Mayor Bloomberg stepped in it. Such outrage! Such mockery! He wants to limit serving size of sugary drinks in NYC to 16 ounces.
I feel for you, people. Yeah, true, you are not going to solve the USA obesity problem by limiting the size of a sugar drink serving to 16 oz. Nanny state?
Well, as nanny state goes, it's not that big of a deal. Who is getting thrown into the slammer? Nobody, I imagine. Hell, all you have to do is order two 16 ouncers if you had your heart set on pickling your pancreas enough to make it stop working.
BUT. If you think this is unconstitutional, satanic, Communistic, or whatever fill in the blank, if you are in the crew who think that "It's not government's job to reduce obesity rates," then what's your plan? Because what we have is unaffordable in financial terms and unconscionable in terms of human suffering, and it is continuing to get worse.
Bottom line, this is something that has to change, because it is killing our country. Again, what's your plan? You are entitled to criticize if you have a plan to deal with it. If you don't have a plan for dealing with it- and especially if you are angry when somebody like Michele Obama actually has the gall to TALK about it- then you are not entitled to criticize Bloomberg. So put up or hush. The only thing I am really saying here is that there is ONE response to obesity that I will not accept: "it's not a problem, ignore it, maybe it will fix itself." We have tried that for 30 years. No success.
If you actually are interested in the science and the politics behind the NYC effort to limit the size of sugar drink servings, here ya go:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/06/bloomberg_bans_large_sized_soda_the_science_behind_the_decision_.html
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 53
Of course, that ignores the fact that all the people who chose not to be fat are all forced by the insurance companies to pay for all the excessive health care and accessibility costs that result from increased obesity.
That part of the equation always seems to get lost in the discussion.
That said, Bloomberg's plan is unenforceable. Many editorials have pointed out that people who want a large sugary drink can buy a two-liter bottle of pop and use their own container. The idea has also made him look silly. I don't know what the solution is, but this isn't it.
Is Bloomberg's solution really a plan to deal with obesity? No, of course not. I don't need an alternative solution to criticize stupidity. But I have one anyway. It's called the free market. Again. If you're bored hearing about that, I'm twice as bored and disgusted with this endless statism.
Yes, we have a right to drink soda as we wish. And no right to force any resulting medical costs on others.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Oh really? progressives don't drink coca cola? :)
"PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!"
again, libertarians have been reciting that mantra for thirty years, while obesity rates have steadily forged upward, and slender persons like myself have paid for the health costs. The definition of foolishness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
This is les f, cheeseburger in hand, reporting from the front lines of the "war on fat".
Should go as well as the rest.
The state does make more and more rules, to no effect. Pretty foolish, all right.
Is there a particular size picture that doesn't stretch the screen?
True. Which is why we need to try something else. I've suggested something different. There's no personal responsibility when others are required pay for your medical costs.
maksimum,
Exactly! The free market solution requires ending the subsidies.
The pixel width for comment replies is 424. Add width="424" to the html.
You can buy a pump action grenade launcher, a mini gun or a 50cal but a bucket of corn syrup is out of the question?
Probably the most effective way to deal with obesity. Along with better eating habits.
(Note that the means and motive are money.)
"Coke and McDonald's aren't saying how they plan to fight the proposal in court. A lawsuit is undoubtedly on the way. These two deep-pocketed companies have armies of lawyers and will not let this pass without a fight."
source:
http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=d2f28c49-7190-4abd-9ebf-708403375eae
I did not see anything from either of you.
So I assume then that your response boils down to "it's not a problem." :)
It's not working. :)
FDA allows poisons in the foods (all about the $$$$$$$), hidden additives and on and on. BTW, anything which says 'light' or 'fat free' or 'diet' should be eliminated because they ARE the problem!!! People THINK they are doing the right thing, but just keep putting on the weight! (guess those donuts don't help either...)
ALWAYS use real foods - butter NOT margarine; real honey (which cannot be found in grocery stores regardless of what the label says), BURY the Crisco, corn syrup, lactose, GMO foods, and on and on.
DO NOT RELY ON LABELS OR WHAT THE GOVT. OR FDA TELLS YOU! Do some real research and tell your friends! THEIR (statists) is $$$$$$$$$$$, not your health. They only use things like this to further take away freedoms...
Free markets DO work, we just haven't seen them given a chance.
Are you suggesting we've tried the free market solution? Seriously?
Someone above mentioned corn subsidies. There are countless other subsidies, govt regulations, taxes, etc. No free market, sir. Not even close.
Ban sugar today, then pork tomorrow, next ban eggs and butter . . .
Your study says that people consume soda wihout thinking more readily than they do solid food, and that's the basic "science" of this defense. There are also studies that show that people who consume diet soft drinks are more prone to obesity because they have in their minds that because those calories are not being consumed in liquid, they can make up for it by eating more and more of the wrong things. Also, there have been studies that say that because people's taste buds are geared to the over-sweetness of diet drinks, they tend to dislike naturally sweetened vegetables like carrots, for instance, because they don't taste sweet to those whose tastes have been conditioned this way, and it causes them not to include these nutritious things as part of their diets.
Then consider whether he's taking energy drinks off the shelves, many of which come in 16 oz sizes, loaded with every bit as much sugar as any soda.
Also consider that if people are soda drinkers, they're not going to stop drinking soda or even cut down by eliminating a certain size of container they may be used to ordering them in. That's just ridiculous. I drink about a gallon of water a day. I usually carry it in 32 oz containers. Now if someone were to tell me that I couldn't have my water in a 32 oz container anymore, I might use smaller containers, but I'd make sure I had at least the same amount per day. In fact, someone trying to control me like this would make me do exactly the opposite of what they wanted.
And it is not just soda or fast food that is making our citizens obese its everything else that we can stuff down our mouths, chocolate, candy, ice cream, crisps, cream cakes. The only thing that will not make you obese that some families do not stuff down their mouths is the Fruit and Veg that has been long forgotten in many family homes.
To start the fight against obesity you first have to educate the parents or if that is not possible to educate the children to try to break the cycle. Back to basics should be the motto. Does our education system still teach how to cook and run our homes like they did when I was a child? Or has all that gone out of the window?
Perhaps the way forward is for schools to have a few lessons on how obesity is killing people and to show the items that when overindulged courses that obesity.
I accept that as part of the solution, Graham. There are people who argue that even education is too invasive of our liberties, but I disagree strongly. once upon a time we had health and physical education classes, and any such class needs to include curriculum on how to maintain a healthy weight over a lifetime.
Those who trumpet "personal responsibility" ignore the fact that many americans really do no know how to eat well- and are also ignorant of the value of exercise over a lifetime. Even on rare trips to see a doctor, he may not take the time to discuss it. I realize that so many of us have a visceral hatred of the nanny state. But if someone does not know what a healthy lifestyle is, how can we expect him to live it?
I don't know about how your medical system works but in ours if you are obese and wanting an operation they can defer that operation until you have lost weight. You are then referred to diet classes. It does not happen in all cases and it just depends where we live.
I have seen quite a remarkable change over the years in the UK with people that are obese and morbidly obese. And I think we can put it down firstly to family's that both parents are working and who don't have the time to cook properly prepared food and just buy in convenience prepared food from the local supermarket that they just put in the microwave and warm up. Secondly to family's who don't know better, by that I mean families who have grown up eating junk food and have passed it on to their offspring’s who then pass it on to theirs. And thirdly to people who should know better but who can’t resist just gorging themselves because it’s put in front of them.
It’s a pity that people can’t enjoy a nice crispy apple, a nice juicy orange, or a handful of grapes or cherries when they get peckish between meals instead of snacking on cakes and chocolate all the time.
I mentioned recently a friend of mine whose cholesterol was high and he's in excellent physical condition so his was not caused a bad diet, especially since he is gluten intolerant so his diet is a very good one, but by a diet that needed to be supplemented with oat bran and niacin. The doctor immediately prescribed Lipitor and he refused it. He did his own research and followed a cholesterol reducing diet, and he is doing very well.
So in the cases of obesity, it's a health issue and it should be handled within the medical community, but the way they handle it is to prescribe medication(s) for a symptom or symptoms of the obesity rather than controlling the cause. They may suggest that you control the cause, but that's not the extent of their responsibility to the patient. It requires far more analysis and time to determine what that body needs to function optimally, and it's just easier and makes more money to diagnose the effect and treat that rather than treat the cause and that is the kind of health care people are used to having and calling good.
We have Weight Watchers as well, my daughter wanted to lose some of the weight that she had after giving birth to Oliver so she paid for a few sessions with them. She come back after the firsts session highly agitated as when she was their she got talking to quite a few of the other lady's and she found out that most of them had been referred to Weight Watchers by their doctors because they were obese. We had to calm her down with a Valium because she had spent over £80 on these sessions and they were getting it free. It was a figure of speech by the way the Valium it was actually a large Gin and Tonic.
There is no real 'free market', the market is not free, and I still believe it is unethical to make the obscene amounts of money these companies do by playing off our desires, and to hell with the consequences. You cannot legislate ethics, but setting limits for the good of society IS a valid role of government.
If people are irresponsible enough, and stupid enough, to drink pop until they are obese, nothing will stop them.
The ones that truly have medical reasons for being overweight will not be “cured” by this ban.
The others will simply buy 2 or 3, to make up the difference.
Worried about them adding to health care costs?
Simple, let them drink pop till they die young. Why would you want to prolong their life that will cost you more money? Why are you not buying more pop to give it to them so they will die sooner, and save you a couple bucks? Hell - send em a set of lawn darts, maybe they will kill each other, and make you happy!
Aside from that, it is no ones business.
It doesn’t matter to you, until they come after the thing that YOU enjoy. Then it is too late to scream about freedom.
Respectfully, that's not the way it actually plays out in the real world. Diabetes is a chronic disease that is extremely costly over a number of years until the victim dies, possibly after having feet amputated which costs us more money. Force feeding people supersized sugar drinks in order to kill them so that they depart from the health insurance rolls, that's not what happens. They get SICK and cost us all $ for decades, they don't die.
Therefore, encourage them to drink 512 oz of pop a day, they will be sick for a shorter period of time, and die sooner, to make you happy!
I am often amused by people who, when they cannot think of a way to convince others to behave in a certain way, think that it is perfectly fine to bring the government in to force them to behave in a desirable fashion. Even more amusing, is that many of these people support a woman's right to choose under the guise that a woman can do what she wants with her body.
well, Bloomberg did not outlaw sugar drinks. His effort was merely to eliminate supersizing.
I would be interested in your ideas on how to deal with obesity, sunshine.
As for my ideas on how to deal with obesity - exercising and eating right can help. :) But, it isn't the role of the government to force you to do either one. The government isn't here to cure stupidity, obesity, or many of the other things some people seem to want it todo. Nanny state government always looks good, until it is too late.
hm. I thought that conservatives had lots of plans to solve problems without government intervention? Just because the government does not fix something, it does not mean that it can't be solved, right?