Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Soft Drink Ban: Weekend Poll
By: wheatmeisterJuly 7, 2012
In Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to crack down on obesity, NYC recently announced a ban on selling regular sodas in sizes larger than 16 oz. (big diet sodas are allowed, though).
Loading ...Discuss.
I don’t like the idea of the government regulating what we eat/drink, but I also realize that because I share a healthcare system with EVERYONE, I do need to be concerned about what EVERYONE is eating. That, and I hate getting a “small” soda when I go out and having it be 3 times what I can drink. The american idea of portion size is SO off.
Rather than give an upper limit, I’d also love to see smaller portion sizes at least be provided (but not mandatory). I frequently can’t order the meal in the size I want because I’m not under 12… Then at least I could vote for my dollar and say “smaller portion sizes, please”… but it’s rarely even offered in anything but the lean/healthy/foodIdon’teat category.
Like this comment?
3
via Connor Boyack
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
19
I think bans are wrong___warnings are OK.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
I’d have been more impressed if he hadn’t followed the sugary drink ban up with celebrating doughnuts and making an award to the winner of the national hot dog eating contest. The hot dog winner ate 68 hot dogs, by the way.
All of that would be laughable, if the drink ban hadn’t been preceded by Bloomie’s ban on donating fast food to the hungry, because we shouldn’t be giving THEM food that was unhealthy. Since that isn’t going to be replaced by 2000 calories per day of veggies any time soon given New York’s and Washington’s fiscal realities, such a ban seems positively suspicious. Who benefits in terms of financial or political gain by such a ban?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Wow, that is really being debated here at W & T? The only reason I do not have a larger drink cup at work is because I want to have to get up and walk around away from my computer. When you work outside all day in the summer, you will drink much more than 16 oz. in a short time. I would stock cold 32 oz. bottles of all sorts of drinks to replace the banned fountain drinks. Let the Mayor react again and again. And pass the extra fries to the homeless guy.
Like this comment?
1
It’s silly and probably won’t make a difference, but it’s equally silly to make this issue Libertarianism’s Last Stand. “First they came for Coke, and I said nothing; I drink diet”. No, it’s not a slippery slope to the Fat Police, just well-intentioned but dumb policy. Instead of a ban they’d have been better off creating an economic disincentive by raising taxes on larger sodas — if you’re gonna be irritatingly paternalistic, you might as well pay for schools in the process.
Like this comment?
2
I’m a raging socialist and I find this ridiculous. What should have been legislated is an increase in education about sugary soft drinks, an increase in incentives to live a healthier lifestyle, a directive that prevents soft-drink makers from hiding the unhealthier aspects of their products, and/or a warning label on all such products in the vein of the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette cartons. At the very least replace the ban with a sin tax so you can make some money off the deal rather than put a dent in the local economy.
Like this comment?
1
I personally like the idea of portion sizes being more true to form. I also imagine this is an issue that has been addressed to companies time and time again, but until it is mandated no one will do anything.
Like this comment?
0
Get the government out of my life with stuff like this. It is none of their business.
Like this comment?
3
@NewlyHousewife,
Companies do offer “small” sodas. I don’t know of any company that doesn’t.
Like this comment?
0
I like the idea of a “surgeon general” warning, on the lines of “consuming large amounts of sugar is linked to diabetes and heart disease”…it would never get past the corn lobby in Congress, though…
Like this comment?
1
BTW, I am currently obese and sucking down 44 oz. of Orange Crush…
Like this comment?
0
Well, I have to say that the portion sizes in this country are out of control across the board. As a result, we throw out a lot of food, we consume more preservatives because there is so much food it will go bad if it isn’t full of preservatives, and we eat just way too much. The extra large popcorn at the movies is only 50 cents more and comes with a free refill, but bear in mind that the small size is roughly the same as the large in Asia. And that 16 oz drink? Also a large there.
Like this comment?
1
I’m opposed to an individual mandate to refrain from drinking gigantic sodas. However, I am in favor of taxing gigantic sodas (and small ones too, for that matter) according to their sugar content. It’s constitutional, too.
Like this comment?
2
I do like that large popcorn, though Hawk. We get one for our family of 6, refill it once, and it works out about right!
Like this comment?
3
Bonnie – well, I’m not saying I didn’t buy it. But I was filled with self-loathing afterward and we threw out half without getting a refill.
Like this comment?
1
I wouldn’t worry about banning specific items like this. The problem isn’t a specific item, but a person’s sum-total of choices.
Instead, I would prorate insurance premiums on BMI. as healthcare costs (for the aggregate and NOT individuals) are directly related to weight. If someone’s weakness is mega sugary sodas and someone else’s is chocolate, so what – let them have their own choice.
BUT … also let people be responsible for their choices. If someone wants the “freedom” to eat large enough portions, of whatever it is, to be obese, let them pay the cost of those choices.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
Uh, the BMI battle begins Mike! Put up your dukes!
Like this comment?
1
It’s not a BMI battle – it’s just math and facts. Some people choose not to believe that BMI matters; others choose not to believe that we set foot on the moon.
Here’s a simple summary of the math: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47211549/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/study-obesity-adds-billion-health-costs/
Like this comment?
1
We had a local restaurant owner who had lost a bunch of weight through learning to eat healthy decide to open his own restaurant with the idea of serving the healthy recipes for all to come and eat. So he originally had no sodas on the menu.
His restuarant, of course, did poorly. Before it ultimately closed, he relented and sold the people the poison they wanted. The market answer would be to create healthy beverage options that become more desireable than the unhealthy ones. The government answer is to provide Americans honest information about sugary beverages and other unhealthy food DESPITE the donations, lobbyists, and contracts related to major food corporations that government officals do not want to upset/offend.
Like this comment?
1
Mike, I like your answer re: BMI/insurance costs. My insurance company already does this by requiring me to complete a health status each year, including BMI, cholestorol count, blood pressure check, declaration on smoking and drinking. Failure to score 85 or above results in higher copays for doctor visits. The BMI cutoff (only one of the elements) is 30, not 25. That item alone has motivated me to lose 55 pounds since Christmas (BMI now around 27 or 28).
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
#21: Paul
I like that solution much better than banning soda or tobacco or anything else – let people decide what’s most important to them – and let them pay the true costs for their choices.
And congratulations on the weight loss – it’s really hard to do.
Like this comment?
1
Food habits are incredibly hard to break. Banning large drinks does nothing to change these habits. My step-father is a diabetic dying a slow miserable death. Every once in a while he will try and change his diet for the better, but seems unable. It can be an addiction that we should view like alcohol addiction.
The solution is violence of the state. The solution is love for our neighbor.
I watched “A River Runs Through It” again with my wife over the weekend. Sometimes there is nothing we can do but love. I’ll repeat using violence of the state is not a solution, but just creates more problems and violence.
Like this comment?
3
I agree with Jenn and Jon – how so?
Simply put, we do share in a “healthcare system” where we are collectively responsible for each other’s choices. So long as we persist in that “system”, the only viable solution is to require that people be accountable to that system.
Ultimately however, Jon is right, that the system fosters an attitude of patriarchy where dimwits like Bloomberg can fancy themselves as good intentioned managers of that system. The question that nobody is willing ask though, why do we want this system. Is there a better long-term solution to this system. Many economists for example, would argue that at least part of the reason for the cost/growth in medical services and technology, is that it was backed by an unsustainable system.
Like this comment?
1
Ok, Mike, I’m back with my dukes up (had to have some serious mema {grandma} time today.)
BMI is a very crude measure that considers only height and weight. Every player in the NFL (and the AFL too but I don’t want to get into the differences here) has a BMI in the obese range. That’s because it’s a 4th century measure in a 21st century world. It does nothing to distinguish between excess bone, muscle or fat – it just indicates excess weight, and according to a schedule, not ethnicity, age, or any other condition.
It says NOTHING about whether someone can climb stairs, walk to the grocery store, or engage in healthful activities. Low BMI has been associated with many, many more health conditions than moderately high BMI. And it’s impossible to tell the difference between a chain-smoking meth addict couch potato and an elite runner when you measure BMI.
That’s stupid doctoring, and it should NEVER be allowed into the hands of health bureaucrats.
Now, I know you deal with obesity on a regular basis, and I’m not justifying obesity. I’m just saying that someone’s time for the mile is a better measure of their health than is BMI.
Like this comment?
3
Bonnie:
I absolutely agree with you as to the exceptions (and there are many). However, it is difficult to measure someone’s time in the mile, etc.
At the same time, given essentially the same genetics, the same height and the same frame size, our weight has ballooned over the past 20 years. It is truly frightening.
If you’ve never looked at it, take 30 seconds and watch the following map from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html/
The trend is astounding. It’s not due to NFL players. It’s not due to 4th century measures. We’re just getting fatter and fatter. And there are a number of studies which show a direct correlation (not just association) between BMI and diabetes, arthritis, stroke, heart disease, spine problems, hypertension, etc. I could list hundreds.
So, while I agree with you that BMI is not perfect – the BMI trends are amazing, the correlations are straight-forward, and the excess costs associated with obesity in the US would pay for ALL of the healthcare for the uninsured (given the $1 trillion over 10 year cost of Obamacare).
Like this comment?
1
I just want to point out Mike that the correlation between BMI and diabetes is with Type 2 Diabetes. Type 1, which I have, has nothing to do with my lifestyle choices or BMI, so I fully expect you to be willing to pay for my very very expensive disease ;)
Like this comment?
1
I agree that we’re getting fatter. I agree that it’s a sincere problem. I agree that the costs of sedentary lifestyle are many. But I am not willing to agree that government has a reason to use BMI to bully the public into doing what’s good for it. As we’ve discussed before, it unfairly targets the poor who have many issues outside of food and exercise to deal with.
Insurance companies use more than BMI to establish coverage. Employers can do drug screenings. It’s not that hard to mobilize better measures. What we’ve seen in the field of behavior modification is that a multi-faceted approach is necessary and bullying is counterproductive.
We’re smart. There’s a better solution than the easy one.
Like this comment?
1
Andrew:
I agree. There are many things (like type 1 diabetes) over which we have little control. It is our fate to live with the role of the dice that genetics and environment give us. To deny someone healthcare for something over which they have no control doesn’t make any sense.
Similarly, if someone has a documented medical reason for their weight (ie. pituitary tumor, etc), I also wouldn’t penalize that person. While we can all point out the exceptions, the true reality is that we, as a people, have become fat. And the fatter we are, as a people, the more expensive our medical care is going to be.
The question then becomes: should the cost of being fat be borne equally by all members of society or should it be borne by the people who are incurring the extra costs through lifestyle choices. We’ve already decided that someone who chooses to smoke should incur the extra costs associated with that. Is being fat the same?
Like this comment?
1
#28: Bonnie: But I am not willing to agree that government has a reason to use BMI to bully the public into doing what’s good for it.
I agree that the government shouldn’t bully someone into doing something, which is why I’m against the soda ban. However, should we as individuals with “rights” get away from the consequences of our choices?
Example: if I’m a bad driver, speeding and getting in accidents, my insurance premiums will go up. It is a fact that it will cost more to insure me than someone else. It is right to charge me more in this case, or is that someone “bullying” me? Should my insurance premiums be the same as a safe driver who has never been in an accident and who has never received a citation?
Similarly, if there is a direct correlation between someone’s weight and the cost to provide their medical care, doesn’t it make sense to pass along the costs of that person’s lifestyle choices? Wouldn’t true government bullying be to make you pay the costs of medical care for someone who chooses to be 50-100 pounds overweight?
And it may sound callous, but I hear all day long at work how people are “big boned” or whatever. Look at the map from comment #26. We haven’t had an influx of NFL players with skewed BMIs over the pat 25 years. We haven’t had a wholesale change in genetics in the United States. We have just become fat.
Like this comment?
1
Bonnie, I’d go a step farther and suggest that (as I said in comment #21) some insurance companies (like mine) are giving financial incentives (not bullying) to reduce BMI by offering lower copays and deductibles for achieving certain health targets (including BMI<30, among others). They are not requiring me to get to an ideal weight for 24-year old, just incentivizing me to get below 30 (which I did).
Frankly, given the fact that BMI is one of several measures, I didn't really need to lose the weight to keep my lower copay & deductible, but the annual reminder finally sunk in and I lost the weight through diet and exercise.
Like this comment?
1
Er, “…finally sank in…”
Like this comment?
0
I like the idea of creating smaller portions. Like the 100 calorie snack packs, it just makes you stop and think before you consume more. It doesn’t prevent you from consuming more.
Similarly, I like the cigarette warnings in Asia. The packaging has a gory picture of the side effects: a black lung, cancer eaten face, or a dead premature baby. I’ve actually heard people requesting packets of cigarettes like this: “No, not the cancer of the mouth. I want the gangrenous foot!”
Like this comment?
1
Bonnie:
The question about “better measures” is dependent on the purposes the measures serve. There are lot’s of markers that can be used to determine “wellness” or “well being”, each of which are ambiguous terms in and of themselves. The question here is fiscal health, which is a by-product of the public health by virtue of our current health system. As thing’s currently stand, BMI is a valid predictor of expected claims against a person’s health plan. The research on this is overwhelming.
Whether or not using BMI as a measure for determining health insurance premiums is “fair” is debatable, and frankly somewhat irrelevant in the long-term. I don’t dispute that you are correct that poverty is also correlated to obesity. The issue I have trouble with is, what is the real plan to turn thing’s around. We have hit a critical point recently, where family health insurance premiums have exceeded monthly mortgages. During the next 15 to 20 years, they are scheduled to outpace wages. Failure to take drastic measures now, at a time where we do have some measure of control, will force us to take even more drastic measures in the future. My prediction, if we get to that point, is that the poor will take it in the shorts.
Like this comment?
0
I say we eat until we puke. We will anyway. This sort of stuff works in waves, fads. When we collectively see the liability as larger than the benefit, we will change. Not a moment sooner. When we stop going to restaurants that plop down triple portions of crap they will then start selling quality food in reasonable portions. But right now it just seems like we like rhw way things are now, collectively speaking.
Like this comment?
0