Taking Away Your Big Gulp Is The Same As Nazism

[flyawaystray]

Oh, I get it. I think portion sizes are ridiculous these days. I can understand why it's a problem, and I understand where everyone else is coming from. IIRC, the ban would have been on non-diet fountain drinks over a certain size so diet sodas would be exempt. But then the soda companies would make their lawyers argue against the ban, and it was very easy for a judge to dismiss the case.

What I think should happen is a junk food tax. The only issue with that is defining the term junk food. Also, I think nutrition classes should be mandatory in school across the country. I remember health being mandatory in high school, so why not nutrition education? Maybe people would change their eating habits if they were shown what proper portion sizes were vs the humongous ones you get in restaurants.

Like if I am going to eat fast food, I stick with the smallest fries available. Or I get a plain baked potato from Wendy's. I don't eat fast food much, but I try not to go overboard. I used to be addicted to fast food and it's really easy to overeat if you don't know any better.

[patsymae]

What does Limbaugh think of Beck? Has he ever said? I can't help but think even he is like, "Whoa, slow your roll, crazycakes..."

The soda ban makes me ragey. I don't drink soda and I'm the most left wing liberal there is, but it's just :roll: It's not for me or anyone to say how many calories or how much sugar someone else gets to have in a sitting. I hope this and perhaps "Oxygen is good" is about all Beck and I agree on.

I'm also left wing, and I agree with you. This was just stupid on the mayor's part. It's not up to the government to tell people how much soda they can have--and I'm much more concerned with, say, what passes for our food inspection system. That is government's responsibility, and they've dropped the ball.

And I can't see taxing junk food, because as someone has said, who defines "junk food." White bread? Spagettio-Os? Processed cheese? Any cheese? Fruit punch?

I do think education is the way to go. There still are many, many people who think that fast food is healthy. Old people like me might remember when the Reagan Administration, in its zeal to cut back on feeding children, declared that a McDonald's cheeseburger was a "balanced meal" (that's back when there were the 4 food groups--so the Mickey D burger had a bun (grain), beef (meat), cheese (dairy) and yes,ketchup (veggies). It took Senator Heinz himself to have to point of that ketchup, as much as his family wanted everyone to buy it, was not a vegetable.

And yeah, the way "Nazi" is thrown around nowadays...

[flyawaystray]

And it doesn't help that the government subsidizes corn.

I will have to say one thing: in my experience, junk food is actually expensive. Big bags of potato chips are $5 a bag here. It's the same with tortilla chips, Doritos, and Cheetos. I don't eat potato chips often but I've pretty much stopped buying them because of the price.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Would I be unhappy with restrictions on the kind of food I can buy? Sure. But it's not comparable to the Holocaust. What a dumbass.

Yeah, what a way to trivialize one of the worst genocides humanity ever experienced. Beck is such an ass.

[miffy]

Well, I'd be pretty pissed off if my mayor had the super sized Slurpee banned. You know, the one that's almost too big to comfortably hold in one hand? I'm hooked on Coke Slurpees, and no other size will do (I have cut back recently, but still like one once every week or two).

But I doubt I'd start screaming Nazism. :roll:

The main reason I go to the cinema is for the giant frozen cokes. Luckily I only see a movie a few times a year. :lol:

[miffy]

Now here was me thinking that the nazis promoted good health & building a 'perfect' aryan race. :think:

[Arete]

Just restating the obvious-Glenn Beck is a complete and total asshole.

That said, I will now change the subject and say I do not need a fucking nanny telling me either who or how many people I can sleep with or how much Pepsi I am allowed to have in a single container.

I know soda is bad. I drink it anyway. Mayor Bloomberg can kiss my big, fat, Greek ass. :nenner:

[jaelh]

I'm also left wing, and I agree with you. This was just stupid on the mayor's part. It's not up to the government to tell people how much soda they can have...

Why is it not for anyone to say? We're not all Independent Beings, however much we'd like to pretend we are. Our own choices effect everyone else's. Drive without a seatbelt - maybe you crash and suffer serious injury, but you're also going to change the lives of those who have to care for you. Unprotected sex - maybe get nasty things, but also pass on on said nasty things years down the track to an unsuspecting long term partner. Smoke - maybe you get cancer, but you're also going to change the lives of those who have to care for you and love you.

We're all in this together. I know the US is big on the I'm an Individual and My Choices are Mine Alone, but &%*^. Everything we do impacts everyone else. Including how much soda you drink, and how much crap you eat. While everyone should always be free to make a large number of significant decisions, society has long recognised the need to temper certain actions that affect others (see: pretty much every law in existance).

Anyway.

I guess the thing about the soda ban that appeals to me is the acknowledgement that, while we all think we're choosing of our own cognition, to drink 2L of soda, that decision is massively influenced by context and availability. see this great article for example http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/shb09/downs3.pdf (tl:dr = providing more healthy choices/less unhealthy choices had a much more significant effect on consumption patterns than providing caloric information).

We tend to eat what is available. No one is saying you can't eat x calories in one sitting. Go right ahead and do so. If 2L sodas were banned, it's not like you couldn't chose to drink 2L of soda. You'd just buy 2 smaller (but already ridiculously large) cups.

However the number of people drinking 2L of soda would be likely to fall, simply because there wasn't a 2L cup available.

The fact that there is so much scientific literature on how choices are constructed by choice indicates the absurdity of the "it's my choice" argument. Our choices - of food, clothing, TV, you name it - are rarely (if ever) organic. They depend on marketing, image, anyone one of a number of things. (and if they didn't, no one would ever spend a red cent on the marketing department). We're already being told things all the time about what to eat, how much to eat and where to eat. It's usually just much more subtle than a ban.

[miffy]

^Giant cups of postmix tie into the marketing thing in other ways. I can't remember the exact cost per litre (roughly 32oz) but its below AU .10c for ordinary Coke . So therefore people think they are getting this amazing deal IE. '$2.50 for all this Coke' when even if they refill the thing twice, including the cost of the paper cup the store is making a big profit.

Whereas a bottle of brand name soft drink isn't anywhere near as profitable.

[Arete]

It is not for anyone to legislate how much soda you can have in a "serving" because you can use that same argument and line of reasoning (we are all connected, our actions have consequences to society) to enact laws against teen sex. The argument can be used for laws against how much liquor you can buy, or even if an adult should be able to buy liquor (remember Prohibition, drunkeness was and still is an actual societal problem). We get bombarded by advertisments that define sexiness and tell you drinking is cool. So we really aren't making independent choice of when to have sex or how much to drink.

It doesn't matter whether it's the Right or the Left trying to tell an adult what to put in their body unless their is danger of jepordizing the health of another human being (second hand smoke, driving while drunk). Give people the facts and let them make their own decisions. Put calorie counts in your menu. Drinking too much soda has consequences? So does drinking too much vodka, but that isn't an argument to legislate how many mL can go in an individual bottle. If I am entitled to autonomy over my own body, it means I am entitled to decide how much Pepsi I down at a sitting whether it bothers someone elses sensibilities on clean living or not.

[debrand]

Do I understand this correctly? You can still get the same amount of soda, you just have to refill the store's cup multiple times. So, NYC is just limiting the size of the cup not the amount of soda you can have. An individual could still bring a 32 oz cup from home and pour the separate servings into it, right?

I don't think that eating habits will change until people are educated about how different foods influence their health. Sugar, apparently, can be addictive and cause some individuals to be hungrier later. I know when I eat starchy, sugary foods, I quickly become more hungry and feel like I can't eat enough. Sugar probably doesn't have the same effect on everyone but there are a few studies that support my own observations.

Maybe it would be better to heavily tax sodas and use the revenue to educate people about, not just what is healthy, but why certain foods will make you want to eat more later.

nydailynews.com/life-style/health/researcher-sugar-addictive-cocaine-obesity-diabetes-cancer-heart-disease-article-1.1054419

[jaelh]

It is not for anyone to legislate how much soda you can have in a "serving" because you can use that same argument and line of reasoning (we are all connected, our actions have consequences to society) to enact laws against teen sex. The argument can be used for laws against how much liquor you can buy, or even if an adult should be able to buy liquor (remember Prohibition, drunkeness was and still is an actual societal problem). We get bombarded by advertisments that define sexiness and tell you drinking is cool. So we really aren't making independent choice of when to have sex or how much to drink.

It doesn't matter whether it's the Right or the Left trying to tell an adult what to put in their body unless their is danger of jepordizing the health of another human being (second hand smoke, driving while drunk). Give people the facts and let them make their own decisions. Put calorie counts in your menu. Drinking too much soda has consequences? So does drinking too much vodka, but that isn't an argument to legislate how many mL can go in an individual bottle. If I am entitled to autonomy over my own body, it means I am entitled to decide how much Pepsi I down at a sitting whether it bothers someone elses sensibilities on clean living or not.

But where I come from we DO regulate how much vodka you can serve (apples with apples - we're talking about serving cups, not the size of the pepsi bottle). Amounts other things, doubles are illegal; spirits cannot be served neat (at a minimum, you need a dash of water). It's illegal to serve alcohol to a drunk person- the fines for the venue and the people involved are substantial.

I have no problems with these laws. They make *sense*. You can still drink large amounts of vodka if you wish - however you simply cannot stand at the bar and put back 200mL in quick succession. But buy yourself a bottle of vodka and drink yourself into a coma.

The thing is that choices at the point of consumption have a massive impact on people's decisions. You call this bodily autonmy: let me repost the link above: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/shb09/downs3.pdf Our decisions are fundamentally shaped by our options. The non-existance of a 2L cup would mean less people would want to drink 2L of soda in one sitting.

it has absolutely not one slightest thing at all to do with your personal autonomy.

You can still have bodily autonomy, and drink 5L of soda a day if you want to, ban or no ban.

The ban has nothing to do with you could drink, it was intended to regulate the way beverages were served. Your autonomy isn't infringed by a change in serving sizes - in the least little bit - by this ban. It's a total non-starter of an argument.

Does the non-existance of a 3L cup somehow mean you can't drink 3L of soda if you want to? Of course it doesn't. Nor would the non-existantance of a 2L cup stop anyone drinking 2L.

[JenniferJuniper]

Do I understand this correctly? You can still get the same amount of soda, you just have to refill the store's cup multiple times. So, NYC is just limiting the size of the cup not the amount of soda you can have. An individual could still bring a 32 oz cup from home and pour the separate servings into it, right?

Yes, you can.

The theory is that most people aren't going to do that; the smaller size is all they really want/need and they're just ordering up because (as my kids say to me all the time) it's just another quarter. It's more a marketing ploy than anything else which was the general premise behind "Supersize Me".

I did think Bloomberg was way off base with his initiatve to keep infant formula locked away at hospitals to encourage breast-feeding for new mothers. To breast feed or not is a personal decision and no mother should be shamed into breast feeding because the mayor of NY thinks she should.

[apple1]

There seem to be a lot of posts on this thread indicating support for the ban of "big gulps" or (as one poster put it) "gallon" size drinks.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/03 ... ules-work/

The actual NYC law would have limited size to 16 oz. (which, of course, includes ice in most restaurant/fountain servings).

Be for or against the idea of this law, as you choose, but let's get the facts right.

I personally believe that servings of many things are too large, but - 16 oz. drinks with a lot of ice may actually be 8 or so oz. of soda. (The ban would have stopped the serving of the very common size 20 oz. cups). Oh, and FTR, one US gallon = 128 ounces.

[jenny_islander]

The problem with a soda tax or a junk food tax is that it puts one more financial burden on the people who have to eat that crap. Yes, some people have to eat that crap. Google "food desert" for details. Even people who don't live in a food desert may have to eat that crap because eating the healthy thrifty way requires 9-14 hours per week that they simply do not have, what with working two or more crap jobs and taking the bus. (I can't lay a finger on the link just now, but the paper I read regarding the USDA Thrifty Food Plan just a couple of days ago assigns 9-14 hours per week simply to cooking the food, not taking the bus to the store, shopping around for deals on SNAP, etc.)

If we want fast food joints to provide healthier cheap meals, the solution is to subsidize the healthier ingredients. If we quit subsidizing corn and soybeans with our taxpayer dollars and started subsidizing oats and root vegetables instead, then lusciously lit commercials for McScones and Wendy's Borscht would be everywhere within a year.

And if we want more people to cook at home, we have to get on the big corporations to quit paying wages that force people to work multiple jobs and/or go on SNAP and WIC just to be able to eat. We have to remove disincentives for people to start mom-and-pop groceries, such as the prospect of losing everything if one family member becomes seriously ill. (I can name three local businesses that went under because they couldn't provide health insurance for their employees and/or the owners needed employer-provided health insurance or got sick. How many can you name?) That way Mom will once again be able to send her adorable tot down to the corner store for "a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a stick of butter," and it won't be a fantasy restricted to rebroadcasts of classic Sesame Street episodes.

[flyawaystray]

See, I've found that junk food is more expensive in my area than healthy stuff. I get SNAP and most of the time I can make do on $179/month and still have some left over. Sometimes I can't. But that has more with me buying stuff on impulse and that's my fault. I know this isn't true for everywhere. A bag of name brand potato chips is $5. $3.99 if you buy generic, and if you're really lucky and get them on sale, $2.50.

I agree, subsidizing healthier food would be absolutely awesome.

[jaelh]

I did think Bloomberg was way off base with his initiatve to keep infant formula locked away at hospitals to encourage breast-feeding for new mothers. To breast feed or not is a personal decision and no mother should be shamed into breast feeding because the mayor of NY thinks she should.

This isn't some new, novel, "just because Bloomberg thinks so" plan.

To get WHO certification as a "child friendly hospital" you basically have to adhere to this policy. Formula is discouraged. Strongly, strongly discouraged. I cannot given to mothers in their sample bags, nor for their kids.

You want to bottle feed, you have to to sign a waiver saying "I understand formula is not the best choice for my baby".

The NYC suggestion was a whole lot more measured than this.

but really, you're saying that the internationally recommended protocol is "off base", because the NYC mayor thinks it to? Gah.

I think the waiver in the WHO protocol is too much. (Guess what? wasn't in the NYC plan!) But it reflects the understanding that our decisions are shaped by our options. It's hard to breast feed, esp in the early days. Having a formula bottle lying around makes is some ridiculously high % more likely that the mother will chose to bottle feed - even if without the bottle she'd have persevered at the breast, and stuck at it after a few days.

Anyone who was only every going to bottle feed could still do so.

Again: those "intensely personal decisions" everyone is so fixated here, that these programs were intended to address, are quick decisions made under pressure - and are often (often often) the product of *what is there at the time*. There is an option to get 2L of coke in a serving - do it. There is an easier way to get past those early hours of uncomfortable, difficult breastfeeding - done.

The choice isn't there, the decision is less likely to be made.

You really, really want to drink all that coke or bottle feed: no problems. YOU STILL CAN.

Some public health issues require the abrogation of the will of the individual to the whole. Somewhere these discussions need to acknowledge that. Yes, it's your choice BUT.... Less obese people = less strain on the medical system. More breastfed babies = healthier children. etc... With a public health system, but also too in the private systems though less directly - everyone benefits. Provision of health costs fall. More hospital space is available. Better care can be provided to those with who need it etc... Society benefits when individuals make healthier choices.

Everyone's down with vaccinating (or you know, more or less... :) ) - this isn't the same as vaccinating for say - rubella - but it's on the same line. Chicken pox didn't kill many people at all - it was about 105 deaths per year in the US with the population of 300 MILLION ++, with about 3-4 million cases pre 1995. There were about 10,000 cases of severe complications a year.

The CDC estimates that about 112,000 Americans die each year from obesity related illnesses.

Chicken pox killed 0.09% of the number of people that die from obesity related issues. Or the other way around: obesity kills 1067 times the number of people that chicken pox did.

Yes, chicken pox struck children hard. But it also had huge effects on old people, who could end up with shingles. There is also a temptation here to play the "children don't deserve this, they're innocent; those fatties bought this on themselves." This is crap, because how much of who we are, and how we live, depends on how society is structured around us. A sedentary lifestyle + easy access to high calorie options = a generally obese population was almost inevitable. And yes; there are many other health reasons people end up obese - but the majority are directly related to diet. And whatever the reasons or circumstances that bought it about: society as a whole is effected.

Unfortunately, there isn't a jab that will protect you from obesity. If you jab people to stop them getting obese, the other option is to change their eating rabbits.

And - I know you're all like, signs! taxes! etc.. - the clinical trials, over and over, show actually intervening at the point of choice is dramatically more effective than taxes or labelling. (Once again: anyone actually wants to read the article I posted, please do). Calorie labelling makes a very limited difference to people's actual choices. Indeed - calorie labelling, counter intuitively, actually leads to people who are trying to lose weight choosing meals that are more calorie heavy than they would without labelling! (indeed: please see article)

[and everything Jenny_Islander said above about food choices and prep]

I don't know. Sometimes I find the US gubment-can-tell-me-what-to-do-damnit perplexing. It's a truly cultural phenomena.

[PennySycamore]

Avalondaughter, I had a collede roommate that had worked at Mickey D's. She said that they were told that they could get all the soda they wanted for free all shift long as long as they used the same cup. The cups cost the restaurant, but for all practical purposes the Coke was free.

The first time I saw a Big Gulp sized soda was at the refreshment stand outside the Washington Monument back in the summer of '68. It was tempting to get something that big if you were standing out in the hot sun for a long time.

[OkToBeTakei]

I was following this thread today via phone.

One thing struck me about all debate. Re taxing or nanny states etc. As much as smoking is unhealthy and excess drinking and the impact this can have on others is a given. When you live as I do in a country with a Socialised healthcare (NHS) The impact that obesity or poor eating choices (difficult to word) IS as much a stretch and impacts all as does smoking and drinking including as mentioned irresponsible accidents re. drinking and driving and second hand smoke. If you check the biggest costs to the NHS it would be eye opening. Both short term and long term for all irresponsible behaviours.

Smokers get lung cancer have a short illness and die. They pay (I checked today £7.50 per pack.) Obviously there are other costs. Huge move on smoking cessation which is free and provides all aids provided by NHS. COPD. Emphysema. Heart disease. Dental. Etc. Smoking is very heavily taxed by the GOVT. In some EU countries cigarettes are are £2. The tax the GOVT makes cigarettes almost a drug currency here.

Alcohol. Again heavily taxed. Latest new directive is to clampdown on Supermarkets selling 2 for £12 deals etc. Binge drinking in youth a huge problem. Cost to NHS in long term alcohol use I would imagine difficult to assess. In A&E and accidents?

Obesity. No tax on poor food choices. Cost of childhood obesity a recent issue here. Diabetes. Heart disease. Other issues etc. Huge drive re. Child health. Nutrition. Weight loss help etc. Subsidised gym etc. (No though, that I am aware of free choice of weight loss programme.)

Whilst I realise this may not be a popular way of looking at lifestyle choices when it impacts where you see health issues and the associated costs it kind struck me when I was reading the thread today that IF you were seeing it from that perspective it does not seem so bizarre.

It is a poor health choice to smoke, to drink and to eat crappy food. People seem to find the money to do all three if that is their choice. The fact that drink used to drive or smoke used to pollute others (not that anybody can now smoke in a public place) it, like drinking is now illegal. Viewed through the cost that all has on our healthcare system and as mentioned to our nearest and dearest, it would appear that the nanny state is maybe necessary.

Maybe? Not?

I did not even discuss the sex thing.

eta. PLEASE PLEASE excuse the crap writing/grammar. So very tired. Poor excuse :(

[flyawaystray]

I agree, fwiw. I don't see a problem with taxing junk food.

Smoking is so freaking selfish. My mom won't quit smoking and I HATE that we all have to breathe in the crap. I feel bad for the animals as well. She said nicotine patches burn her skin and she has e-cigarettes but won't use them >___>

[Arete]

Soda taxes and subsidized healthy food accomplishes different things than government waving their finger in terms of drink size and saying "No, no, no! Bad, bad, dog." Education works because it gives people information, and information means informed choices. Education on the deleterious effects of smoking or poor diet starting in grammar school helps people make the choice not to start in the first place. Taxes theoretically are a type of insurance policy that will pay out for the costs associated with obesity and diabetes, though I have serious doubts about all the money being collected actually going for its intended purposes. More likely the soda tax helps any government with their budget shortfalls, whatever they may be. Subsidizing healthy food to drop the price is probably a better way to go. You provide sex education to get people to make the right choices before their first sexual encounter.

That a 16 ounce soda was going to be used as an opportunity for correction reminds me of being told what and how to eat when I was a kid, which BTW included regular, pious lectures on the evils of soda and the reasons we did not have it in the house. So now as an adult I eat a lot of fresh fruits, veggies, and beans, in addition to having a 2 can of soda a day habit. :shrug: I have also doled out regular, pious lectures to the smokers in my family about the societal costs of smoking, but have to report I have yet to get anyone to stop because my preaching and stats were so compelling. ;)

The question is, will cracking down on 2 for 12 sales in the United Kingdom really do anything to curb teen drinking? This is a sincere question. Making laws because it seems we are "doing something" is not the same thing as making effective laws.

[OkToBeTakei]

I agree, fwiw. I don't see a problem with taxing junk food.

Smoking is so freaking selfish. My mom won't quit smoking and I HATE that we all have to breathe in the crap. I feel bad for the animals as well. She said nicotine patches burn her skin and she has e-cigarettes but won't use them >___>

:(

It seems the worst taboo. Smoke kills etc. But as does alcohol and other poor health choices. People always look at a smoking parent with disdain. If they see an overweight one the outcome maybe similar. Shortened life etc. Excess alcohol ..never a good outcome.

If a smoker does not smoke in front of their kids, does not give off second hand smoke is that somehow worse than choosing to overeat and and suffer similar health issues? Both are poor choices which affect others. One is accepted as open to disdain, the other is called shaming. Pretty sure a kid does not care for labels. They just want looking after.

I think if as others have said it was intelligently and well done some food taxes would be fine. Even just to hit the biggest proponents of crap food. ie. The vendors.

[OkToBeTakei]

Soda taxes and subsidized healthy food accomplishes different things than government waving their finger in terms of drink size and saying "No, no, no! Bad, bad, dog." Education works because it gives people information, and information means informed choices. Education on the deleterious effects of smoking or poor diet starting in grammar school helps people make the choice not to start in the first place. Taxes theoretically are a type of insurance policy that will pay out for the costs associated with obesity and diabetes, though I have serious doubts about all the money being collected actually going for its intended purposes. More likely the soda tax helps any government with their budget shortfalls, whatever they may be. Subsidizing healthy food to drop the price is probably a better way to go. You provide sex education to get people to make the right choices before their first sexual encounter.

That a 16 ounce soda was going to be used as an opportunity for correction reminds me of being told what and how to eat when I was a kid, which BTW included regular, pious lectures on the evils of soda and the reasons we did not have it in the house. So now as an adult I eat a lot of fresh fruits, veggies, and beans, in addition to having a 2 can of soda a day habit. :shrug: I have also doled out regular, pious lectures to the smokers in my family about the societal costs of smoking, but have to report I have yet to get anyone to stop because my preaching and stats were so compelling. ;)

The question is, will cracking down on 2 for 12 sales in the United Kingdom really do anything to curb teen drinking? This is a sincere question. Making laws because it seems we are "doing something" is not the same thing as making effective laws.

Nope AreteJo. I think it will do nothing. For all the reasons you said and others on this thread. (my favourite being your greek arse :lol: )

I don't think you can change people by one day enacting a law. It takes time. You fight entrenched thought. You fight knowledge and ignorance. Eventually you find one thing. People still make bad choices :lol: They also make good ones and change. NHS is a big leveller regarding what and where our money goes which informs what we teach our kids as a knock on effect. The premise being I assume that time changes thought, which it does. They though are fine saying that obesity is a huge cost. I'm ok with that. It is a fact. Will as you asked a law change it? Probably not. Tax of 80% on cigarettes does not deter smokers or the tax on drink.

No answer. Just random thoughts.

[yewchapel]

I thought fat shaming had been decided as a bad thing? What's with all the ZOMG OBESITY stuff? Google 'Health At Every Size'.

Fat shaming isn't OK just because it's painted as being about health.

[Arete]

Looks like even advertising sharks are swimming clear of Rush Limbaugh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/0 ... _ref=false

ETA- Sorry about that. This is a Glenn Beck thread. When your looking at the ass end of the Right wing commeratait, they all start to look alike. :roll: