NYC to Ban Big Sodas

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Really? With half of NY’s adults overweight, and half the country set to be obese - not overweight, obese - by 2030, you guys don’t think any steps should be taken to stem that?[/quote]

It won’t work anyway. Fine, they ban that size drink - so people will just buy two smaller ones and get the same amount anyway! Honestly, the idea that the government could possibly control what people eat is a ridiculous notion.

This is just a stupid stunt by the mayor to look like he’s “combating obesity”. It’s an empty gesture that accomplishes nothing. [/quote]

Ban soda.

Eat donuts.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8685040

June 1, 2012 (NEW YORK) – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t against all sugary treats.

He recently issued a proclamation declaring Friday as NYC Donut Day, honoring an annual tradition launched 75 years ago to honor women who served the treats to soldiers. City Hall officials emphasized the proclamation doesn’t represent Health Department policy.[/quote]

ugh! ridiculous…

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

I agree completely with this.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
and end programs like WIC that directly contribute to consumption of sugared drinks by children from low income families.[/quote]

Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. WIC provides some good shit as well as Juicy-Juice.

Formula isn’t cheap, god damn if your kid has digestive problems too…

But, ultimately WIC could give away free lard and sugar and it shouldn’t matter because the PARENTS should have personal responsibilty.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
and end programs like WIC that directly contribute to consumption of sugared drinks by children from low income families.[/quote]

Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. WIC provides some good shit as well as Juicy-Juice.

Formula isn’t cheap, god damn if your kid has digestive problems too…

But, ultimately WIC could give away free lard and sugar and it shouldn’t matter because the PARENTS should have personal responsibilty.
[/quote]

x2

The eligible foods must meet certain requirements. The juice must be unsweetened, soda/fruit drinks are not allowed.

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But, ultimately WIC could give away free lard and sugar and it shouldn’t matter because the PARENTS should have personal responsibilty.
[/quote]

This is what it really boils down to.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]

Doubtful. And I think everyone here can see how smoking in restaurants is very different since the smoker isn’t the only person breathing the smoke.

The real issue here isn’t big soda. It’s the role of government as micro-manager.

Someone asked about why people don’t get to vote on these sorts of things. This is how America rolls, right? Wrong.

A lot of this happens through regulation. It doesn’t come from the congress. It comes from a department head of some government agency. Decisions that may curtail business or effect individual freedoms often come from appointed bureaucrats.

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]

Doubtful. And I think everyone here can see how smoking in restaurants is very different since the smoker isn’t the only person breathing the smoke.

The real issue here isn’t big soda. It’s the role of government as micro-manager.

Someone asked about why people don’t get to vote on these sorts of things. This is how America rolls, right? Wrong.

A lot of this happens through regulation. It doesn’t come from the congress. It comes from a department head of some government agency. Decisions that may curtail business or effect individual freedoms often come from appointed bureaucrats.

[/quote]

Civilization requires laws, regulations, and taxes.

This one comes from Bloomberg; he was elected.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]
Really Bro? I’m 5’11, 210 BMI chart puts me at borderline obese, in order to not be “overweight” I’d need to get below 179. 179!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.pdf

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]

Doubtful. And I think everyone here can see how smoking in restaurants is very different since the smoker isn’t the only person breathing the smoke.

The real issue here isn’t big soda. It’s the role of government as micro-manager.

Someone asked about why people don’t get to vote on these sorts of things. This is how America rolls, right? Wrong.

A lot of this happens through regulation. It doesn’t come from the congress. It comes from a department head of some government agency. Decisions that may curtail business or effect individual freedoms often come from appointed bureaucrats.

[/quote]

Civilization requires laws, regulations, and taxes.

This one comes from Bloomberg; he was elected.
[/quote]

Jeff, I know the mayor is elected. Sheesh… I was talking in generalities here.

Some of you are more optimistic about how this will help people than I am.

I think this is a bit like passing a motorcycle helmet law, except in this version you only have to wear a helmet on some streets, some of the time. And everybody has to wear a helmet on those streets, even if they don’t drive a motorcycle. :slight_smile:

There are two aspect to this:

  1. Government contributed to the problem by subsidizing sugar and sweeteners (like HFCS). Now they want to step in with more regulation on the other end to “fix” something that would not have been a problem had they not started meddling in the first place.

  2. As the government takes more fiscal responsibility for health care, legislators feel justified in passing laws regulating things seen as unhealthy or leading to disease. With liberty comes personal responsibility and many people these days are more than happy to have the government responsible for their health care. We are starting to feel the heavy hand of tyranny as our liberties are taken from us because of this.

What I find hilarious is that people still think governments can fix this.

Does anyone remember the CSPSIs crusade against fast food joints that fried their stuff in EVILARTERYCLOGGINGSATURATEDFATS ?

And yes, its one word now.

There recommendation was to replace it with hydrogenated vegetable oils, aka transfats.

That worked like a charm, did it not?

Then there was of course the McGovern commission that “did not have the luxury to wait until all the evidence came in” and decided that fat was the culprit for CHDs.

As Americans cut down on fat, they replaced it with carbs leading to a explosion not only of CHDs but also diabetes and related problems, of course, those two are highly related.

Soooooooo, to those that think that government must, must, MUST do something, might there be any problem with your approach?

Any whatsoever?

Denmark Introduces ?Fat Tax? on Foods High in Saturated Fat

ABC News? Olivia Katrandjian reports:

Denmark has introduced what?s believed to be the world?s first fat food tax, applying a surcharge to foods with more than 2.3 percent saturated fats, in an effort to combat obesity and heart disease.

Danes hoarded food before the tax went into effect Saturday, emptying grocery store shelves. Some butter lovers may even resort to stocking up during trips abroad.

The new tax of 16 kroner ($2.90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of saturated fat in a product will be levied on foods like butter, milk, cheese, pizza, oils and meat.

?Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,? health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, according to The Associated Press, because ?saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.?

But some Danes are not happy about the ?big brother? feeling that comes with the tax.

?Denmark finds every sort of way to increase our taxes,? said Alisa Clausen, a South Jutland resident. ?Why should the government decide how much fat we eat? They also want to increase the tobacco price very significantly. In theory this is good ? it makes unhealthy items expensive so that we do not consume as much or any and that way the health system doesn?t use a lot of money on patients who become sick from overuse of fat and tobacco. However, these taxes take on a big brother feeling. We should not be punished by taxes on items the government decides we should not use.?

The Nordic country isn?t known for having a grossly overweight population ? only about 10 percent of Danes are considered obese, compared to about one-third of adults (33.8 percent) and approximately 17 percent (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents age 2?19 years in the United States, according to a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

But perhaps Denmark has its obesity rate relatively under control because of its policies. In 2004, Denmark made it illegal for any food to have more than 2 percent trans fats. In July 2010, the country increased taxes on ice cream, chocolate and sweets by 25 percent. At the same time, Denmark increased taxes on soft drinks, tobacco and alcohol products, beyond the minimum levels established by the EU.

?Denmark will not only increase general health amongst the population but will also ease the burden on the public health care system and increase its resources at a time of recession when Member States are cutting public expenditure,? Monika Kosinska, the secretary general of the European Public Health Alliance, said in 2010.

Kosinska said the tax increases should be complemented by measures to make nutritious food more affordable.

?We get the taxes, but never a reduction on anything to complement the increases, such as on healthy foods,? said Clausen.

This is of course what this mindset leads to.

Taxes on foods that were never, ever, in any meaningful way shown to harm your health, like butter, high fat meat, lard, etc…

So yeah, cheer them on while they come for sodas, chips and icecream which pose litle to no problem for people with a robust sugar metabolism , but dont bitch and moan when they come for eggs, steak and butter.

[quote]orion wrote:
So yeah, cheer them on while they come for sodas, chips and icecream which pose litle to no problem for people with a robust sugar metabolism , but dont bitch and moan when they come for eggs, steak and butter.

[/quote]

eggsactly!

Attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (First they came ... - Wikipedia)

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[quote]77 Style wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]
Really Bro? I’m 5’11, 210 BMI chart puts me at borderline obese, in order to not be “overweight” I’d need to get below 179. 179!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.pdf

[/quote]

I can’t see a photo of your physique, but yeah chances are you could stand to lose 5-10 extra pounds. If you are 5’11 210, ripped, I apologize, but chances are pretty low of that being the case.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]
Really Bro? I’m 5’11, 210 BMI chart puts me at borderline obese, in order to not be “overweight” I’d need to get below 179. 179!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.pdf

[/quote]

I can’t see a photo of your physique, but yeah chances are you could stand to lose 5-10 extra pounds. If you are 5’11 210, ripped, I apologize, but chances are pretty low of that being the case.[/quote]

You just missed his whole point. If you define being overweight by BMI and desire people to have higher insurance premiums for it the guy you just told to lose 10 lbs. would still be considered overweight by 21 lbs.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

So, like I said before:

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Better yet-- keep typing. That way people will be able to fully appreciate how dumbass your statements are.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

Agree SD that was stupid.

But we all know that sugar directly relates to obesity correct?

We put a sin tax on tobacco…here in Utah a can of Skoal is almost $7…why not do that for sugared drinks over 32oz?

American health insurance cannot handle the influx of fatties…so it really is ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.