Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Challenges New York Sugary Drink Ban
An anonymous reader writes "Soda makers, along with other trade organizations, filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the New York soda ban that is about to be implemented in the city. 'Last month, the board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to ban restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums and arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban, designed to reduce obesity, is slated to begin March 12. ... The lawsuit also claims that new regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a section of the New York Civil Laws and Rules. Opponents have specifically said it’s unfair that convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its famous Big Gulp drink, would be exempt.'"
The law is ridiculous hopefully it gets over turned.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57506856-10391704/nyc-school-lunches-fall-below-minimum-calorie-requirement/
Frankly, New York City can do more to improve its citizens' health than banning certain sizes of HFCS drinks (because calling them "sugary" simply ignores the fact that soda can be made using real sugar).
Palm trees and 8
The daily reference intake for sugar states that added sugar should nto exceed 25% of calories.
For a 2000 Cal intake that is 500 Cal. The 7-eleven shitty "super gulps" and whatever exceed this
in a single serving.
If you ask me they should just go and make a law that a single serving cannot contain more than
50% of the reference intake. That way you can sell those stupid 5 pint "drinks". You just would not
be allowed to have half a pound of sugar in them.
I don't have that big a problem with the law itself, but the size they chose. Having a hard limit of 16oz is very small for a cold drink. It should have been set at 20oz or something more reasonable.
Ooooh! Hold my PEE PEE! I can't THINK FOR MYSELF!
Watch photos of american citizens in the sixties and seventies. All age groups, they were healthy and slim.
Nowadays, your run of the mill american citizen is nothing more than a bibendum.
This ban is a very very very small return to sanity. Having a healthy population is a good thing.
I'm not conservative... But I have to say, I recall a LOT of liberals flaming conservatives for implying that laws such as these would ever be passed in health care related arguments... Looks like the right was on the money about that for once.
Americans should get it through their thick skulls that eating healthy is not the same thing as eating a lot.
Just tax the hell out of it instead.
Exponential the larger the serving. Done, simple.
If people want to destroy them selves, make them pay for it.
Banning just pisses people off.
OJ has about 15 calories per ounce.
Coca Cola has about 12 calories per ounce.
In each case it is pretty much all from sugar but there's nothing in the law prohibiting large servings of orange juice.
Morons.
You know, while I fundamentally disagree with the law as being unconstitutional, at least it seemed well intentioned. Now I find they exempted all kinds of places from it. WTF? It's okay to stop by the convenience store and grab a 96 ounce coke for my drive home but I can't have one at the Cinema? You gotta be kidding me. What the hell makes it okay to indulge at 7-eleven but not at the Movies? jeez!
Bloomberg has cited a study as evidence that the ban is needed. Too bad that the scientists who did the study say that he totally missed the point.
I'm curious as to how many of those opposed to this law are obese (weight in kg divided by square of height in meters > 30). Stats on average BMI of Big Gulp purchasers would also be interesting.
While I don't like the nanny state aspect of this law, if it mostly only applies to the obese and it sends a message that obesity is not good, I don't see the harm.
Get yourself 0,3l of a good mineral water, 1 lemon and about 50g of sugar. Squeeze the lemon and mix the fluid with the water. Then add the sugar while stirring the water/lemon fluid. Stick it to the megacorpos.
One could attempt to analyze the situation using logic.
There is a perceived problem with obesity. Fair enough, it's widely recognized and backed by studies and trends.
It's apparent from the literature that obesity is not caused by sedentary lifestyle or eating too many calories, at least not directly. Changing to a more vigorous lifestyle or reducing caloric intake is usually ineffective, as evidenced by the myriad exercise plans and fad diets available. We now see obese children as young as 6-months - since children of this age cannot choose their lifestyle or caloric input, there must be something else going on.
On a recent Slashdot article, the commentary held not a single premise or conclusion about diet which was universally held as correct. None, nada. Like economics, every position had opponents and adherents. If smart people can't agree on even the basics, how can we expect lawmakers to pass effective legislation?
Passing a law to combat obesity right now is pointless. No one knows what causes obesity, so any law must be misdirected almost by definition. This is amply illustrated by describing the law using fuzzy, imprecise terms. Drinks which are "sugary" and more than 16 oz? Why not 15 oz? Or 20? Is the caloric content important or the type of sugar? Is HFCS the problem, or the fact that most sodas are a mixture of a diuretic (caffeine) and salt, so that drinking makes you more thirsty? And some stores are exempt (WTF)?
Passing a law which affects the end users rather than the makers only promotes disrespect for the law. Cigarettes are heavily taxed but Philip Morris can freely make and sell them. If HFCS is the culprit, taxing the Coca Cola corporation in proportion to the amount of HFCS it uses will be more effective in solving the problem than end-user laws.
And finally, as the war on drugs has shown, education is more effective than prohibition. Dollar for dollar, money spent on drug education is several times as effective as money spent on prohibition (around 7x more, IIRC). Why not put the effort into education instead?
Legislators are just guessing at a solution to a real problem about which they know nothing. They should shut up and keep quiet until we know more. Once we can identify the root causes, we make correct policy which will reduce the problem.
Until then, it seems that illogic and counterproduction are having their moment.
How about calling them what they are: corn syrupy drinks?
Coke is full of chemical shit as opposed to freshly pressed Oranges. But I assume that does not qualify as "orange juice". Freshly squeezed Oranges contain lots of healthy stuff, including Vitamin C, which helps your body's immune system.
But if you are a beancounter, only the amount of beans matters.
I don't recall ever going to a supermarket that doesn't have lemons. also, I can't believe you put sugar into your lemonade! don't you know that sugar has no nutritional value?! Furthermore, by packaging sugar in a large bag (purely for their own profit of course) those dastardly grocery stores are encouraging you to use to much sugar when you make lemonade. We should definitely pass a law requiring sugar to be sold in individual quantities of no more than 1 teaspoon per pack.
"diet Cola instead"
I fell really sorry for your Merkins. In my world we still drink water and juice that is not 100% chemicals. Yeah, the idiots drink Coke, too, but they are by no means the majority. ...
My routine: water rarely and usually nothing at all with perhaps way too much coffee (with nothing added). My original comment considered using something similar to the AC's reply until I realized the comment should stay within theme of the problem -- its location and the need for the customer to buy something -- water, when requested, is supplied for free in a small cup in most of the States. Although I'm not that familiar with a city like Manhattan, their response to water might be "get lost"!
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
I seem to be able to decide for myself which products I buy. I can't recall the last time I bought something and later regretted it, but then again I don't buy much. I don't have some superhuman form of free-will. I just take the time to think about what I'm doing before I do it. Just because some people don't do this doesn't mean that everyone lacks self-control. If you were to legislate to the lowest common denominator, you'd have to legally prescribe every action a person can take to make sure they were all safe.
On the other hand, I do seem to be incapable of resisting the government. The threat of imprisonment is enough to compel me to pay my taxes and conform to federal rules and regulations. So you can see why I'd be concerned by frivolous government interventions such as this ban. Every one of them has the potential to harm me.
There's nothing wrong with enlisting the support of others to stop abuse, but there are other ways of doing that which don't have so much collateral damage.
It's a restriction on portion size. You can still buy more than one. The human body wasn't designed to handle that much liquid sugar all at once. Those mega-drinks do make obesity more likely. Consumers do not have perfect knowledge. Human's evolved under feast and famine conditions. We live in a society of plenty and it's difficult to overcome human biology even with perfect knowledge. Our physiology works against us. It's very easy to regain the weight lost. I know. I lost nearly 60 pounds but have gained it back. That's over a period of 10 years. I'm in the process of losing it again, but it's going to take longer because I'm older.
There are several questions that need to be answered: Are we our brother's keeper? Do we need a nanny state? Should we pay for the health costs associated with obesity of our neighbors?
Taking personal responsibility is great and all, but it can only do so much. I think a better solution would be a sweetener tax than a portion limit. Congress uses the tax code for social engineering. A sugar sales tax would also be social engineering. By making one of the ingredients more expensive the cost would be passed on to the consumer. The revenue could be used for education or healthcare costs.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
There are many post-processing methods (such as pasteurization - is that the right term ?) to make those juices (and I don't mean the Corporate Cola-shit) stable and not ferment/alcoholize (again not the proper term, but you get it) in short order.
Here in Germany we can buy easily 50 different juices which are not made out of shitty chemicals and shitty synthetic color substances. Look a this:
http://www.kumpfsaft.de/un/unvo.htm
And we also make juice ourselves sometimes, as our grandfathers and grandmothers have done. Alcoholic and non-alocoholic and everyone with an average IQ can do it. It is just a matter of getting the fat ass out of the TV chair. Have you ever tasted fermented apple juice ? Not the same as beer, but as soon as you know it, you will like it as much as beer. It is also called "Apple Wine" here.
What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.
You've never actually set foot in the US, have you?
6.5oz (192ml) was the original coke size
And we wonder why people are getting fatter.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21751119/winona-last-6-5-ounce-u-s-coke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apfelwein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization
A speciality from the GDR who had to replace expensive citrus fruits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippophae_rhamnoides#Food
Just sell the drink contents . . . not the containers . . . ? Any other silly ideas . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
500ml bottles are common in the industry and correspond to a 16.9oz beverage. My conclusion is: this policy is a secret attack on the metric system.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Diet and exercise work. A lot of the biological mechanisms are well understood. The problem is that people don't stick to it, because dieting sucks and exercise isn't easy. (What we don't understand as well, and this is probably what you're refering to, is WHY some people have such a hard time sticking to a healthy lifestyle, while others willingly get regular exercise and have a moderate diet.) Social trends are pushing people towards desk jobs, rather than manual labor, and food is cheaper than ever. Combined with our innate programming to be lazy and eat a lot, it shouldn't be surprising that people are getting fatter.
I agree that we probably don't know enough to form public policy on diet, but saying that changing lifestyle is ineffective is just nonsense.
I'm glad it's all cut-and-dried.
One question: if it's so obvious, how come not everyone agrees with you? What you're saying is a medical fact, right?
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle might be a genetic trait, in which case lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Difficulty sticking to a healthy lifestyle bight be rooted in lack of vitamin D (which we get through sunshine), lifestyle and obesity correlate, but the one does not cause the other.
Correlation is not causation, and we should only pass laws to affect the cause, not the correlate.
Sorry to burst your bubble - try thinking logically next time. Nonsense is repeating something you heard without thinking it through.
To get the same sweet taste as the "commercial" jucies, you need serious amounts of sugar. And that is not a bad thing as long as you control the number of glasses. Obviously you should drink one glass per day of that 50g drink. And the rest of the day you should drink plain water.
Of course, if you apply the same strategy to using Cola, you will achieve the same calorie intake from drinking. But you will get 100% chemicals as opposed to some really valuable stuff from that lemon. 5g of sugar is almost as much as no sugar in 300ml of water. Try it !
Ask Philadelphia how well that worked. They tried to tax soda. You know what happened? All the convienence stores just outside the city limits saw a huge boost in business while the ones in the city lost business. The ones in the city then sued the city with a huge backing of the public and won. Taxing only works if everywhere is taxed, otherwise you are just artificially saying which businesses make a profit and which ones go bankrupt.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
You'd think people would just order another pop. "I'd like to order another pop please. " Subway employee,"Sorry sir, you look visibly hydrated. I can't serve you more beverage."
God spoke to me
Did it ever occur to you that proper Orange juice is more than calories. Hint: Vitamin C. So the "full health effect" of OJ is indeed much better than Coke. But yeah, you can kill yourself with OJ, if you like. The acids will do it, if you really want a suicide.
I guess the operative words are "modesty" and "education". Modesty to control intake and education to know more than just the one-dimensional calorie figures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I've been reading and reading and reading about sugar for the last couple of months and that video is really something everyone should watch. The stuff is quite genuinely addictive, I'm sure in very very low quantities it's quite FUN to eat but it does nothing for you, the problem is what it does to your body - I'm quite horribly addicted to the stuff.
Watch that video and get educated on the stuff.
Post their pictures, names, phone numbers, physical addresses and email addresses so the public can voice their opinions about their proposed ban directly to them.
If this kind of regulation is to be expected as a result of public funding like 'obamacare', i don't want it. I find it hilarious that liberals piss on conservatives when they complain that public funding goes to things like abortion, but then have no problem demanding controls when obese people choose to drink too much soda and end up costing the public system they demanded in the first place more money. Hey liberals, reap what ye sow!
More Snickers! More Coke! I love these products
Oh, please don't hack this site or email them viruses. That's bad. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/Company/ContactUs/Contact_Bell.html
Instead of banning the crap, they should tax the fuck out of it
and use the revenue to fund liposuction clinics.
Jesus, I thought the Jews were smart enough to figure this out ...
without my help
Seems to me you could update the city code to allow doors no wider than 2 feet. Then the problem will eventually sort itself out, one way or the other.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
it's usually cool. there are expensive bottled waters, but you can ask for tap.
i only had an issue once. starbucks told me i couldn't just order tap water, and then i told them I'd pay a reasonable price (rent is expensive after all). they were confused, and it went up to the manager (lol), who charged me 50 cents (including refills).
it's something i like about Manhattan. if someone tells you no, you can often tell them you're willing to pay, and they will change their mind quickly.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Even if we ignore the question of if such a ban is an unethical infringement on individual liberties, the law is still wrong. If elected officials want to enact legislation to ban something alright democracy at work I guess but all the exceptions are terrible. The law should apply to everyone equally. If large sugary beverages are such a health hazard than nobody should be selling them. This law picks winners and loosers, one class of business is favored over others with the right to sell a high margin product denied to everyone else. It is arbitrary as well 7-11 cannot control risks better than a cinema. This is not like saying you have to be a licensed pharmacy to dispense certain classes of drugs or something.
If this is the way our society is going to keep moving we might as well just move to a completely command economy, freedom and capitalism are all but dead.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
People keep screaming about liberals.
The New York Board of Health, the ones who past this draconian law, consists of appointees made by NYC's Republican Mayor, Michael Bloomberg.
Go to 16oz. Cups, and sell them "Buy one, get one FREE!"
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Saying "sugary" when it should be "syrupy" in the US. as you guys replace sugar with corn syrup.
I always thought there was a law against charging for tap water at eateries, but looking around it appears there isn't - it's just supposed to be bad business.
I usually raise holy hell a place tries to charge for tap water... I'm ok with a 25 cent charge for the cup / labor but no more.
The US has officially 0 credit, after running laps in gym class got banned it's clear the US doesn't really care about health. Sugary drinks, banning "bad" school lunch, cutting gym class, getting rid of laps, what is next to assure 100% doubt that the US has a clue on health.
I don't see why they don't just tax the shit out of sugary drinks, per ounce. In Europe they do this (actually they do it to everything) simply through the VAT, and a 20 oz soda in Europe goes for about twice as much as it does here. So people over there drink less of it. Since the U.S. doesn't have a VAT, they wind up enacting stateside taxes on things like cigarettes and gas for the retailer. Why not just do the same for sugary beverages, they could put the money into efforts to make people healthier like bike sharing and public parks etc.
That's not going to be a problem in Manhattan. Since it's an island, you can't just drive to the city limits and get your cheap fix. Getting off the island and then back on is sufficiently non-trivial that you wouldn't do it just to save a couple bucks on your drink.
Besides, in this case they didn't ban it entirely, they just banned it in places where you're expected to consume it on-site, like restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, and the like.
Honestly, what I think they should have done is just made it so the pricing has to be linear with respect to volume, e.g. a 32oz Coke must cost no less than twice what 16oz Coke costs. That way there isn't the incentive to get the 32oz size because it's only 10 cents more.
dom
If they really wanted to make people stop drinking large amounts of sugary drinks they could do so very easily.
And they could do it by LOWERING YOUR TAXES.
Yes by lowering your taxes. here's why.
Every year the US Government taxes it's citizens and then takes that money and does things with it. Most people know about this. What most people don't know is what that money is spent on.
Some of that money is spent on subsidies for farmers. This allows the farmer to sell his products at a lower cost to the consumer.
In 15 years, corn farmers raked in $77.1 billion in subsidies. 77 Billion with a B.
This is why corn sweeteners are so cheap. And why soda makers use it to sweeten your sodas.
Now law makers want to tax sodas under the guise of the "LOOMING HEALTH CRISES".
So just to recap.
The Government taxes you.
Part of that money goes to making sodas cheaper.
You buy sodas.
The Government taxes you again.
And its not just soda. The Government does the same thing with tobacco. Your tax money is being given to cigarette makers. And then your taxed again for buying them.
Here is an idea. That money that the Government taxes us to subsidize corn.
DON'T TAX US FOR THAT.
What would happen? The price of corn would go up to where it should be in the first place. Everything that is cheaper due to the artificially low prices of corn sweeteners would rise. Thus the cost of soda would go up and less sodas would be bought. All the while saving everyone money.
"Eating too few calories can create nutrition deficits, Andrea Spivack, registered dietitian and licensed dietitian-nutritionist for the Albert J. Stunkard Weight Management Program of Penn Medicine"
So a fat clinician claims that fat kids eating fewer calories may suffer 'nutrition deficits'?? How would shoveling in more high fructose corn syrup fix vitamin deficiencies???
I think it's time the US faced up to its problems, you are *not* big boned, your just fat, and the fat is from the ramping up of sugars, particular HFCS in drinks and fats in ready made meals:
http://bohemechinois.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/fat-women-bbw-singles.jpg
Of course the food industry knows people like sweet fatty foods which is why they increased the sweetness and fat. HFCS just happens to be the cheapest way to make something sweet.
..many other restrictions will follow. burgers & fries are bad for you, therefore they must only be sold in small sizes (no big macs, quarter pounders). Liquor is unhealthy so must be banned. Fast cars kill more people than slow ones, so everyone must drive renault 5's and so on. Which is why I dont like this at all.
Let's just hope the lawsuits don't cost so much that it interferes with whatever the sugar marketers pay to keep Stevia out of the market.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
I don't think the law is ridiculous. Misplaced maybe, but seeing the number of overweight people in our society makes me think that these types of laws are needed. I wish that weren't the case.
People are too stupid to know better sometimes, hence banning smoking and drinking for minors, banning drugs that cause damage etc.
There is no functional reason a human being needs a 32oz sugar filled drink. It's something that eventually kills and costs society worldwide probably trillions in health care and such.
If a government truly cared about it's people it wouldn't allow companies to brainwash it's citizens or sell food in quantities that cause disease and eventually kill.
IMO ban all advertisement of fast food, confectionery and high energy foods (based on % of daily calorie/kj requirements), begin a 10 year move to regulate food for the energy content where these foods are slowly removed from society. At the same time ban smoking and put a huge levie on alcohol except wine, ban cheap/cask wine.
People are too stupid for their own good. Crazy obesity rates, lung cancer and other smoking related disease and damage from alcohol and violence caused by alcohol prove this. No one can dispute this. I'm not saying sit there and control what a person eats, but if a person wants to have something sugary or fatty I'm sure having to actually prepare or make it themself and not buy 12 twinkies for $2 or whatever or 32oz soda will reduce obesity to a level such as the first half of the 20th century when foods like this weren't as easily available.
Ummm...water and juice are both 100% chemicals. The classic definition of a chemical is a substance that was created through a process of configuring molecular structures. Water and juice both fit that bill. I think what you're looking for is the difference between chemicals existing in nature, and ones that are synthesized by man. When you think about it, any form of cooking or fermenting we do results in synthesized chemicals, even something as basic as baking bread or making wine.
What I'm getting at is that the notion of something being a chemical making it bad for you is just retarded. If you're truly paranoid about synthesized chemicals, I might point out that even organic farms use pesticides. Your body itself is really just a bunch of chemical reactions taking place in a controlled manner. You can solve both of these problems for yourself by just never eating again.
Also, lemonade tends to have a lot more sugar in it than diet soda.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
.
We don't need a nanny-state telling us what not to do by prohibition. The last prohibition of alcohol didn't really turn out that well. And forbidding things certainly makes it more appealing for certain young minds.
Strangely enough, after a while, one company's sugar sodas (well, they're really corn syrup sodas unless you get the imported ones from Mexico or the Dr Pepper from that one town in Texas) and sports-beverages (also sugar/corn-syrup laden) were re-introduced onto campus after they helped to pay for a scoreboard for the athletic field. No quid pro quos there, I suppose, eh?
That's not going to be a problem in Manhattan. Since it's an island, you can't just drive to the city limits and get your cheap fix.
I understand there is at least one bridge on the Island of Manhattan? :-D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Dr_Pepper#Use_of_cane_sugar
.
Richmond CA also banned sugary snacks and drinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_California#Obesity
.
forgot those links above
Really. Where is the gun. If you claim that this is someone putting a gun to someone's head for drinking too much soda, where is the gun?
PS How come you stupid arsehole 'merkins are so in love with your guns and fantasise about shooting people, but try to use this stupid fucking idiot line to go "Scary goverment wooooo!"?
Buncha retards
Are you saying that YOU don't know what's best?
Because this is a ban supported by a majority. I guess you don't like democracy, do you.
I think soda is one of the worst things people are consuming given how much people are having.
That said, I don't want tin pot dicators like Bloomberg telling me as an adult what I can and can't have. I think the government can have a place with changing bad eating habits which are hurting the country, but not through ordering people around. Through education yes, taxes maybe.
I also don't like who is fighting this law. The (other NRA) and the food industry in general have manipulated people to make bad choices for their own profit.
This is a case of two villians going at each other so I will not be rooting for either side.
Mayor Bloomberg's other controversial law is called "Stop And Frisk". Basically, NYC police officers don't need any probably cause.........or any cause.....just their own subjective suspicions to stop and search people. The majority of the people stopped are non-white.
Interestingly, Bloomberg makes a law saying that people can't buy a soda out of a large cup and it is talked about NATIONALLY. A law he makes, essentially making a police state in NYC is barely know about.
Google on it
I don't think that statement is actually correct. There was an experiment done where people where told to eat until they were full out of a bowl of soup. And the amount people ate was strongly correlated to the size of the container, despite everyone believing they only ate the amount they needed.
That was professor Wansink's group at the Cornell Food and Brand lab,he's also written a mass-market book about the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindless_Eating:_Why_We_Eat_More_Than_We_Think
Screw the politicians!
I want my Dr Pepper dammit, and I want to buy it in a size that will last me the whole trip while I run errands.
Laws like this serve no purpose other than to irritate the common citizen. People and going to drink what they
like, and it's not the governments job to tell me what I can and can't eat.
Thank the Goddess I live in a state where I can still get a medium rare cheeseburger. Just north of me is
a state that lets children drink a beer at a bar as long as their parent buys it and hands it to him. Hopefully
we'll get that one implemented soon.
Yeah, I get that obesity is a problem that ends up costing everybody because of the health care costs
involved. A much better solution would be to encourage people to exercise. The government loves to
build things (like more prisons), so let them build health clubs that people can join free of charge. Or
sponsor sports programs so adults can participate, rather than the current system where once you're
in high school you're only allowed to play if you're good at it and there's pretty much nothing after that.
Castro's an evil dude, but he got that right - we should copy Cuba's model of sports for everyone.
Now I'm going to go out and buy myself a Route 44 sized cup of Dr Pepper, cause all this writing ;)
has tired me out and I need to get me some energy
What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.
You've never actually set foot in the US, have you?
That was presumably an exaggeration, but there's an element of truth. I was unable to buy oranges from the shops (including a small supermarket) within walking distance of the backpacker's hostel in New Orleans -- pretty much everything in the supermarket was boxed, packed, bottled or canned.
The biochemistry is clear: fructose is metabolized by the same pathways, and has the same health consequences, as ethanol, aka "alcohol", so minimally sugar should be regulated at least as strenuously as alcohol if we care at all about rational risk exposure and Pareto risk management.
So when Government bans something I'm for, it's bad and must be stopped. But when Government bans something I'm against they're doing their job.
Now I understand, you're a hypocrite.
Welcome to the liberal-controlled nanny state. Good job, you butt-fucking liberals.
Don't forget oxygen, they should ban that as well. FACT: Everyone who has had cancer breathed oxygen....
Next they'll ban high consumption of (god forbid) chocolate!! (I'm female, can't ya tell?!) I believe in freedom of choice and darwin's natural selection. Let the fatties and toothless die out!
Just give away an empty 32 oz cup for each two 16 oz cups purchased. The empty cup comes with lid and straw, which are optional with the 16 oz cups. Then the thirsty ones can pour their 16 oz drinks into the 32 oz cup and be happy.
In other words - this is yet another stupid law that will never work, especially not as intended (to reduce obesity). People will find ways to continue to consume the usual massive amounts of sugar-water with various flavours and additives.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
In my opinion it's not the government's place to control citizens diet choices. Seems extremely out of line for the government to even seek THAT much control over the average citizen's lifestyle choices.
Hmm it's an interesting issue. To play devil's advocate here for a second, let's say it's not sugary drinks, but giant Advil pills. Like pills that are so large even one or two of them far exceed the recommended dosage. For the government to step in and stop stores from encouraging consumers to over consume this to the consumers own health detriment is not over bearing.
For the sugary drinks, if you view this as the government stopping stores from encouraging the massive over-consumption of a substance that is directly linked to one of the most serious health problems the population is currently facing en masse (pun not intended), but doing so WITHOUT banning the sales of them all together (nor even stopping customers from buying many smaller drinks to compensate) I think it isn't as much of a problem as people are making it out to be. Overall this is good for everyone and makes some sense (especially considering this is an idea coming from government).
In my world we still drink ... juice ...
Any that juice is full of sugars. Here in the US it seems that the mommy types think 'juice' is somehow good for their precious babies - they give it to them from morning to night and feel smugly good that they're giving their darlings the best things on Earth. Hardly! Those so-called juices are typically not 100% juice and are heavily sweetened. Even those that are 100% juice are still naturally high in sugars that will help drive type-II diabetes and possibly other conditions that are reaching epidemic proportions - ADHD, etc.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Sounds like it be nothing more than a minor annoyance to soft drink businesses. I'd imagine they're spending more money fighting this law then what they'd lose in sales.