So what do you all think of the NYC ban on large portions of sugary drinks?
I'm a bit curious.
For those of you who don't know, Mayor Bloomberg wants to ban all large (32oz) sugary drinks. Diet drinks, water and drinks with less than 25 calories an ounce are ok (if I remember correctly...someone tell me if I'm wrong).
I live JUST OUTSIDE of the NYC area (literally. if I walk a few blocks, I'm in NYC) and I work in NYC, so this has been a hot topic of conversation around here.
People are for and against it all around. I find I'm on the fence. It won't personally change anything I do because I don't drink regular soda and I never have, and other sugary drinks are just too sweet for me. Also I would never buy such a big drink anyway @_@ I would have to go to the bathroom for hours.
I can see both sides of the issue. Who is the Mayor to tell people how much they can or can't drink? On the other hand, why does anyone need to drink such a large amount of empty calories?
Right now there are these hilarious commercials (if you live in my area then you know what I'm talking about) that compare drinking soft drinks to eating packets of sugar. I'm not sure they'll help or if this ban will—after all, putting calorie counts on the menu hasn't been shown to change food choices—but maybe it'll make people aware of what they're putting into their bodies.
I don't know, I'm a teacher so this is my bias showing, but I really think we should focus on education. Teaching people about calories in vs calories out, healthier foods, macronutrients and exercise seems like a better investment to me.
I can see both sides of the issue. Who is the Mayor to tell people how much they can or can't drink? On the other hand, why does anyone need to drink such a large amount of empty calories?
No one needs to drink that much, but then, no one should have their portion sizes be dictated to them. I'd be in favour of education then letting people make up their own minds. The adverts demonstrating how much sugar in there seem a very good idea, but they're like sticking a, what is it you guys call them, band-aids? Like sticking one of those on someone who's been disembowelled.
Unfortunately, banning those drinks is probably a lot cheaper, short-term, than decent nutritional education for the entire population.
I also believe that education is the key. I can understand why they're doing it but this is a very nanny state step to take. Besides, can't people just buy several smaller ones if they really want to?
It reminds me of when they made packets of 10 cigarettes illegal, what difference did it really make? If anything I'd say people ended up smoking more because they had to buy a 20 box instead.
People are going to do what they're going to do which is why I think proper education about nutrition and calories is really the only way. I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't know that drinking a large Coke is bad for them anyway.
I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another. I don't feel it is "taking away freedom" you are still free to buy a 12 pack and probably continue to get refills when dining out (?)
What I think the federal government should do is impose a 1 cent tax on all pop, maybe 2 cents once you get up to 20 ounces. Put all that into to help funding for health care. It has got to add up to at least a couple billion dollars. I mean, look at the taxes on cigarettes, they must add up to $4-$5 a pack and people still smoke. Granted, not near as many as use to.
A more effective solution would be for insurance companies to raise their premiums for obese people and smokers, as they generate more lifetime claims. These expenses are disproportionately covered by the ones who take care of themselves.
While banning 32 oz. drinks "might" lessen sugary drink intake by giving people a reality check as to how much soda really is in a 32 oz. cup, it probably won't do much. I mean, people that've developed enough taste for soda to drink 32 oz. in the first place will habitually drink that much via refills or a few smaller drinks anyway.
I'm inclined to agree with the education suggestion, but I just don't know how effective it is. My anatomy teacher spent an entire semester going in-depth about nutrition, calories, exercise, and how disgusting fast food is. He even brought in a kid's meal set and left it on the table for a quarter to show us how it doesn't mold. We watched a video about ammonia being used to "clean" fast food meat, we blended a hamburger to see how much fat there was in it, and we did nutrition/calorie logs for one of the quarters. Kids in my class still went out everyday to eat hamburgers and fries. -shrugs-
I'm really going with the education suggestion because—like I said—I'm a teacher and I know how powerful it is when you teach children early enough, AND because I had no idea about this myself. I didn't really know anything about nutrition and had to find it all out on my own. While I'm glad I learned what I did, I know that not everyone has the capability to teach themselves something.
As anyone here knows, it's also difficult to overwrite a lifetime of unhealthy habits.
We all know you can lead a horse to water but not force him to drink. However if you do give him the tools necessary in the form of a proper education, you can at least hope that he chooses to drink in the most informed manner possible.
I totally agree with everything said by electrongirl. If Bloomberg doesn't want a big sugary drink, that's his decision to make for himself. It's MY decision to make for myself. He's just a human being. THAT human being has no right to tell THIS human being what I can eat and drink.
Total BS. New Yorkers are not going to say "oh right, I won't drink soda" and magically replace 2 L of Coke with 2 L of water. Someone who drinks lots of soda and has been doing so for a long time will just buy 3 moderately sized sodas instead of one big one.
Honestly I think policing junk food and even to some extent printing calories on menus just makes people more resistant to healthy change. They feel it's being forced on them, which makes them less inclined to actually listen to what is being taught.
The education question is HARD and nutrition/healthy living isn't a one-size-fits-all shirt. I wish there were some magic way to gently inform people that vegetables aren't scary, you can have ice cream on a weekday, and life really is better when you aren't riding a bloaty, oversalted blood sugar roller coaster.
I feel very strongly on this subject. Bloomberg should stick to politics instead of policing people on what they can and can't do/eat because it's unhealthy.
The only thing this 32oz drink ban might accomplish is giving places more revenue because they'll order two smaller drinks that will equal the bigger drink. Or just drink that much in refills. I think everyone with half a brain is aware that soda is not good for you. If you choose to drink it in obnoxious quantities, that is your decision and it doesn't intrude on anyone else's day.
There is no reason anyone needs that much soda but it is not the government's job to control that. I don't think it's going to help anything. People who drink soda in moderation won't even notice the ban but the people who don't drink it in moderation are going to find a way around it.
Drinking a medium instead of a large isn't going to change their health, especially not if the calorie counts on menus didn't. I also don't think "shock" advertising is going to do anything. I doubt the ability of commercials to shame someone into stopping a bad habit. We all know most sodas are all sugar.
Generally if it has to do with my body, and doesn't involve illegal substances, I want the government to stay the f-ck out of it. It's a slippery slope.
I have more or less libertarian views on the role of government in our personal lives. While I agree people should limit sugary drinks (personally I drink none, including juice) I don't believe it's the role of government to step in and tell people what they can and cannot eat or drink, and in what portions. I think that's overstepping, personally. We definitely have an obesity problem in America, but I think if the gov't wants to make a difference they should launch an education campaign in a similar manner to what they did with smoking. I also think the gov't itself could benefit from a little education- such as how the food pyramid is pretty much designed for fattening people up.
I also think the gov't itself could benefit from a little education- such as how the food pyramid is pretty much designed for fattening people up.
Agreed. I think they made a little progress when they switched from the pyramid to the plate but, considering so many of Washington's food legislation is bought and paid for by food lobbyists I doubt we will see any real truths from the government anytime soon.
I do not live in NYC but I did wish that restaurants in my area were required to put calorie information on the menus, it would make my ordering so much easier.
While I do not necessarily think it is the governments place to tell people what they can and cannot eat, I WOULD like to see them ban ll junk food and soda being purchased by people who utilize food stamps and state health care. If we, the tax payers, are paying for their food and medical care, hece obeisty related illnesses, I think that the government could impose limits on what types of food can be purchased.
So what do you all think of the NYC ban on large portions of sugary drinks?
