Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: NYC Mayor Bloomburg bans large sodas

← Previous 1
← Previous 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
May 31, 2012 8:45 PM
What's your opinion on Mayor Bloomburg banning the sale of soda drings over 16 onces? Should the government be allowed to control what we put in our mouths?
May 31, 2012 8:47 PM
I just heard about this today, and think it is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! Oh please, does the government have to inflict itself into every aspect of a person's life? My son just recently visited New York City, and his girlfriend took a picture of him drinking out of a 2 Liter! Can the mayor stop that as well?
  13527470
June 1, 2012 5:14 AM
The government is becoming more intrusive each day. Does anyone remember "free will". It was my choice to stuff my
face and become this heavy. Now it is my choice to get healthy. Personal responsibility has become a thing of the past.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
June 1, 2012 5:20 AM
I think I read about this somewhere...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/615396-nyc-large-sugary-drink-ban-proposed
  2493402
June 1, 2012 5:46 AM
I don't care about political parties.

This is another personal freedom lost. It should be up to the establishment on what drink sizes they sell. If it really is a problem, then let the establishment decide to not sell more than 16 oz. sodas. Just like it should be up to the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. These laws are frivolous, waste taxpayer money, and treat us like kids.

But, he is addressing the issue of obesity. What are your thoughts on ways to prevent at a city level? I don't believe limiting soda size will do it, but I'd just do anti-obesity campaigns, like they did the smokers. Treat it the same. Its easy to ***** and complain about this stuff, but coming up with solutions is always tough. I have already shot my anti-obesity campaign in my head 50 ways, lol.
  23305846
June 1, 2012 5:46 AM
QUOTE:

The government is becoming more intrusive each day. Does anyone remember "free will". It was my choice to stuff my
face and become this heavy. Now it is my choice to get healthy. Personal responsibility has become a thing of the past.
WAKE UP AMERICA!


Amen L.H. my feelings exactly
  15000910
June 1, 2012 5:48 AM
QUOTE:

I don't care about political parties.

This is another personal freedom lost. It should be up to the establishment on what drink sizes they sell. If it really is a problem, then let the establishment decide to not sell more than 16 oz. sodas. Just like it should be up to the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. These laws are frivolous, waste taxpayer money, and treat us like kids.

But, he is addressing the issue of obesity. What are your thoughts on ways to prevent at a city level? I don't believe limiting soda size will do it, but I'd just do anti-obesity campaigns, like they did the smokers. Treat it the same. Its easy to ***** and complain about this stuff, but coming up with solutions is always tough. I have already shot my anti-obesity campaign in my head 50 ways, lol.


I agree with the above.

On a personal note, this issue really pisses me off.
June 1, 2012 5:50 AM
This is the same guy who is issuing an official proclamation today for National Donut Day! Irony much?
  8831553
June 1, 2012 5:53 AM
yawn for real.

thats going to fix obesity? right.
June 1, 2012 5:53 AM
QUOTE:

This is the same guy who is issuing an official proclamation today for National Donut Day! Irony much?


Yeah, that was not missed by the local news this morning.
  2493402
June 1, 2012 6:20 AM
this is a crazy thought! how about the jumbo kitkats , or chinese food or you cant have extra cheese on pizza , or burgers more than 1/4 pound , no large fries , ban cheesecake! the list will go on and on and on
June 1, 2012 6:25 AM
it will never happen , regulation of food. the soda companies already tried moving to 1 liter bottles and failed , he tried to tax the soda and failed , now he is trying to ban food! WTF why not ban sugar! and salt ! naaaa he cannot do that unless a substance is deemed harmful to humans and then its FDA's job makes me wonder if he owns any soda companies.. he is out of control..
Edited by Fit4Evolution On June 1, 2012 6:30 AM
June 1, 2012 6:27 AM
I would rather get big business out of our government. Didn't he try to get a soda tax passed, only to have it killed by lobbyists? I would be happy to pay a tax on all unnecessary items... like junk food and soda.
  4481838
June 1, 2012 6:32 AM
QUOTE:

I would rather get big business out of our government. Didn't he try to get a soda tax passed, only to have it killed by lobbyists? I would be happy to pay a tax on all unnecessary items... like junk food and soda.


I wouldnt want to pay extra tax so i can eat my food! this will only jack prices up on all foods.. once we give him a little he will take a lot more go Gloomberg
June 1, 2012 6:42 AM
Why don't they just put true exercise back in the schools? Make those kids sweat. There is a huge difference in school gym classes now that what we did in the 70-80's.

Sure its easier to blame others for our faults and failures but lets start teaching the kids how to live a healthy lifestyle.
June 1, 2012 6:45 AM
What's really stupid about this is that the aim is to lower sugar intake by banning sodas. But a milk shake in the same size (which is totally legal) has double the calories. Go figure.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer/Group Fitness Instructor
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  9285851
June 1, 2012 6:46 AM
I think it's insulting to the human race and I also think that it's none of his business what people drink...and how much! Someone needs to catch him with a BIG GULP!! ugh!!
  21554798
June 1, 2012 6:49 AM
QUOTE:

I would rather get big business out of our government. Didn't he try to get a soda tax passed, only to have it killed by lobbyists? I would be happy to pay a tax on all unnecessary items... like junk food and soda.


It's not a bad idea if it were someplace else, but NYCers are heavily taxed as it is already.
June 1, 2012 6:49 AM
I think it's an excellent idea. There's an obesity epidemic in the United States and children are going to be the chief victims. Anything that can be done to make obviously unhealthy products less attractive is a good thing. In addition, the drinks are not banned, they simply are not allowed to be sold in gigantic sizes in certain establishments. You can still get a 32-ounce full-sugar drink at a convenience store. If you really 32 ounces of sugar in others, buy two drinks. But hey, doing that might actually make you think about whether you need to put that much sugar in your body.

The same people who are complaining about this complained about the requirement that fast food chains be required to post calorie and nutritional information and that smoking -- which is CLEARLY HAZARDOUS -- be banned from public areas.
June 1, 2012 6:51 AM
Someone mentioned smoking bans, etc., yet another way of government interference. I really hate being around smoke, having grown up with both parents smoking. When I first heard of a "crack down" on smokers, I thought "yippee", but then later realized, "hey, that's not right." Stay out, government, let us decide.
  13527470
June 1, 2012 6:52 AM
QUOTE:

I think it's insulting to the human race and I also think that it's none of his business what people drink...and how much! Someone needs to catch him with a BIG GULP!! ugh!!


Actually, it becomes everybody's business if we end up paying the medical expenses related to preventable obesity. And a lot of these people who drink these beverages are teenagers.
June 1, 2012 6:56 AM
Denmark started charging a "fat tax" a few months ago. It hasn't affected the prices on any of the normal groceries - just the fatty foods. Why should we pay tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Isn't soda damaging too? At some point the tax payer is going to pick up the tab for the obesity epidemic . It's like people who want to drive a big car having to spend more on gas. If people want to guzzle gallons of soda, it shouldn't be illegal...but they should pay for it.
  4481838
June 1, 2012 6:57 AM
QUOTE:

Someone mentioned smoking bans, etc., yet another way of government interference. I really hate being around smoke, having grown up with both parents smoking. When I first heard of a "crack down" on smokers, I thought "yippee", but then later realized, "hey, that's not right." Stay out, government, let us decide.


The problem is they WEREN'T deciding, despite all the negative evidence. My parents smoked, although they eventually quit. I never did because I was raised not to and the public health campaigns of the time were pretty effective. I have a right not to be required to inhale second-hand smoke. There's nothing defensible about smoking in a public place, any more than you can defend your right to use heroin or crack. It's indisputably unhealthy.

Many private apartment buildings have enforced no-smoking bans because smoking is unhealthy. Or some require smokers to install special filters so that their smoke does not affect others. Sometimes rules and regs create attitudinal changes.

When a certain percentage of the population engages in demonstrably unhealthy behaviors that adversely affect others (second-hand smoke, increased healthcare costs that burden us all) the government has to act when persuasion doesn't work. It's been known for over 50 years smoking is dangerous.

Food is a more difficult issue, because we must eat. But these ginormous sugary drinks are empty calories. Sure, one or two a year won't hurt you, but I imagine the research shows that some people are consuming these drinks in large amounts without thought and it's piling on the pounds.
Edited by mfpcopine On June 1, 2012 7:10 AM
June 1, 2012 7:04 AM
QUOTE:

Denmark started charging a "fat tax" a few months ago. It hasn't affected the prices on any of the normal groceries - just the fatty foods. Why should we pay tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Isn't soda damaging too? At some point the tax payer is going to pick up the tab for the obesity epidemic . It's like people who want to drive a big car having to spend more on gas. If people want to guzzle gallons of soda, it shouldn't be illegal...but they should pay for it.


It's an interesting approach, but it favors people who are economically advantaged, who will always be able to indulge. You could argue that making people buy two 16-ounce drinks, which presumably would be more expensive than one 32-ounce drink, is effectively a tax.



As for gas-guzzling, people have been talking about the need to reduce energy use for at least 40 years. Nothing (well, very little) happens. People who have a bizarre sense of entitlement to drive a fuel-wasting car think, "Let's find another part of the planet to drill."

Attitudes have to change. When they don't, the government has to step in. I'm talking about clearly unhealthy behaviors.
Edited by mfpcopine On June 1, 2012 7:20 AM
June 1, 2012 7:18 AM
Here's an excerpt of a New York Times story summarizing the proposal:


New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery stores or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.