43:58 PM
3 votes:
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 07:43:24 PM
3 votes:

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 07:35:47 PM
3 votes:

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 07:14:07 PM
3 votes:

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 10:34:58 PM
2 votes:

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 08:37:15 PM
2 votes:

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 08:17:37 PM
2 votes:

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 08:08:19 PM
2 votes:
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 08:02:33 PM
2 votes:

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 07:55:37 PM
2 votes:
Poor, uneducated people basically need to have their options limited, because let's be honest, they make horrible decisions.
2012-07-01 07:55:26 PM
2 votes:

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 07:33:19 PM
2 votes:

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 07:29:22 PM
2 votes:

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 07:29:15 PM
2 votes:

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 07:29:13 PM
2 votes:

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 07:28:03 PM
2 votes:

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 07:20:14 PM
2 votes:

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 07:20:03 PM
2 votes:
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 07:13:58 PM
2 votes:
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 05:50:59 PM
2 votes:

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?
2012-07-02 12:53:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:49:09 PM
1 votes:

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 11:39:07 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:33 AM
1 votes:

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 03:09:14 AM
1 votes:

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 02:51:29 AM
1 votes:
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 12:47:11 AM
1 votes:

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 12:21:40 AM
1 votes:

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 12:01:41 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-01 11:47:38 PM
1 votes:

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 11:24:35 PM
1 votes:

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 11:24:11 PM
1 votes:

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 11:11:51 PM
1 votes:
there's a disturbing number of folks here that agree with this asshattery.
2012-07-01 11:10:20 PM
1 votes:

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 11:03:20 PM
1 votes:

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 10:51:14 PM
1 votes:
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 10:41:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:27 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:47 PM
1 votes:
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 09:59:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:51:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:23:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:56:56 PM
1 votes:
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 08:50:32 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:39 PM
1 votes:

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 08:29:58 PM
1 votes:

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 08:25:54 PM
1 votes:

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 08:23:24 PM
1 votes:

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 08:21:29 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:19 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:12 PM
1 votes:
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 08:13:33 PM
1 votes:

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 08:13:22 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:11:28 PM
1 votes:
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 08:10:29 PM
1 votes:

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 08:06:02 PM
1 votes:
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 08:05:31 PM
1 votes:
You can still get these, right?

4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-07-01 07:54:23 PM
1 votes:

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 07:47:32 PM
1 votes:
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 07:47:04 PM
1 votes:
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 07:44:02 PM
1 votes:

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 07:42:57 PM
1 votes:

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 07:30:40 PM
1 votes:

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


Some people don't get how this works.
2012-07-01 07:24:23 PM
1 votes:
Death on rye.

foodists.ca
2012-07-01 07:23:32 PM
1 votes:

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 07:17:26 PM
1 votes:
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 07:17:22 PM
1 votes:

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 07:15:12 PM
1 votes:
They need to go full Tonya Harding.

/seriously, there isn't a more important issue for NYC than 20oz sodas?
2012-07-01 06:36:08 PM
1 votes:
img4.imageshack.us

//you sound fat
2012-07-01 05:22:43 PM
1 votes:
What size is that can, citizen?
2012-07-01 05:22:33 PM
1 votes:
WHO CARES?!? There are so many more important issues out there right now than a Big Gulp.

/The loonies have taken over the asylum.
 
Displayed 81 of 81 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report