New York to Ban Large Sugary Drinks
- Thread starter ThisWebThing
- Start date
This is the approach Norway is moving more towards. And although I don't agree with all their taxation shit, I do think taxation of processed crap is a better way to regulate things than to just ban things altogether.
I agree with most of your points dude, but your $30 is way off. My family of four eat home-cooked meals every day of the week, and we hardly ever spend more than $8-$10 for each quality dinner. I'm talking fresh veggies, good meats, chicken, pots, rice, etc. Eating good and cheap at the same time is totally possible - but again, to shift people's way of thinking takes education and getting them into new routines. Too much to ask for most..
Lol, that's what I was thinking too - and it really shows how flawed these laws are when they try to outlaw a certain quantity size within a product segment. Wtf is that about? So I can no longer buy 24 oz cans? Wow...that sure will stop me from buying just more of the 16 oz cans then.......NOT.
And again I have to bring up my homeland of Norway as an example, but some of their stupid laws are such facepalms sometimes. A couple of examples: It is illegal to sell caffeinated beverages containing more caffeine than 1 cup of coffee. Yet - you can drink as many of them or as much coffee as you want all day. Same with C-vitamins.. It is illegal to sell 1000 mg capsules, yet you can buy a bottle of 500 mg capsules and pop those things like M&M's...lol
And one thing no one has mentioned is how much the food industry spends advertising their wares.
Billions is spent on marketing to children. Compare that to the few hundred million spent by the government spent on food / health education. There's tons of data on it.
Parents, no matter how well intentioned, are at a disadvantage.
Billions is spent on marketing to children. Compare that to the few hundred million spent by the government spent on food / health education. There's tons of data on it.
Parents, no matter how well intentioned, are at a disadvantage.
Looks like Bloomberg is looking for his last term... This is one step too far in my opinion. Next they'll start dictating diets. This is how you chip away at liberties, small chips here and there, and soon... Well Goodbye USA - that was a nice social experiment...
I am a NY'er and I remember 10 or 12 years ago when they banned smoking in bars in NYC and all the same above statements were made about smoking and the government.
I am a cigar smoker and when they put the smoking ban into effect I was pissed. It is 2012 and I couldn't imagine being in a bar where people were smoking. It's actually nice to walk out of a bar and reeking of smoke.
I am a cigar smoker and when they put the smoking ban into effect I was pissed. It is 2012 and I couldn't imagine being in a bar where people were smoking. It's actually nice to walk out of a bar and reeking of smoke.
Bloomberg On Soda Ban: "We're Simply Forcing You To Understand" | RealClearPolitics
Like I said, it's seriously a drop in the bucket.
Like I said, it's seriously a drop in the bucket.
I agree with what ImagesAndWords said... I can easily cook a good meal for 4 people for under $12.
I see chicken and pork on sale for under $1.99/pound all the time, sometimes the chicken legs, wings, and thighs are under $0.99/pound. 1 pound bags of frozen vegetables are always on sale for $1 at my local supermarket. Rice, potatoes, beans, eggs, and pasta are all cheap.
Since I started to eat healthier and shop for healthier groceries, I have started to think that many people claiming to be too poor to eat better are really just too lazy to eat better.
Let's subsidize corn and make sugary drinks an absurdly profitable business model due to cheap costs of production, and then let's ban the products once they're on shelves!
Genius!
Genius!
Are you sure that its most people are unaware or that most people dont give a fuck?
Americans as Im sure the rest of the world would rather bitch about being fat or obese than actually doing something about it.
The reason diets dont work is not because they dont work its because people dont stay on them. If someone does not see results in a short amount of time they give up and claim it does not work. Water weight loss is not real weight loss.
A few weeks ago I saw on a tv show that it takes an average of 23 days for you to break/create a habit. This includes everything from eating to taking pills.
I am so sick of all these rules that Bloomberg keeps passing in New York. This used to be such a cool state to live in.
To Bloomberg's defense:
Some scientists have found that high sugar intake delivers a similar kind of pleasure in the brain that you'd get from some recreational drugs. The problem, then, is that simply "informing" the public just isn't going to be enough to change behavior because people are quite literally addicted to this shit. At this point, you have to balance two evils. Do you:
a) Police people on what they can and cannot eat (a nanny-state)
or
b) Deal with ballooning health care costs which are literally and figuratively crippling our country?
With diabetes alone costing this country more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, telling people they can't buy big Cokes seems to me a much more sensible option.
People are going to drink the stuff no matter what. Restricting the amount they drink, I think, is a good idea.
Like I said above, the real problem is government subsidies. People will always eat the foods that are easy to consume (e.g. cheap, convenient) and high in calories. This will never, ever change because it's just how we're hardwired to live. So until the government stops making the worst foods the cheapest, I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.
Start charging companies like McDonald's $10 to produce a Big Mac and a Coke (which is probably closer to their real cost when you factor in all the tax money that goes toward paying for corn and meat) and you'll start to see some big changes very quickly.
Some scientists have found that high sugar intake delivers a similar kind of pleasure in the brain that you'd get from some recreational drugs. The problem, then, is that simply "informing" the public just isn't going to be enough to change behavior because people are quite literally addicted to this shit. At this point, you have to balance two evils. Do you:
a) Police people on what they can and cannot eat (a nanny-state)
or
b) Deal with ballooning health care costs which are literally and figuratively crippling our country?
With diabetes alone costing this country more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, telling people they can't buy big Cokes seems to me a much more sensible option.
People are going to drink the stuff no matter what. Restricting the amount they drink, I think, is a good idea.
Like I said above, the real problem is government subsidies. People will always eat the foods that are easy to consume (e.g. cheap, convenient) and high in calories. This will never, ever change because it's just how we're hardwired to live. So until the government stops making the worst foods the cheapest, I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.
Start charging companies like McDonald's $10 to produce a Big Mac and a Coke (which is probably closer to their real cost when you factor in all the tax money that goes toward paying for corn and meat) and you'll start to see some big changes very quickly.
Dunno where you're from but around here 4 meals at McDonalds would be around $25 (without upgrading to fatty sized drink or fries).
And if you people with kids really want to dethrone McDonalds, you just have to start giving your kid a toy with each healthy meal.
Breaking News: Mayor Bloomberg follows up soda ban day by celebrating National Donut Day
Bloomberg Announces Soda Ban Today, Celebrates Donuts Tomorrow!: Gothamist
Bloomberg Announces Soda Ban Today, Celebrates Donuts Tomorrow!: Gothamist