16 oz. Soda Ban Approved By NYC Board of Health

I can drink whatever the hell I want, and Bloomberg can fuck himself.

It's like he's some sort of liberal version of Nucky Thompson from Boardwalk Empire or something. It's sick the sort of things he can push through on the largest city in the USA.

The judge was basically nope.avi

edited 12th Mar '13 5:39:20 PM by Steven

My sister and I like to joke, "Why doesn't Bloomberg do X, he can already do pretty much whatever he wants."

Well, it's nice to know that liberals can get rabies too.

Not a goddamn thing. Except another massage to his already inflated ego.

From my understanding we have actual SCIENCE on this. Reducing portion sizes or in this case, drink sizes, does have an actual effect on consumption. People simply don't order more to compensate for reduced sizes. In theory this means that people will drink less soda and therefore be healthier, possibly saving lives and money.

I don't know if I agree with this assertion as I don't see the reduction in sizes actually having such a large effect. A crack down on all portion sizes and salt/fat/sugar content would actually be effective but I don't see there being any public motivation to do so. In about twenty years when medical costs skyrocket and it's almost entirely due to fast food I see a different picture but for now KFC is safe.

We've also got actual science that the problem can be solved with far better methods than Gestapo-like tactics.

Your point?

How about we cut out the Godwin's Law, for one, Starship? I will mod mode that if I have to.

The research is unequivocal. Reducing portion sizes reduces consumption, ergo reducing obesity. Forget half-measures; we should put in universal laws restricting the amount of sugar/fat/salt per serving, maximum serving sizes, and servings-per-container for food in the U.S. You are welcome to call me a Nazi for this.

I believe that Bloomberg is doing what he thinks is best to help deal with the obesity epidemic in this country. The way he did it was more of a symbolic gesture, however, than anything that will make a real impact.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:03:11 PM by Fighteer

@Fighteer: You're a Nazi. Get away from my Mc Fat and my gallons of sugary soda.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree that reducing portion size has positive health effects. Who cares? The government isn't my mother and doesn't have the right to tell me what I can and can't guzzle down in increasingly ridiculous portions on the basis that "it really isn't good for you".

As has been pointed out, obesity has numerous causes of which portion size is one. This will have a negligible effect on obesity (seeing as it doesn't address *other* unhealthy foods that people overindulge in) but will curtail civil rights in a seriously petty way. You can go on all day about how unhealthy soda is and how much of a problem obesity is, but that doesn't excuse taking away literally the most basic right we have as human beings: to decide what we want to eat.

You are suggesting that every obese and overweight person in the country is that way by choice? Voluntary and made in full knowledge of the consequences? Ah, I see, it's the same argument as for smoking and drunk driving. "Let us be stupid."

Not when the public has to pay to take care of your fat ass, with the heart disease, emphysema, and liver damage. Oh, and pieces of windshield glass embedded in your brain.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:37:17 PM by Fighteer

I really do not understand the focus on obesity and only obesity. I mean there are a number of people who will be obese no matter what you do. Perhaps we should focus on what soda actually does to health rather than throw around the nebulous problem of "obesity."

Well, sure, there are other problems besides obesity. Diabetes is a big one, and all the consequent disorders. Even diet soda has known health risks; I read that food companies are now trying to get approval to put aspartame in milk, because of its known effects in causing the body to crave sweets.

Getting us to put crap in our bodies is a science with hundreds of billions of dollars in commerce behind it. Our primitive brains have no chance without legislative support.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:39:50 PM by Fighteer

To my understanding diet soda is actually worse than regular soda for you healthwise.

I have a problem with "obesity" being used as a blanket term for everything wrong with health in this country because while there is correlation not everyone who is obese gets sick and there are lots of people who are not obese or even fat who get "fat people" diseases. So despite fat being a very visible thing it's not really the best indicator of public health.

...I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

It's linked to increased stroke risk, and the aspartame causes the body to crave sweets, which can potentially increase total calorie consumption over someone who drinks sugary soda instead.

You're speaking anecdotally, which isn't good science. Obesity is one of the strongest indicators of reduced lifespan and future health disorders. Smoking and alcohol/drug abuse are two of the others. We aren't holding "fat shaming" sessions here. We're talking about medical facts.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:45:15 PM by Fighteer

Talking about obesity in the way you are gives non-obese people a false sense of security.

No, it doesn't. Look, we aren't going down a laundry list of "Things That Can Kill You." Life is fatal. We're talking about a specific, avoidable, source of risks to our health: that being high calorie, high fat, high salt foods that are pushed on us by the food industry.

It gives non-obese people a false sense of security from exactly the things you are claiming are a public health hazard.

Well, in my particular case, I value sugary beverages (and, for that matter, cheap meals that do not require me to be able to cook) more highly than I value living a long life. Clearly I must be insane.

Except, of course, that the people as a whole, I think, support this particular preference, to a similar degree that they support the right to drink alcohol (despite the fact that alcohol will cause problems for people other than the drinker, which is more reprehensible), so your argument that taxes shouldn't go to medical care for my ravaged body don't really hold up.

speaking as someone who has weight problems and not a whole lot of cash, I'd say one of the biggest issues is a good tasting, healthy meal, costs me triple what a terrible tasting healthy meal would cost , and a good tasting but unhealthy meal costs about the same as a terrible tasting healthy meal.

Or to illustrate more easily. I can walk down to the local sub shop. The food is great. healthy, and delicious. An average 6 inch sub plus a bottle of water and a side dish will run me 8 dollars.

on the other hand, if I walk the other way a few blocks, I can buy a full sized 5 dollar pizza and breadsticks that will last 2 meals at least for the same 8 dollars

See the problem?

edited 12th Mar '13 2:54:45 PM by Midgetsnowman

When your drunk driving your risking someone else's life. When you smoke second hand smoke comes out and hurts people's lungs. When your drinking a big soda your only risking your health. I don't see how those two are comparable.

We should be making healthy meals more accessible. But taking away other foods isn't really going to fix anything when people are going to get them anyway.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:54:59 PM by Wildcard

I have never had a good tasting healthy meal.

because all 3 of them are money taxpayers will have to pay to keep a hospital open when you start dying of horrific complications and have no insurance and cant get healthcare.

As for that, the problem is an education thing. We're given cheap, unhealthy food nearly from birth, and it conditions our palates to prefer it, and companies know this.

They exist. They just cost a lot more than steamed to the point of bland flavorlessness broccoli.

edited 12th Mar '13 2:56:41 PM by Midgetsnowman

Yes and banning big soda isn't going to get that solved. It is only going to make people get a different size and drink more of the smaller ones.