NYC Board of Health passes big-soda crackdown rule

[Rippleman]

I'd look to know what you are cooking for $5 a person. Can't even buy meat for that price. Oh and if you like Taco Bell (I don't), you can definitely have a meal for $2.

here is another individual who says "i struggle on 100k a year" lol

[TPreston]

? Mind explaining this post?

I have no idea what you're trying to say...

Im saying people's health depends on this information and withholding it is immoral.

On the other side of that.... I often provide links in my posts to stuff that backs up my posts, but in all honesty people should also be responsible for their own learning at times. The problem with this world? Everyone expects everything to be spoonfed, information-wise.

Thats how it works, Person says x causes cancer and provides evidence person y says thanks ? If the opposite were the case i could simply say

aspartame cures cancer, Evidance ?

On the other side of that.... I often provide links in my posts to stuff that backs up my posts, but in all honesty people should also be responsible for their own learning at times. The problem with this world? Everyone expects everything to be spoonfed, information-wise.

Of course i know why you are giving the runaround its because you are trying to obfuscate your source which is ill bet an appeal to some quacks authority as a nurse or doctor while disregarding all evidence which opposes this claim

[Harrison H.]

here is another individual who says "i struggle on 100k a year" lol

I'd love to make 100k a year. I currently after taxes make about 35k a year (I'm hourly, so it's not set in stone exactly how much I make). That 35k a year pays for my family's (mom/sister/myself) apartment, my car, my student loans, my car insurance, tv/internet, and food.

Now tell me again how easy I have it?

[+DDG3595 Subscriber²]

I live in New York (the Bronx actually) and this is the result of electing an a**hole billionaire as mayor three times. The son-of-a-b*tch changed the law to allow himself to run for a third term after excoriating his predecessor for attempting the same thing and now he's become the damn soda police.

At least he'll be gone next year and I'm sure this ban will be repealed.

[Shane Nokes]

Im saying people's health depends on this information and withholding it is immoral.

Thats how it works, Person says x causes cancer and provides evidence person y says thanks ? If the opposite were the case i could simply say

aspartame cures cancer, Evidance ?

Of course i know why you are giving the runaround its because you are trying to obfuscate your source which is ill bet an appeal to some quacks authority as a nurse or doctor while disregarding all evidence which opposes this claim

Actually it's because I'm cooking & getting dressed while hopping back and forth off the PC and phone doing stuff because I have to make a delivery today for an old job I used to work at.

So I don't have time to pop up all the sources now, but I can snag some later when I get home in a few hours since it seems you're too lazy to do your own research into this as well...

Also I was asking what that post was all about because it sounded like you were asking if I was part of someones group or if I was pretending to be someone else or something...it was sounding a bit looney, and that's why I was asking what you meant.

Also you'll never get me to post anything that says that Aspartame cures cancer since I never claimed that...

[Rippleman]

I'd love to make 100k a year. I currently after taxes make about 35k a year (I'm hourly, so it's not set in stone exactly how much I make). That 35k a year pays for my family's (mom/sister/myself) apartment, my car, my student loans, my car insurance, tv/internet, and food.

Now tell me again how easy I have it?

sorry, maybe judged too fast, alot of times the people that say meals cost 10$+ per person is the same that typically cry about "BARELY above poverty" when they make 100+ k a year... like my sister for example, and a couple other freinds i have that say 100K is just not enough.... LOL

[PNWDweller]

I am almost certain this will not last very long. Like others have said, it is only going to be more people buying more to get the soda they want. Also - 7/11 etc...will not be banned from selling bigger than 16oz sodas. So, if you really want a 32, 64oz or whatever drink, just go to those places and buy one.

If this does stick, then yes - it will be a hard time to visit NYC and not want to get a bigger drink at the restaurant when you are washing down some awesome pizza or fast food that you are already eating. :)

[theyarecomingforyou]

Here's an idea... stay the hell out of our lives and let us do what we want as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. Jesus. ****, what about that is so hard to understand?

Governments are obliged to look after the interests of their citizens. The majority of Americans are overweight and the percentage continues to increase at an alarming rate. With freedom comes responsibility and people are not being responsible, nor are food and drink manufacturers. Action has to be taken. Restrictions have been placed on tobacco, fluoride has been added to water, unsafe additives have been banned, drugs undergo rigorous testing - there are already a whole range of restrictions and requirements in place to protect public health. Restrictions on food and drink are an obvious continuation of that philosophy.

The food and drink industries manufacture products which are incredibly unhealthy, which is combined with marketing campaigns that prey on the vulnerable in society. Children have been indoctrinated to associate chocolate and sweets with rewards for good behaviour and marketing is still heavily targeted towards children, despite restrictions. It's time that behaviour is stopped and restrictions are put in place. High calorie and otherwise unhealthy food and drink should be heavily taxed and that should be used to subsidise the cost of healthy food, fund healthcare and support public education as to the risks of a bad diet. Unfortunately few governments would be brave enough to try that, let alone the US where all people seem to care about is "freedom" and where no responsibility is taken for the consequences; people would rather see half the population die as a result of obesity than to place a single restriction on what they want to eat or drink.

[Bryan R.]

Governments are obliged to look after the interests of their citizens. The majority of Americans are overweight and the percentage continues to increase at an alarming rate. With freedom comes responsibility and people are not being responsible, nor are food and drink manufacturers. Action has to be taken. Restrictions have been placed on tobacco, fluoride has been added to water, unsafe additives have been banned, drugs undergo rigorous testing - there are already a whole range of restrictions and requirements in place to protect public health. Restrictions on food and drink are an obvious continuation of that philosophy.

The food and drink industries manufacture products which are incredibly unhealthy, which is combined with marketing campaigns that prey on the vulnerable in society. Children have been indoctrinated to associate chocolate and sweets with rewards for good behaviour and marketing is still heavily targeted towards children, despite restrictions. It's time that behaviour is stopped and restrictions are put in place. High calorie and otherwise unhealthy food and drink should be heavily taxed and that should be used to subsidise the cost of healthy food, fund healthcare and support public education as to the risks of a bad diet. Unfortunately few governments would be brave enough to try that, let alone the US where all people seem to care about is "freedom" and where no responsibility is taken for the consequences; people would rather see half the population die as a result of obesity than to place a single restriction on what they want to eat or drink.

There is no point in banning a size of beverage. This legislation is a joke. There are regulations in place that help inform citizens of the nutritional values of the food they eat. This educates. Banning does nothing and banning a size of drink does less than nothing if that were even possible. We need to not give up on education or rely on litigation to make society better.

This goes back to my central belief that capitalism requires some socialist policies. Yes, we should be taxing these ridiculous excuses for food just as we tax cigarettes. Banning them is not a capitalist approach.

[ILikeTobacco]

Actually, that's not accurate. While sugar doesn't "cause" diabetes it is a contributing factor.

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

Fact: No, it does not. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories, whether from sugar or from fat, can contribute to weight gain. If you have a history of diabetes in your family, eating a healthy meal plan and regular exercise are recommended to manage your weight.

Source: Diabetes.org

There is a huge difference between can contribute and is the cause of. If humans were immortal, you could eat sugar for the rest of your life forever and never get diabetes. It is not like smoking and cancer. If you smoke, you WILL eventually get cancer. Some people just die before they get to that point. The problem in America is not as simple as the food they eat. The problem is that they don't match what they eat with the physical activity they do. You could eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain a pound if you burn that many calories a day. IN4 Skinny people have a faster metabolism. That happens to be a myth. Science has already proven that skinny people have a slower metabolism so do a bit of research before you make that claim.

If the government wants to curb obesity, punish the obese, not everyone else too.

[Ottawa Gamerz]

ok Resident Elite and ottawa_gamerz do type in english so there

u do know most kids dont drink pop alot they are drinking rockstars monsters and all those energy drink which will do more harm than good

but why dont price these things like they do smokes make us pay 10 bucks a coke pepsi and maybe that will stop us getting fat i doubt it

well all i can say in the last couple of day im glad to live in canada where we get free health care and no one is making up dumb laws

now look back in the 60 70 80 90 there where a few fat people well in the year 2012 theres tons grease isnt good for u

and i bet alot know it but wants speed over cooking fryed chicken and everything else they decide to fry isnt good for u

but with these PARENTS now these days to busy to care about how much fat is your kids is 1 and weights over 100

something wrong with the PARENTS kids do not know better

if ur fat stay fat no one is telling u to loose weight but u will die faster skinny people look like a tree man woman 98 pounds isnt sexy 120 130 and your good

last i lost 20 pounds loosing the chips pop simple

theres alot of yummy things thats good for u out there try it and get to loving water drink alot weight comes off

gone

yup thats my 2 cents

[ILikeTobacco]

u do know most kids dont drink pop alot they are drinking rockstars monsters and all those energy drink which will do more harm than good

The best part is, I was in Walmart a few weeks ago and watched a woman get a 4 pack of monster using "food stamps."

[Ottawa Gamerz]

The best part is, I was in Walmart a few weeks ago and watched a woman get a 4 pack of monster using "food stamps."

lol thats funny

[theyarecomingforyou]

There is a huge difference between can contribute and is the cause of.

I'm well aware of that but you implied that sugar has nothing to do with diabetes, which simply isn't true.

If humans were immortal, you could eat sugar for the rest of your life forever and never get diabetes.

That's simply not true. Those predisposed to it would get diabetes if they were obese.

It is not like smoking and cancer. If you smoke, you WILL eventually get cancer.

Again, not true. People can smoke for their entire lives and still never get cancer. There is a dramatically higher chance that they will get it but that does not mean that it's a certainty, as you suggest.

You could eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain a pound if you burn that many calories a day. IN4 Skinny people have a faster metabolism. That happens to be a myth. Science has already proven that skinny people have a slower metabolism so do a bit of research before you make that claim.

I wasn't going to make such a claim. I'm well aware that there are two types of metabolic rate, one of which is genetic and the other is dependent upon muscle mass. Some people have a slightly higher genetic rate which can help them maintain a lower weight but the vast majority is determined by your muscle mass, which is something that obese people tend to have less of.

[br0adband]

It's time for a revolution, America. It's the only way to stop the overbearing governmental BS that plagues us more than "an epidemic of obesity" ever will.

Every day, another thing gets walled off, taken away, and it's not going to stop - it's only going to get worse.

[deactivated_]

So those against government involvement in food choices would like to shut down the FDA? Stop Health Inspections of restaurants?

[TPreston]

That'd be a big yes id suspect unfortunately

[Southern Patriot]

It is a "supposed" epidemic. Did you know that the scale, BMI, was devised in 1830? Most people, probably even yourself, would be considered overweight by that scale. The issue isn't the people when it comes to the rising numbers. It's the fact that the scale used to classify people is old and outdated.

I'm a perfect example of this. My BMI classifies me as borderline obese, yet I'm roughly the same height and weight as most male Olympic gymnasts. Muscle weighs more than an equivalent volume of fat, yet BMI is based on just height and weight.

Freedom for those who dont understand it, and it seems a lot of americans dont, is a privilege, not a right

What the ****????? It may be a privilege where you live (and I'd hate to live there) but in the US freedom IS a right.

[ILikeTobacco]

I'm well aware of that but you implied that sugar has nothing to do with diabetes, which simply isn't true.

That's simply not true. Those predisposed to it would get diabetes if they were obese.

Again, not true. People can smoke for their entire lives and still never get cancer. There is a dramatically higher chance that they will get it but that does not mean that it's a certainty, as you suggest.

I wasn't going to make such a claim. I'm well aware that there are two types of metabolic rate, one of which is genetic and the other is dependent upon muscle mass. Some people have a slightly higher genetic rate which can help them maintain a lower weight but the vast majority is determined by your muscle mass, which is something that obese people tend to have less of.

If old age wasn't a thing because we all lived forever except for harming ourselves, eating sugar wouldn't cause you to get diabetes. If you smoked cigarettes, it will kill you eventually. Some people are just lucky enough to die of natural causes before getting to that point. Even if you have a predisposition to diabetes, eating sugar/not eating sugar won't be the reason you get diabetes. Diabetes II is caused by fat cells, not sugar. Your fat cells, assuming you have the genetics for it, start to release chemicals that block the function of insulin. If you want to use the excuse that "sugar makes you fat, and fat people get diabetes" as the reason for not allowing perfectly healthy people to drink/eat what they want, where is the line. Sugar doesn't make you fat. No matching your lifestyle to what you eat does. Being fat doesn't give you diabetes II, certain genetics do. Don't mistake what I am saying is that sugar being fat do no harm, however they are not the sole cause, and this measure won't curb it. They could lower the limit to a 1 oz cup. You know what would happen? I would walk up to the fountain 32 times if I was thirsty enough to drink 64 oz of soda. Instead of doing something that actually fixes the problem, they are punishing those that don't have the problem and not doing something to actually curb the problem. You want to curb obesity, why not make insurance/health costs go up for anyone who is obese and doesn't have a medical reason for being obese. Then they pay for the extra cost of what they choose to be and those of us that know how to take care of our bodies can continue on enjoying our life. Politicians go to extremes way to often. Whats next? You are only allowed to order a single item from a fast food place? God knows plays like McDonalds has items that alone have more calories than someone needs for a whole day. The more you give to the government, the less freedom you have. They don't take it all at once, they do it in small steps.

FYI: The metabolic comments weren't directed at you. You know how these forums get.

[Rohdekill]

If they were serious about fighting obesity they would tax the hell out of cable tv, internet, games & counsels so people couldn't afford them. God forbid your child might figure out there is a world outside the front door and go PLAY and get some exercise!

It doesn't matter how many calories your body takes in if you're burning the same amount off. But by removing/reducing physical education from the schools and parents having X-boxes or Nickelodeon as baby sitters, kids are now four times heavier. The most exercise they get is getting up from the couch to get a bag of chips or another......soda.

[ILikeTobacco]

I'm a perfect example of this. My BMI classifies me as borderline obese, yet I'm roughly the same height and weight as most male Olympic gymnasts. Muscle weighs more than an equivalent volume of fat, yet BMI is based on just height and weight.

What the ****????? It may be a privilege where you live (and I'd hate to live there) but in the US freedom IS a right.

All body builders are obese according to that scale.

[Southern Patriot]

ok Resident Elite and ottawa_gamerz do type in english so there

u do know most kids dont drink pop alot they are drinking rockstars monsters and all those energy drink which will do more harm than good

but why dont price these things like they do smokes make us pay 10 bucks a coke pepsi and maybe that will stop us getting fat i doubt it

well all i can say in the last couple of day im glad to live in canada where we get free health care and no one is making up dumb laws

now look back in the 60 70 80 90 there where a few fat people well in the year 2012 theres tons grease isnt good for u

and i bet alot know it but wants speed over cooking fryed chicken and everything else they decide to fry isnt good for u

but with these PARENTS now these days to busy to care about how much fat is your kids is 1 and weights over 100

something wrong with the PARENTS kids do not know better

if ur fat stay fat no one is telling u to loose weight but u will die faster skinny people look like a tree man woman 98 pounds isnt sexy 120 130 and your good

last i lost 20 pounds loosing the chips pop simple

theres alot of yummy things thats good for u out there try it and get to loving water drink alot weight comes off

gone

yup thats my 2 cents

You might use English words, but the way you put them together quite often makes no sense whatsoever! My 6 year old can write more coherently than you do.

Now, for my thoughts on why this law is moronic. Many people that I know, when going to a movie, ball game, etc., will order one super size drink for several people to share. Why? Because it is usually much cheaper than buying 3 or 4 regular size drinks.

[theyarecomingforyou]

If old age wasn't a thing because we all lived forever except for harming ourselves, eating sugar wouldn't cause you to get diabetes. If you smoked cigarettes, it will kill you eventually. Some people are just lucky enough to die of natural causes before getting to that point. Even if you have a predisposition to diabetes, eating sugar/not eating sugar won't be the reason you get diabetes.

You're just repeating the same nonsense. The diabetes website I linked to stated that sugar can contribute to diabetes - that was the only point I made. At no point did I state that sugar causes diabetes. And cigarettes don't give you cancer, they just dramatically increase the likelihood of getting it. If you're unwilling to reconsider your position when provided with evidence that directly contradicts it then this isn't a discussion and I shan't waste my time in the hope that you'll somehow see reason.

[Harrison H.]

So those against government involvement in food choices would like to shut down the FDA? Stop Health Inspections of restaurants?

When did we ever mention shutting down the FDA? We simply said the government has no business regulating how much of what we eat.

[deactivated_]

When did we ever mention shutting down the FDA? We simply said the government has no business regulating how much and of what we eat.

You do know what the FDA does right? On aspect is saying what foods are approved for consumption.