Slog Comments

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
So Black Women still can't buy Big Gulps and that's ok, even if they can serve in combat?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM · Report this
2
Instead of outlawing Big Gulps, how about they just put a tax on obese people? The more overweight you are, the more taxes you pay. That way you can combat the problem directly, without affecting people who aren't a part of the problem.
Posted by GermanSausage on January 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM · Report this
3
The opponents of the NYC soda cap are fine with social engineering as long as it is conducted by Coca-Cola. What else would you call their manipulative marketing and pricing campaigns? But as soon as government gets involved - whoa! - that's "nanny-statism!" Bullshit. It's time to hold industry accountable. Companies do not and should not have carte blanche to sell products that make us sick, and sugar-sweetened beverages are no exception.
Posted by facet on January 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM · Report this
4
You can justify most any insane policy by saying "it might cost the government something".
Posted by ryanmm on January 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 5
Can't we just remove the corn subsidies and tariffs that prop up the corn sugar industry used as cheap filler instead?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM · Report this
6
@5: I'm all for that, but why not do both?
Posted by facet on January 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report this
7
The big problem is that a lot of major chains - supermarkets, 7-11's and so on are excluded from the ban, whereas smaller stores, many of which are ethnically owned, are not. So, basically, it is okay to buy a 44 oz Big Gulp as long as it comes from a major chain, but you can't buy an 18 oz soda from Leroy's Deli.
Posted by randoma on January 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report this
8
@7: I don't see chains being favored over independent businesses. If you have a food preparation license from the NYC Department of Health, you have to follow their rules. Chains like McDonalds and Burger King are covered; bodegas that don't serve hot food are not. It is true that 7-11 and stores without a license from the DOH are not covered, but that is hardly NYC's fault. And I don't accept the argument: "this plan won't single-handedly solve the entire problem, so you might as well not even try." The purpose of the cap is to restrict businesses from selling more than 16 ounces of soda and claiming that it is a single serving. The policy covers most soda sold in open containers (7-11 fountains excluded, unfortunately) and bottles served with ready-to-eat food. So I don't really see a problem.
Posted by facet on January 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM · Report this
delirian 10
Someone please explain to me when public health changed its definition from stopping diseases and keeping restaurants clean to policing what people eat and drink. FFS.

The argument that overweight people burden the health system, so we have a right to punish them is bullshit. Overweight people and smokers pay extra fees for healthcare and additional taxes for their entire lives and then they die early saving decades of healthcare costs.

The government is not a fucking nanny. People are grown ups. If you want to eat raw fish sushi, eat cheese curds, drink raw milk, and then smoke a joint afterwards, then who gives a fuck as long as you are aware of the dangers?
Posted by delirian on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM · Report this
11
One bet you can make is that for every social engineer, there are thousands of socially engineered. Which group do you aspire to?
Posted by mt on January 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM · Report this
12
@10, You're assuming that people are fully aware of the dangers. Last I checked, none of those things come with a warning label. (Raw milk might, depending on where you live.) On the other hand, have there been any studies on the actual effect of the cigarette warning labels?
Posted by randoma on January 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM · Report this
Sam Levine 13
Comments are done in @1, good job.
Posted by Sam Levine http://levinetech.net on January 23, 2013 at 7:43 PM · Report this
14
@10: "Someone please explain to me when public health changed its definition from stopping diseases and keeping restaurants clean to policing what people eat and drink."

Public health is *still* concerned with stopping diseases, including chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, and cancer. That's why we're interested in reigning in the manipulative and abusive practices of the soda industry - including the practice of "supersizing."
Posted by facet on January 23, 2013 at 10:31 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 15
@10 is absolutely correct.

@12 and @14,

The dangers of being fat, or of inhaling smoke, or of injecting drugs, or of driving too fast, or of playing with fire, or running with scissors... those are all easily available to anyone who wants the information. That information is painfully easy to obtain and is broadcasted constantly anyway even to people too slow to figure it out on their own.

@14, reigning in the manipulative soda industry. What about drugs? Marijuana and other drugs are deadly to society, yet there are pushes to LEGALIZE some of them, rather than working to fight them even more. And what about nicotine? and caffeine? Should we have the government ban everything that might be dangerous to us? That'd be a big fucking list.
The problem is not with coca-cola, the problem is that everyone has a list of "What I Hate" and "What I Love" and everyone wants to ban what they hate and promote what they love. And that's the problem... they can't be satisfied if they're the only one who hates/loves whatever... they need to have EVERYONE hate/love what they hate/love or they feel inadequate. But therein lies the problem. Everyone's got their own pet list and no one will compromise.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 24, 2013 at 12:24 AM · Report this
16
@15: The essential premise of your statement is that people sick with chronic diseases made an educated choice to consume the products that made them sick. I don't accept that. Talk to someone with diabetes and ask them if they chose to be sick. This is the real world, not an Ayn Rand novel. There are profound power imbalances between manufacturers and marketers and the people who are buying their soda. These companies spend billions of dollars a year engaging in manipulative marketing - often to children. They price their sodas so that it makes no economic sense to buy anything but the largest size, which seems to get larger every year. There is absolutely a role for society to step in and say "enough is enough."

And I love the "prohibition" canard. No one is calling for soda to be made illegal. We're calling for sensible regulations to be placed on the sugar-sweetened beverage industry, which is completely out of control. Soda consumption has a far greater burden on society than marijuana consumption. That said, I don't think either should be illegal. But they do need to be regulated. Like, you know, alcohol.
Posted by facet on January 24, 2013 at 8:52 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 17
@15,

Speaking of drugs, if we are to legalize some of them, I have no problem with regulations that would only allow individuals to buy a mandated maximum amount of drugs every day in an attempt to prevent overuse.

And like #16 said, no one is proposing banning anything.
Posted by keshmeshi on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 18
@10,

People are still welcome to drink as much soda as they want. What is not allowed in NYC is for businesses to sell sugar water by the gallon.
Posted by keshmeshi on January 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 19
@16,17,
They ARE proposing a ban. The very first sentence in Charles' quoted text says "a proposed ban."

I agree that regulations are a good idea, but not regulations on the size of soda one can buy. That doesn't even make sense. You can't stop people from getting things they want if all you do is attack the supply without addressing the demand (for example, the war on drugs). If anything's going to be banned or regulated, it should be advertising and marketing. Of course, that means we need to regulate (or ban) some freedom of speech.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM · Report this
20
@19: Again, you're assuming that people *want* to drink large quantities of soda. If that were really the case then this policy would not work, because you are allowed to get multiple sodas or get refills. The soda companies would love it, because it would mean more money for them. But the truth is, the soda companies know better than anyone that limiting the sizes of soda will reduce consumption. The opposite has certainly been true: increasing soda sizes has gotten people to drink more soda.

The science is very clear: people consume what they think is normal. What is normal has been aggressively manipulated by the soda industry. The 16 ounce soda size that they are being limited to? Coca-Cola marketed that as serving THREE people in 1955:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0-1lDZnwInw/TX…

People have had enough with these companies profiting by pushing products on us that harm our health. The solution to the diet-related chronic disease crisis (it's not only obesity, y'all) facing this country needs to involve corporate and social responsibility as much as it involves the always-touted "personal responsibility."
Posted by facet on January 24, 2013 at 3:30 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.