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'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.
16oz is HUGE. You know that soft drinks used to be sold in 6 (yes, SIX) oz bottles, and that was considered a reasonable serving size? People would drink the 6 oz soft drink and be quite content with that.
You live in a world that has gone mad, and your idea of what is "normal" has been formed in that mad world. It's why over 80% of the population in many areas is considered either overweight or obese. It's why childhood obesity used to be nearly unheard of, and is now common. It's why diabetes is impacting more and more of the population each year.
I don't think restricting portion sizes is a good idea, but good god, people need to stop thinking 16 oz is a "normal" serving size for a sugar soda.
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.
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 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.
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.
Or people could drink any size soda they wished and GET OFF THE FUCKING COUCH AND DO SOME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. For fuck's sake. You're raving about a solution to a problem that isn't a solution, it's not even a stop-gap. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY is the ONLY real counter-measure to obesity.
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
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.
Yes because Arnold was obese his entire life according to this calculation. This calculation is full of sh** and always was. If it says one of the healtiest people is obese, the formula is worthless.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
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
A '16' oz drink will often be mostly ice. It might contain as much as 6 oz of soda, I suppose.
me personally, have trouble finishing a 12 ounce can of soda.
Perhaps you don't know where cans' erogenous zones are located?
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.
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