Bloomberg Plans a Ban on Sugary Drinks in NYC

[crashhelmet]

Yes, the secret to losing weight is as simple as burning more calories than you ingest.

The issue at hand here is the difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat. Because of that, you can't compare calories for these.

1 pound of chicken breast has the same amount of calories as 1 litre of Mt Dew.

If I eat that much chicken, the fat i'm at risk of gaining is subcutaneous. The fat I'm at risk of gaining from drinking the Mt. Dew is visceral.

The calories from sodas come from the sugar. The calories in the coffee drinks and milkshakes come from the sugar too, but they also come from the milk and other items added.

A 16oz Mocha Frappuccino has 380 calories, but only 188 of those are form sugar.
A 21oz McDonalds chocolate shake has 770 calories, but only 444 of them are from sugar.

[Nekojin]

Even if we accept the premise that "SUGAR=BAD" (which is, itself, a highly flawed statement - too much sugar is bad, but how much is "too much" varies per person), this is still a half-baked, half-assed half-solution borne out of a needless moral panic (which is why the comparison to prohibition is apropos, incidentally).

The carved-out exemptions to the law and obvious omissions (where's the ban on cotton candy and other sugar-and-dye candy concoctions?) make it clear that there's an agenda going on. If he tried to take on the convenience stores, they would bury him. But he's not trying to take them on - quite the opposite, he's handing them sales on a platter.

This is a bad bill in every respect, and deserves to die, uncommented, in committee.

[Andara Bledin]

Prohibition? Seriously? Straw Man?

Not in the least.

They tried it with alcohol and it didn't work. More people kill themselves and others with alcohol than with sugar.

Theyr'e still trying it with the War on (some) drugs, and still failing at an astonishing rate.

I'm not sure whether smoking should be tacked onto 2.0 or 3.0, or if it should be 2.5, but it's in there.

And now the moral majority is after yet another symptom of the same old problem.

Banning stuff does jack shit to stop people from using them. Jack. Shit. All it does is create a criminal class and in some cases provide a profit center for criminals. Good job!

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

But this isn't a ban on the sale of the product.

I'll say it again.

It is not a ban on the sale of the product.

It is a regulation on the amount that can be sold in one serving, in particular places.

Prohibition would mean that no one could sell it. Not the grocery stores, not the convenience stores, and not even the restaurants in 16oz or smaller portions.

[Greenday]

This is more feel-good, "look at how proactive I am," bullshit legislation that's wasting money and time and other resources that could be put to use dealing with real issues.

I don't think it is. As a semi-local (living nearby and NYC is my news), this isn't the first time that he's attacked obesity. He has some personal vendetta against it.

[lordlundar]

So he's at it again. Before it was pushing the state to issue a tax on sugary drinks, and now this.

Not surprised in the slightest.

[Andara Bledin]

It's the scapegoat du jour.

^-.-^

[Amanita]

I remember some mayor here in Canada issuing a challenge to other city mayors, to slim down and lose weight. Bloomberg refused, saying "I already eat right, I don't have to!"

If he really wanted to combat obesity, surely there's better things to do- encouraging more people to exercise, educating people about good food choices, and such.

[Andara Bledin]

If he really wanted to combat obesity, surely there's better things to do- encouraging more people to exercise, educating people about good food choices, and such.

Yeah, but that takes effort and isn't as easy to point to and say, "I made this happen."

Nevermind that what he's doing is a useless bandaid that has nothing to do with the actual problem at hand and will do nothing but raise sales of the top-end size in compensation.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

If he really wanted to combat obesity, surely there's better things to do- encouraging more people to exercise, educating people about good food choices, and such.

He could start by getting some of the fat sucked out of his head.

[Mytical]

See the problem here is not the would be ban on drinks larger then 16oz. Honestly, it is not. It is the fact that people think they should be able to tell others how to eat/drink/etc.

Those who think this is not a problem..have not really put this in perspective. Sure right now it might not affect them. Even if it does, to them it is not a major thing. Until the bill comes along that affects them..and IS a major thing to them..but not somebody else. Why should the State or Federal government get to decide what or how much we eat and drink of something? Before you get off on the 'illegal drugs' bandwagon..hey I am not sure that they should be illegal either..people want to destroy themselves..have at. *shrugs* They hurt somebody else, then the hammer of justice can come down on their head as hard as it likes.

[ngc_7331]

See the problem here is not the would be ban on drinks larger then 16oz. Honestly, it is not. It is the fact that people think they should be able to tell others how to eat/drink/etc.

Those who think this is not a problem..have not really put this in perspective. Sure right now it might not affect them. Even if it does, to them it is not a major thing. Until the bill comes along that affects them..and IS a major thing to them..but not somebody else. Why should the State or Federal government get to decide what or how much we eat and drink of something? Before you get off on the 'illegal drugs' bandwagon..hey I am not sure that they should be illegal either..people want to destroy themselves..have at. *shrugs* They hurt somebody else, then the hammer of justice can come down on their head as hard as it likes.

Amen to that. And in regards to what you said about the illegal drugs, that is exactly what my issue is with the "war on drugs". Yeah, there's going to be people who do stupid things that hurt others to get their fix. There's drugs that will just mess you up to the point that you become more vegetable than animal. Then there's pot. The only thing pot leads to is the vast consumption of Denny's at 3am. Same as a lot of people do after drinking a lot too.

As for big sodas, I would snag a 32oz soda from McDonalds in the morning when I got my breakfast biscuit. That soda would last through my hour morning commute, my 10 hour shift and my 1 hour lunch and get my through my hour commute home with some leftover. I did it because it was cheaper than buying 2 20oz bottles or 2 smaller fountain sodas. And I live in Florida, we do not drink the tap water here so filling a water bottle at work was out of the question. Our water tastes absolutely foul and no dinky little water bottle filter can make it drinkable.

[mikoyan29]

It's interesting that fruit drinks aren't on the list. Ever look at the calories on some of those? In many cases there are more than coke.

[wolfie]

16 ounces (maximum size permitted under proposed law) is the "small" at many fast food places (in fact, at Subway, which a number of organizations recognize as the healthiest fast food place, the "small" is 20 ounces). Since the limit only applies to sugary drinks (diet soda and unsweetened iced tea, for example, are not covered), what happens at places with "self-serve" fountains? How are they supposed to enforce people who buy the "large" only filling it with non-sugar drinks?

I can just see some place without an "exclusive" contract offering both 16 and 32 ounce drinks, but the 32 (of course) only being allowed for non-sugar drinks, and having regular Coke and Diet Pepsi (or regular Pepsi and Diet Coke) as their cola options. Since a 32 ounce is always far less than double the price of a 16 ounce, imagine the lawyers for the "sugar cola" company coming down hard on the city for legislating that someone who buys 32 ounces of their product (only sugar variety offered, therefore can only be sold as 2x16 ounces) pays more than someone who buys 32 ounces of their competitor's product (only diet variety offered, therefore can be sold as 1x32 ounces).

[bex1218]

Some of the comments on the article is saying how this is going to educate people and what not. I doubt this is going to do anything. Its only for those who go out somewhere and pay for their drinks. They can still go to the grocery store and get a 2 liter or a 12 pack of soda and spend less, yet drink more than what McDonalds would give them.