Nyc Mayor Aims To Ban Super Sized Sodas And Sugary Drinks.

[buffettphan]

What really strikes me funny is that while the mayor of NYC is trying to ban big ol' sodas, the governor of NY State is trying to decriminalize weed. At least somebody in New York is doing something right. (Or trying to!)

.

.

.

And I'm not talking about the sodas.

[Ouroboros]

You shouldn't feel attacked by me. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion. I've simply offered an alternative viewpoint here, which is in no way an attack. I largely agree with you, I just don't see this as a watershed issue; rather a local one that doesn't really affect anyone in a meaningful way.

In this particular situation it's only NY. Sure. The reason why I brought up the Fed support of the farmers is that it's one of the reasons why we have sugar in everything we eat. (I saw a cooking show where a French chef complained about the American salad dressing always being so sweet. They are, because everything has to have some suger in it now.)

 

Bloomberg is just very keen on suggesting and promoting bans of different kinds. If I remember right, after the smoking bans went through, they had some gathering in a hotel where Bloomberg was happily participating smoking cigars... against his own law that he just promoted. But I don't remember the details, so it can be a bit skewed. And then he was trying to pass the salt ban (if you remember). And back then, I complained that he probably would go after french fries next (I was wrong, it was the soda), but the counter argument was that I was just slippery-sloping the whole thing. So...

 

Considering how tobacco and smoking bans worked its way through America. It started in some areas, small, and grew, and it's still growing (not saying anything for or against it), but the principle how it works is there. If Bloomberg gets it through, you bet many other states and cities will suggest similar things, and it will come to some a more widespread "sugar ban" in US. If it doesn't go through, he will try again. He's been on the "sugar war path" for a while now. He's tried before, if I understand it right.

 

There was one bright spot for Bloomberg in the poll results: Respondents in the borough of Manhattan favor the soda ban by 52%. In the city's other four boroughs -- the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island -- support for the ban ranged from 37% to 44%.

 

Here's where you get these types of do-gooder type laws in places like NY and CA. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of voters per district. I'd bet there are higher turnouts in Manhattan. Just a guess.

52% is not a whooping support though. I would like to know the statistics per religion/belief and political ideology. Is the supporters Catholics? Democrats? Or perhaps Republicans? Just a thought.

[Ouroboros]

Question, what makes this law worse than much more prevalent dry county laws and laws that limit times when alcohol can be sold. Those laws too are social engineering laws that reflect contemporary community values. Isn't part of the reaction here that New Yorkers -- or at least those in Manhattan -- support legislation that strongly disagrees with your own personal values?

People in the dry counties drive to other counties to get drunk. The other counties love it.

 

And also, I wonder why it's not a huge problem in the wet states to not have bans?

 

I think mwc is making a good point. If sugar is so incredible dangerous and bad for us (like lead, tobacco and alcohol), then why not go all the way? Why not completely outright ban it? (It wouldn't surprise me if Bloomberg actually tried it already but failed.)

 

And again, like I said earlier, sugar in soda is not the only problem. There are a huge amount of other toxins and dietary ingredients responsible for disease and obesity. When should we accept the responsibility on the citizens to make stupid choices and leave it at that, and where should we draw the line for laws so engineer us to healthy obedience?

[florduh]

The majority may also want a 6 o'clock curfew on teenagers and cab drivers who speak English. Hell, the majority may want atheists banned from the city limits. The fact that a majority are in favor of a ban is irrelevant. The government should not be in the business of social engineering, period.

[MrsRoper]

What really strikes me funny is that while the mayor of NYC is trying to ban big ol' sodas, the governor of NY State is trying to decriminalize weed. At least somebody in New York is doing something right. (Or trying to!)

 

And I'm not talking about the sodas.

 

Hilarious!

 

You know Bloomberg doesn't need to make this a law, he should join with a marketing company and promote healthier eating/drinking for all NYers. And encourage these fast food places to start buying more realistic cup sizes. Couldn't this be done via education & cooperation as opposed to making another stupid law.

[Vigile]

The majority may also want a 6 o'clock curfew on teenagers and cab drivers who speak English. Hell, the majority may want atheists banned from the city limits. The fact that a majority are in favor of a ban is irrelevant. The government should not be in the business of social engineering, period.

 

Yeah, ok, but most of what you just listed here would be unconstitutional. The purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the majority.

 

I'm not seeing where the majority is limited here. If they are, then why aren't they also limited when it comes to dry county laws and similar laws?

 

Again, I don't favor this particular law. I just don't see the fuss. If it was the FDA, then I'd get it, but it's just a city none of you live in passing laws that are within the limits of the constitution. If this is a slippery slope, then why aren't dry county laws just as dangerous to the freedom of Americans everywhere?

 

As you can see from the poll results Hans provided, even those outside of Manhattan don't support this law, so it just seems pretty unlikely to me that politicians are going to get behind something like this on a broader basis. That is, not unless some other product that competes with sugar pays off politicians to fuck the corn syrup industry.

[Ouroboros]

I just don't see the fuss.

Fuss? You mean we shouldn't talk about it or have negative opinions? Sometimes people need to talk about things they don't like and express it, and it's not fussing, but just expressing opinions. But if you mean the fuss in the media? Sure. I don't care much for what media says.

 

As you can see from the poll results Hans provided, even those outside of Manhattan don't support this law, so it just seems pretty unlikely to me that politicians are going to get behind something like this on a broader basis. That is, not unless some other product that competes with sugar pays off politicians to fuck the corn syrup industry.

I think the proper term now would be Big Corn.

[Legion]

O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

[Vigile]

Fuss? You mean we shouldn't talk about it or have negative opinions? Sometimes people need to talk about things they don't like and express it, and it's not fussing, but just expressing opinions. But if you mean the fuss in the media? Sure. I don't care much for what media says.

 

Ok Hans. I concede. Just seemed you were getting upset with me when I offered an alternative way to look at this and that people jumped all over Akheia for daring to challenge the libertarian status quo around here, so it seemed like much ado about nothing, considering I've never seen such reactions to lesser charged issues, which have the same connotations such as limiting times when alcohol can be sold.

[mwc]

Found a more convenient, printed, form of the ban:

The mayor's proposal comes after a series of failed efforts by his administration to limit the intake of sugary drinks. Last year, the Obama administration rejected the mayor's request to bar city food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda and other sugary drinks. In New York, the state legislature has rejected the mayor's call for a soda tax.

 

Part of the allure of Mr. Bloomberg's new proposal, administration officials concede, is that the mayor doesn't need the approval of a governmental authority outside Mr. Bloomberg's control.

 

Thomas Farley, commissioner of the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, explained the rationale behind allowing stores to sell tbig, sugary drinks but not restaurants.

 

"When a restaurant serves you an item, it's meant to be consumed at one sitting," he said. "Whereas when a grocery sells you an item, it's maybe consumed by multiple people across multiple (meals). It makes sense that there would be different rules that apply. It's also true that the Board of Health regulates restaurants but it's the state that regulates grocery stores. So, we don't have the legal authority to do this at the Board of Health".

 

Karen Congro, director of the Wellness for Life program at the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York, said she thinks the extensive publicity sparked by the proposal would help inform the public about the dangers of sweetened drinks. But the actual ban, she said, is unlikely to reduce obesity. "Without education, I think, it's limited what can be done with this," she said. "They're just going to buy two smaller drinks."

 

Brian Wansink, a Cornell University professor who wrote a book on the topic called Mindless Eating, said he received a call Wednesday from City Hall about the proposal. He asked whether the administration had consulted retailers about how they might be able to collaborate on a solution.

 

"I was a little bit disappointed to see that they hadn't tried to engage retailers to try to figure out a solution that risked less backlash," Mr. Wansink said.

He pointed to ideas that have come out of his research, such as 100-calorie packages of snacks, that food companies have since implemented.

WSJ

 

It's a money grab baby...

 

In the name of "health." Or...Won't somebody think of the children???

 

The idea is they want to somehow start to employ a buffet style, no take-home, rules system now? At fast foods and take-outs? Are they serious? Can they hear the contradiction in any of this? Can I take the popcorn home from the movie or must I finish it there? Must I eat my sidewalk hot dog at the cart I purchased it at? Should all food be "nugget" sized and sold individually for this purpose? Popcorn by the piece sold only in the lobby. Any takers? It's absurd. I know. The 100 calorie limit should be more than enough. So a piece of popcorn plus that "butter" topping should do it.

 

In this article from the NYT:

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

 

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery stores or convenience stores.

So I see the clear solution. I go to the cashier. I order my Diet Coke in my ultra jumbo size cup. I walk to the beverage bar. I fill it with regular Coke Classic. Are they going to post a guard? Will some RFID force my hand? Are they eliminating the ability for me to refill my own drink? This seems the logical step.

 

Or is this just a type of "collaboration" as mentioned above? It seems that may well be the case.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

Last year, the Obama administration rejected the mayor's request to bar city food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda and other sugary drinks.

 

Seems smart of Bloomberg and pretty stupid of the O admin if you ask me. No doubt lobby pressures were involved in the admin's decision here.

 

16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee

 

Medium coffee? Yeah at Starbucks. That doesn't make it 'medium' sized.

 

I agree the government shouldn't be playing nanny here, but this is still bizarre that such a thing became the new normal in the US.

 

It got this way, no doubt because of marketing influence. While I think it's heavy-handed and a bad idea, I can certainly understand why many are tempted to fight back against it using the government. Especially since everyone's insurance premiums go up when their neighbors get fat and fuck up their health at the rate they are doing it. This is self interest if not empathy in action.

[mwc]

Last year, the Obama administration rejected the mayor's request to bar city food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda and other sugary drinks.

 

Seems smart of Bloomberg and pretty stupid of the O admin if you ask me. No doubt lobby pressures were involved in the admin's decision here.

Replace "food stamp recipients" with pretty much anything else. "Black." "White." "Male." "Female." It's a fail.

 

They're not lower class citizens because they need assistance.

 

mwc

[florduh]

...daring to challenge the libertarian status quo around here...

Funny, I never labeled myself as a Libertarian. If believing the government has no business telling us how big our sodas can be, then I guess I am indeed a Libertarian - at least by some either/or definitions.

[Akheia]

In an ideal world, we'd have food labeling laws that actually informed consumers. We'd have an educational system that actually taught kids about healthy eating in a practical way and taught them to show respect to their bodies. We'd have honest advertising. We'd have spiritual ideologies that emphasized the life we're in NOW, not the pie-in-the-sky to expect later that will fix all the damage we're doing to ourselves. We'd have a genuine free market economy with way fewer subsidies and a government that actually cares about constituents, not about the big-money pharma and agriculture lobbyists' interests.

 

None of those exist. So while I totally get what Florduh said about the dangers of setting oneself up as the knower of truths and mysteries, in a way, that's exactly what happens when a consumer wakes up and realizes what's been going on while the rest of the herd shoulders on. We have lobbyists fighting GMO and other labeling laws tooth and fucking nail so consumers don't know what they're pouring into their bodies. We have advertisers that blare subliminal messages into our minds and our kids' minds 24/7 to sell slow-acting poison. Our supermarkets may look like they have kathousands of choices, but almost every single packaged product in it comes from what, five different mega-conglomerates. We have ideologies that promote trashing our bodies and environment because who cares? Jesus is returning in our lifetimes. We have subsidies propping up crops we don't need and laws that encourage sneakiness, which causes profit-minded corporations to game the system, cut corners, and minmax profits in a way any WoW player would worship. And I don't think anybody here would deny that our government routinely protects the interests of its money over its citizenry.

 

This is why I say that it's not reasonable to expect consumers to make truly educated choices about their food. There can't be consumer choice while consumers don't even have the basic building blocks of informed consent. This is a stacked deck, an uneven playing field. Until those broken systems get fixed, how would one keep the worst of Big Agra's predations from occurring?

 

At the moment, I'm leaning toward agreeing with Ouro for one reason and one reason only: while soda's link to disease seems pretty cut-and-dried, a ban on big sodas won't cure obesity. And when it doesn't cure obesity, other foodstuffs whose links to disease aren't quite so cut-and-dried may get eyed for similar bans. Banning something is a fuckload easier than just fixing the broken systems that brought that food product to prominence.

[Vigile]

Last year, the Obama administration rejected the mayor's request to bar city food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda and other sugary drinks.

 

Seems smart of Bloomberg and pretty stupid of the O admin if you ask me. No doubt lobby pressures were involved in the admin's decision here.

Replace "food stamp recipients" with pretty much anything else. "Black." "White." "Male." "Female." It's a fail.

 

They're not lower class citizens because they need assistance.

 

mwc

 

You're kidding me right?

 

Food stamps are for sustenance. Sugar doesn't have any serious nutritional value. Why should tax payers be paying for something that doesn't add nutritional value in a program designed for that very purpose? Why do you think they get stamps instead of dollars? To ensure they buy food and not gamble, make car payments and buy cigarettes.

 

So, no I'd say you are equivocating when you use the discrimination card.

 

I used to work in a grocery store btw and I saw what many (most?) people bought with food stamps. It's not like this is just denying them a coke to be used as a guilty pleasure. It's more like denying loads of people who just buy pure shit and feed it to their kids on the tax payer dollar. It is a serious problem.

[Vigile]

...daring to challenge the libertarian status quo around here...

Funny, I never labeled myself as a Libertarian. If believing the government has no business telling us how big our sodas can be, then I guess I am indeed a Libertarian - at least by some either/or definitions.

 

Party affiliation or not, this is a libertarian position. It's one I hold too basically.

[mwc]

You're kidding me right?

 

Food stamps are for sustenance. Sugar doesn't have any serious nutritional value. Why should tax payers be paying for something that doesn't add nutritional value in a program designed for that very purpose? Why do you think they get stamps instead of dollars? To ensure they buy food and not gamble, make car payments and buy cigarettes.

 

So, no I'd say you are equivocating when you use the discrimination card.

 

I used to work in a grocery store btw and I saw what many (most?) people bought with food stamps. It's not like this is just denying them a coke to be used as a guilty pleasure. It's more like denying loads of people who just buy pure shit and feed it to their kids on the tax payer dollar. It is a serious problem.

No, I'm not kidding. And I think we discussed this when the topic came up originally awhile back.

 

If I hand a bum money I hand them money. I don't follow them into the store to make sure they buy what I wanted them to buy. I don't expect them to lie to me to get my money. They get my money and I walk away. The money, that was mine, is now theirs.

 

If I'm doing that to a bum why should I do less to someone on food stamps? The money was mine. Now it's theirs. They live in their house. I don't They should hopefully know better about their lives than I do. If, say, I got into a car accident and lost everything due to bills. Why should I sit around eating carrots out of a mandate when I don't want freaking carrots and that has nothing to do with my situation? I want Coke but I can't have it. Why? I got into a car accident and the bills got out of hand. So I must not eat correctly. This is not sensible. It's about a "class" of people. It is about discrimination. They're poor. They're not quite right. They need "help" (in many ways).

 

If you want to address fraud that's another issue. I've heard of people (years ago) selling their food stamps for cash on the dollar. So the people using them weren't even the proper recipients. I'd use my "discount" coupons on junk food too. Why not? Load me up. But how does this address how people who actually use the stamps for their intended purpose being forced into "food plans" (aka diets) so to speak? To combat fraud? To make the stamps less valuable?

 

mwc

[Vigile]

If I hand a bum money I hand them money. I don't follow them into the store to make sure they buy what I wanted them to buy.

 

As I pointed out, you don't hand him money in this case, you hand him a ticket that has very specific restrictions on it. Restrictions that are there for a purpose. He can't buy cigarettes, he can't buy beer. He can buy food. Food designed to keep him from starving. It's not discrimination to further limit the type of food here. Hell, WIC, a similar program, has been limiting the type of food that can be bought since the program began decades ago.

 

You usually make some pretty good points, but you and I are just not going to see eye to eye on this one if this is the position you insist on taking. No big deal, adults can disagree and life doesn't end.

[Ouroboros]

 

This is why I say that it's not reasonable to expect consumers to make truly educated choices about their food. There can't be consumer choice while consumers don't even have the basic building blocks of informed consent. This is a stacked deck, an uneven playing field. Until those broken systems get fixed, how would one keep the worst of Big Agra's predations from occurring?

I liked your point about religion--"Jesus coming back tomorrow"--angle on it. I think there's some truth to that. I remember how I was like that as a Christian. I didn't care for tomorrow since Teh Lard is Coming Back and everything would be fine anyway. That sucks, because you're right, it's difficult to help people make educated decisions with such preconceived notions.

 

At the moment, I'm leaning toward agreeing with Ouro for one reason and one reason only: while soda's link to disease seems pretty cut-and-dried, a ban on big sodas won't cure obesity. And when it doesn't cure obesity, other foodstuffs whose links to disease aren't quite so cut-and-dried may get eyed for similar bans. Banning something is a fuckload easier than just fixing the broken systems that brought that food product to prominence.

You got it!

[Akheia]

You got it!

Yay me!

 

The problem now is that I'm basically advocating a top-down re-envisioning of the entire food supply chain, government, and educational systems. Tell you what, I'll sing about revolution into one hand and shit in the other, and we'll see which fills up first.

[Ouroboros]

The problem now is that I'm basically advocating a top-down re-envisioning of the entire food supply chain, government, and educational systems. Tell you what, I'll sing about revolution into one hand and shit in the other, and we'll see which fills up first.

[mwc]

As I pointed out, you don't hand him money in this case, you hand him a ticket that has very specific restrictions on it. Restrictions that are there for a purpose. He can't buy cigarettes, he can't buy beer. He can buy food. Food designed to keep him from starving. It's not discrimination to further limit the type of food here. Hell, WIC, a similar program, has been limiting the type of food that can be bought since the program began decades ago.

 

You usually make some pretty good points, but you and I are just not going to see eye to eye on this one if this is the position you insist on taking. No big deal, adults can disagree and life doesn't end.

WIC provides supplemental foods, healthcare referrals, nutrition education, and breastfeeding promotion and support to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

From here.

 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, helps low-income people buy food. Although it is a federal government program, it is run by state or local agencies.

Who can get SNAP?

 

Anyone can apply for SNAP, butyou and the other people in your household must meet certain conditions. Everyone who is applying in your household must have or apply for a Social Security number and be either a U.S. citizen, U.S. national or have status as a qualified alien.

The following qualified aliens are eligible for SNAP without a waiting period:

• Legal immigrant children under age 18;
  
• Blind or disabled legal immigrants who receive disability assistance or benefits;
  
• Individuals born on or before August 22, 1931, and who legally resided in the United States on August 22, 1996;
  
• Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) with a military connection (includes Hmong or Highland Laotian tribes that helped the U.S. military during the Vietnam era, veterans, active duty, or a spouse or a child of a veteran or active duty service member);
  
• Refugees admitted under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA);
  
• Asylees under section 208 of the INA;
  
• Immigrants whose deportation or removal is withheld under section 243(h) or 241((3) of the INA;
  
• Cuban or Haitian entrants under section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980;
  
• Amerasian immigrants under section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1988.
  

The following legal aliens are eligible without a waiting period even if they are not “qualified aliens”:

• Hmong or Highland Laotian tribal members (including their spouses and children) who helped the U.S. military during the Vietnam era;
  
• American Indians born in Canada;
  
• Members of Indian tribes under section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).
  

The following qualified aliens are eligible if they have lived in the U.S. for five years from date of entry or if they have sufficient work history (40 work credits) to qualify:

• LPRs (they may be eligible sooner than five years if they have 40 work credits);
  
• Parolees (paroled for at least one year under section 212(d)(5) of INA);
  
• Conditional entrants under 203(a)(7) of INA in effect prior to April 1, 1980;
  
• A battered spouse, battered child or parent or child of a battered person with a petition pending under 204(a)(1)(A) or ( or 244(a)(3) of INA.
  

Most able-bodied people between the ages of 18 and 60 must register for work to qualify for SNAP. Many people may be required to participate in an employment or training program. Some college students also may be eligible.

Resources (things you own)

 

 

Generally, your household cannot have more than $2,000 in resources (things you own). But, if your household includes a person age 60 or older or who is disabled, the limit is $3,000. Resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are not counted for SNAP purposes. Resources include cash, bank accounts and other property.

Not all recources you own count. For ­example, your home and the land it is on do not count for food stamp eligibility. A car or truck counts differently depending on how it is used. Most states now use TANF rules in place of SNAP vehicle rules if the TANF rules are more beneficial to the SNAP household.

 

Most households also must meet an income limit. Certain things do not count as income and can be subtracted from your income. Your household may qualify for other income exclusions if it includes a person age 60 or older or disabled. The income limits vary by household size and may change each year.

How can you apply for food SNAP?

From here.

 

I can see how these are the same.

 

It's no wonder we disagree on these this.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

It's probably these 10% alc Latvian fruit punch things I'm drinking, but I have no idea what your last post has to do with this conversation MWC.

 

 

Really good stuff btw (Cesu Black Currant). It would go over well in the US. Like a ghetto kool aid drink that doesn't smack you between the eyes, but just sneaks up nice and slow and is kind of relaxing.

[Ouroboros]

I just made a smoothie with ice (of course), fresh berries, greek yogurt, and two spoons of organic honey. It's delish!

[Vigile]

I just made a smoothie with ice (of course), fresh berries, greek yogurt, and two spoons of organic honey. It's delish!

 

Sounds delicious.

 

They have a pelmini bar here in Riga, where I'm at for another couple of days (pelmini is Russian-E Euro ravioli) that serves glasses of berry kefir that tastes a lot like your smoothy sounds. Really scrumptious.