Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawsuit Challenges New York Sugary Drink Ban

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the fattening-in-the-first-degree dept.

Government 642

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.'"

cancel ×

642 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (4, Insightful)

wmbetts (1306001) | about 2 years ago | (#41644035)

The law is ridiculous hopefully it gets over turned.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41644131)

Ridiculous laws for ridiculous people? Mind you, many things got regulated precisely because a bunch of idiots started destroying their lives with them.

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41644167)

Oh, one thing comes to my mind: They could allow for large servings under the condition that the glass/cup will have multiple mandatory photos of repulsively obese people on it. Just like with cigarettes and the warning labels on them.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644239)

How about the same for the background of every website you visit?

Re:Good (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41644315)

You mean that large pages should have pictures of people with thick glasses?

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644275)

Want to hear a sad story? A pretty, wholesome white teenage girl who becomes impregnated by a black man and then the black man skips town leaving her and her family to raise the baby but that's not all of it because the black man infected the white girl with herpes and the white girl was born into a Catholic family so she can't abort the baby and so mothers with herpes have breakouts when they have babies and the baby's born blind because of the herpes outbreak and not only is the baby born blind but the baby also has herpes for life.

Goddamn, K.S. Bukakke, that's a pretty sad story, isn't it? It makes my stomach turn.

Re:Good (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41644303)

Exactly! See what those artificially sweetened drinks make people do? It's horrible, horrible, I tell you!

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644415)

People started destroying their lives with them because they started to rely on agencies like the government to tell them what was and was not safe to drink.

Now you enact this law and people will look after their own health with even less responsability. This is the worst possible solution to the problem. Theres no doubt that sugary ( and non-sugary), particuallry sacrin and corn startch drinks are the worst. Real sugar being the least damaging. But not good at all for general healths sake.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644551)

Between the government and the private sector, I know who's lied to me more about products. Hint: it rhymes with sivate prector.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644151)

Agree. Instead of one 24-ounce soda they get two 16 ounce ones. This is soooo much healthier.

Re:Good (0)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 years ago | (#41644247)

People will start buying refrigerated two liter bottles, which cost less than two 16oz sodas.. Or the poor guys who've worked up a thirst after working their asses off all day will spend twice as much buying two 16oz drinks.

The liberal streets are paved with good intentions.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41644397)

The liberal streets...

You Americans keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Good (2)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about 2 years ago | (#41644605)

They also don't understand the meaning of communism.

Re:Good (1, Funny)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41644673)

They also don't understand the meaning of communism.

Or liter... which makes me think he's not an American at all....

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644593)

People will start buying refrigerated two liter bottles, which cost less than two 16oz sodas.. Or the poor guys who've worked up a thirst after working their asses off all day will spend twice as much buying two 16oz drinks.

The liberal streets are paved with good intentions.

And those poor guys would be idiots, because they're trying to quench their thirst with carbonated drinks, which only increase thirst. Truly thirsty people need water.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41644181)

Drinks used to be served in smaller containers, and society survived just fine. Restaurants started using larger containers to exploit flaws in human psychology, allowing them to trick customers into buying more than they want or need. This is done to make more money, and to hell with the health of the general public.

Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.

Re:Good (2)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#41644243)

Politicians do it better than anyone--let's ban them. And cosmetics, too.

I don't stand a snowballs chance? I cut soda out of my diet completely. Hmm.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41644305)

Advertisers spend half a trillion dollars every year to control you. Any one individual might be able to resist, but on the balance, advertising works. They wouldn't spend so much money on it if it didn't.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644253)

Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is.

Actually, I've never in my entire life purchased one of these mammoth sodas - or for that matter the huge butter soaked movie popcorns. I'm also quite normal sized by 1960 standards and atypically thin by 2012 standards, probably in the bottom 10% of the population by weight for my height. I look "skinny" to most people, although 50 years ago I'd be considered normal.

All the advertising in the world is useless if you would USE that free will, rather than mindlessly follow the herd. The more we build a nanny state where people don't have to use good judgment, the more people can't use good judgment, because they aren't in the habit. You can't protect people against everything, except by giving them the wherewithal to protect themselves.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644363)

Maybe not you but you live in a nation of bibendums.

People need to be told what to eat because they are incapable of deciding on their own to limit their intake.

Re:Good (0)

Sebastopol (189276) | about 2 years ago | (#41644553)

Congratulations on being so bad ass.

You've dodged herd mentality so, so very well, you had to brag about your accomplishment on /.!

I have two words for you:

Baaa.

and

Baaa.

Welcome to the flock.

Re:Good (2)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 2 years ago | (#41644665)

Oh tell me great wise one... what must I do to stop being part of the flock and to exercise free will?

Re:Good (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41644779)

go live on the side of a mountain and hunt with your bare hands. Otherwise, you will buy goods that are marketed to you. I'm sure you either: a) drive a car, b) eat food bought in the store, c) wear clothes you didn't make d) surf the web e) all of the above.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644557)

Or, just, you know... Don't drink buckets of soda?

I mean, I know the fast food executives have a deathgrip on your brain, but... really? Really?

I don't think so. (3, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41644659)

Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is.

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.

Re:Good (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about 2 years ago | (#41644203)

The law is ridiculous hopefully it gets over turned.

Going further: Didn't we try this before with alcohol -- ban alcohol and we'll eliminate alcoholism? Instead of creating a potential for a smaller version of that black market and the associated criminal activity with increasing costs in enforcement that went with it, a campaign to educate (which I'm not a big fan of as being an alternative) might be a useful way of redirecting those costs. Would something blunt, such as: "Hey, New Yorkers. Tired of the rep for being an unhealthy Fat F***; drink a diet cola instead!" possibly succeed?

bääääh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644395)

"diet Cola instead"

I fell really sorry for your Merkins. In my world we still drink water and juice that is not 100% chemicals. Yeah, the idiots drink Coke, too, but they are by no means the majority.

Here is a professional drink recipe from the dastardly french communists: Take a lemon, some good water and some sugar. Force the fluid out of the lemon and mix everything. Tastes much, much better than the packaged piss labelled "bitter lemon". Still a lot of sugar, but nobody forces you to do that more than once per day. And you actually get some valuable stuff from that lemon. Stuff that helps your body to fend off a cold, for example. Stuff that helps your body to functional properly. What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.

Re:bääääh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644531)

I don't recall ever going to a supermarket that doesn't have lemons. also, I can't believe you put sugar into your lemonade! don't you know that sugar has no nutritional value?! Furthermore, by packaging sugar in a large bag (purely for their own profit of course) those dastardly grocery stores are encouraging you to use to much sugar when you make lemonade. We should definitely pass a law requiring sugar to be sold in individual quantities of no more than 1 teaspoon per pack.

Re:bääääh (1)

hutsell (1228828) | about 2 years ago | (#41644571)

... Hey, New Yorkers. Tired of the rep for being an unhealthy Fat F***; drink a diet cola instead!"

"diet Cola instead"

I fell really sorry for your Merkins. In my world we still drink water and juice that is not 100% chemicals. Yeah, the idiots drink Coke, too, but they are by no means the majority. ...

My routine: water rarely and usually nothing at all with perhaps way too much coffee (with nothing added). My original comment considered using something similar to the AC's reply until I realized the comment should stay within theme of the problem -- its location and the need for the customer to buy something -- water, when requested, is supplied for free in a small cup in most of the States. Although I'm not that familiar with a city like Manhattan, their response to water might be "get lost"!

Abstracting From Lemons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644687)

There are many post-processing methods (such as pasteurization - is that the right term ?) to make those juices (and I don't mean the Corporate Cola-shit) stable and not ferment/alcoholize (again not the proper term, but you get it) in short order.

Here in Germany we can buy easily 50 different juices which are not made out of shitty chemicals and shitty synthetic color substances. Look a this:

http://www.kumpfsaft.de/un/unvo.htm

And we also make juice ourselves sometimes, as our grandfathers and grandmothers have done. Alcoholic and non-alocoholic and everyone with an average IQ can do it. It is just a matter of getting the fat ass out of the TV chair. Have you ever tasted fermented apple juice ? Not the same as beer, but as soon as you know it, you will like it as much as beer. It is also called "Apple Wine" here.

Some Links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644763)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apfelwein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization

A speciality from the GDR who had to replace expensive citrus fruits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippophae_rhamnoides#Food

Re:bääääh (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41644709)

What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.

You've never actually set foot in the US, have you?

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Fuzion (261632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644555)

No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.

It's very unlikely that a black market rise because I don't see anyone willing to pay any significant amount for a single 32-oz container instead of two 16-oz containers.

Silliness (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41644047)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57506856-10391704/nyc-school-lunches-fall-below-minimum-calorie-requirement/ [cbsnews.com]

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).

Re:Silliness (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41644149)

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).

While soda can and used to be made using real sugar, they haven't from the big corps in quite awhile. And seeing that you can only go Pepsi Products or Coke Products, you are stuck with soda made with HFCS instead of sugar.

Ok Mr Cretin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644467)

Get yourself 0,3l of a good mineral water, 1 lemon and about 50g of sugar. Squeeze the lemon and mix the fluid with the water. Then add the sugar while stirring the water/lemon fluid. Stick it to the megacorpos.

Re:Ok Mr Cretin (1)

Kickasso (210195) | about 2 years ago | (#41644791)

50g? Ridiculous. Start with 1/10th of that.

Re:Silliness (3, Informative)

Kickasso (210195) | about 2 years ago | (#41644599)

Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi do make real cane sugar drinks. You just need to know where and when to look for them.

Re:Silliness (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41644621)

While soda can and used to be made using real sugar, they haven't from the big corps in quite awhile.

Early 1980's, import tariffs, import limits, and a mandatory price floor even for sugar produced locally were established by our "its for your own good" government. The upshot of all this is that Americans need to spend 3 to 4 times as much for sugar as the rest of the world does.

The only solution is to make it illegal to try to legislate new victim-less crimes into existence, because unlike the "crimes" they are trying to prevent.. these legislations arent victim-less.

That is seriously an unhealthy amount (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644085)

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.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644111)

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.

So real freedom means NOTHING to you?

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41644153)

Plus, why could I not then just drink multiple ones?
Makes as much sense as those TSA rules about x amount in a bottle. So instead of one big bottle that's not allowed, you put the solution in two small ones, each of which is allowed.

> I cannot sell you this 16oz cup of soda, but you can buy these two 8oz for the same price.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41644391)

Plus, why could I not then just drink multiple ones?
Makes as much sense as those TSA rules about x amount in a bottle. So instead of one big bottle that's not allowed, you put the solution in two small ones, each of which is allowed.

> I cannot sell you this 16oz cup of soda, but you can buy these two 8oz for the same price.

It doesn't make sense if the goal is to prevent all people from consuming more than x ounces of soda.

However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case - it's about changing behavior in the general population. Sometimes public health policy decisions can even be harmful for certain individuals, but the overall health benefit is worth it (i.e. a small percentage of the population may be allergic to a vaccination, but overall vaccinations save more lives than are lost to complications from the vaccine).

I can believe that banning soda sizes larger than 16 ounces will result in a net decrease in consumption. There are certainly going to be some people that, when limited to a "tiny" 16 ounce soda, they'll get around the ban by buying two 16 ouncers when they really just wanted a 24 ounce soda, but 2 sodas are harder to carry than one, and are in general more expensive (though I wouldn't be surprised to see 2-for-one specials after the ban (Buy one 16 oz and get one free!). It seems unlikely that many people are going to buy a hot dog from a vendor and try to juggle two 16 ounce sodas in their hands - but if they really need that much sugar, they still have that option, which is why these plaintiffs will probably not win this lawsuit.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (2)

uncqual (836337) | about 2 years ago | (#41644671)

Probably they will start having permanent 2-for-1 specials on "spill proof" cups of soda containing 12 oz. of soda and 12 oz. of air to prevent spills from sloshing.

Perhaps some customers will notice that they can pour one into the other and throw out the now empty cup. Outside of the additional landfill fodder and greenhouse gases from the production and transportation of twice as many 24 ounce cups, all's back pretty much to normal.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644163)

So real freedom means NOTHING to you?

Real freedom means you take care of yourself from the moment you're born to the moment you die.
Somehow I seriously doubt that is the case even in the free market loving america.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

dyfortune (1985304) | about 2 years ago | (#41644217)

That's independence not freedom. If I'm sick and my mum takes care of me am I not free?

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#41644261)

Yes, banning certain sizes of soft drinks is just like your mommy taking care of you when you have a boo boo.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (2)

dyfortune (1985304) | about 2 years ago | (#41644389)

You have missed my point. I'm describing a situation where I'm free to do what I want but I don't have the independence to do it in response to AC. Real freedom is making your own choices and having the ability to carry them out not taking care of yourself from the moment you are borne.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644283)

I took care of your mum, for free.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644451)

And you were worth every penny of it. And smaller, too.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644143)

I hear that BASE jumping and hang gliding can be dangerous too. I guess we shouldn't allow adults to make there own choices; I mean you see to know what's best for us all.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644209)

While I see your point there is a difference. Obese individuals don't usually die quickly, they take many years of gradual decline to pass away and tend to use a lot more than average medical care in the process. Base jumpers tend to pass almost instantly and care generally is confined to an ambulance ride to be pronounced DOA at the end of it.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#41644297)

Wouldn't that be even more of a reason to ban those activities then?

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644379)

People should be allowed to kill themselves however they see fit. As far as health care, if you are a bad driver you pay more for car insurance. I don't see why health insurance should be any different.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644655)

People should be allowed to kill themselves however they see fit.

Uhmm no. Killing people is called murder. Suicide is actually illegal, since it's a form of murder. People should not be allowed to kill anyone, including themselves.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41644835)

you gonna lock up a corpse for shooting itself in the head? I thought not.

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644439)

*rant on*

If it was "sugar" in them it wouldn't be near so bad as the HFCS that is in them. Primarily controlled by Monsanto, funded by the US government(American taxpayers), HFCS is more harmful to your health, "sugar" was manipulated to be far more expensive and regulated with multiple sources being pushed out of the market, etc, etc, etc,

Do some research folks and watch for heavy moves to get this overturned and blocked in other locals with critics to Monsanto's takeover of the food chain silenced further even as more take up the fight against them.

They will also get assists from the pharmaceutical industry since Monsanto helps them make money by creating the "need" for type II diabetes treatment as well as the multitude of other related problems that come with it.

*rant off*

Re:That is seriously an unhealthy amount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644455)

[Shrug]
Around here, people would merely buy a 2L bottle of pop from the grocery store and guzzle down as much as they could stomach. Serving size is irrelevant if you can get the same product some other way, or buy more than one serving. What, you buy one "below 50% daily intake" drink, and then the waiter tells you "Sorry, you've had enough" when you try to order another?

Look, it's bad for you, not poisonous. There shouldn't be a law against it any more than there should be a law against 16oz steaks, poutine (if you don't know what that is, you don't want to know -- google at your own risk), or whatever other food. If you want to make the argument questionable food choices shouldn't be available to children in school, then I'd agree that is worthwhile to do. But we're talking about a law that applies to adults here: adults who should be free to eat unhealthily if that is what they want to do. It's a stupid law.

16oz is very small (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 2 years ago | (#41644097)

I don't have that big a problem with the law itself, but the size they chose. Having a hard limit of 16oz is very small for a cold drink. It should have been set at 20oz or something more reasonable.

Re:16oz is very small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644183)

Are you fucking kidding me? 16oz is VERY SMALL? That's more than a Pepsi can, which should be enough for anyone who isn't some sort of massive fat fuck.

Re:16oz is very small (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644221)

I drink more water than that at one time, especially when you consider most of it is taken up by crushed ice. If you fill a 16 ounce cup with ice 12 ounces of pepsi will not go in the cup.

Re:16oz is very small (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41644449)

If a restaurant is filling the cup with ice and then adding 3 ounces of soda to fill the gaps, then that's the fault of the restaurant, and you should complain. You shouldn't need to order a 64 ounce drink in order to get a reasonable amount of actual liquid.

Re:16oz is very small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644309)

Except that a "pepsi can" contains about 12oz of actual fluid.

A 16oz container of fountain soda with a reasonable amount of ice contains a simiilar amount, maybe a little less even. And as most non-self-serve places fill the container to the top with ice first, you often get under 10oz of actual fluid.

Maybe we should have a law limiting the amount of ice they put in? Or require the fluid volume delivered to be given. Of course, this would be somewhat contrary to laws like NYC's recent one, causing all kinds of confusion.

Re:16oz is very small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644393)

Even less for fountain soda, if the establishment waters it down.

Re:16oz is very small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644523)

For some people, 16oz is a big portion, and for some, it's a small portion. I'm a big guy--not a fat fuck, in fact I'm tall and athletic--and I drink like 32oz liquid with each of my meals. I don't drink much soda, but when I do, I want more than 16 oz.

Re:16oz is very small (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#41644191)

Hahaha, I'm scared of the fact that you think anything about this is reasonable. I'm guessing you're not "pro-choice?"

Re:16oz is very small (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644199)

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.

Re:16oz is very small (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644285)

I don't have that big a problem with the law itself, but the size they chose. Having a hard limit of 16oz is very small for a cold drink. It should have been set at 20oz or something more reasonable.

Are you freaking kidding me. 16 oz is small for a cold drink ?
The Coca-Cola can is normally 330 ml in Europe, and I suppose the rest of the civilised world (US excepted).
330 ml is roughly speaking 12 oz. And it sure doesn't feel small.

20 oz for a cold drink ? Man it's no surprise you're all a bunch of obese people. Disgusting.

And to be precise, the ban is not really a ban since you can always order 2 or more drinks. All it does is set the maximum size of a cold drink. So now if you want to drink 20 oz you'll ask for 2 drinks instead of one. Yeah yeah, the New Yourlk city council is definitely taking your precious freedoms away. What a bunch of cry babies you are.

Re:16oz is very small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644515)

That is why so many are bibendums.

Re:16oz is very small (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41644331)

I like how you consider 16oz small, but 20oz is ok. Actually the thing is MOST fast food restaurants have 20oz sizes, some don't have a smaller size. So a 20oz size makes sense (only in that is a common size today, not because actual value means anything)
But the law itself doesn't make sense. What it DOES do is encourage more trash (Mr Major said himself "you can always buy 2") And of course for people who want more and buy two, it means more money for the company.
Just stop trying to legislate everything in our lives.
What will the next thing be? No double burgers? Only one alcoholic drink per night? Only one scoop of ice cream? Steak can't be larger than 8oz? No more cheese on your deli sandwich? Must you lite mayo instead of real mayo? Can't sell white bread only wheat?

Re:16oz is very small (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 2 years ago | (#41644533)

Actually, using AC's numbers above about %sugar that 500 cal is the recommended amount daily from sugar, it's still not far off. A 20 oz soda is about 250 calories... So you should only have 2 per day. I'm sure they choose 16 oz because kids are smaller and need less.

I suppose that we have too much beverage inflation going on. Cans were 12oz and bottles were 16.7 oz (1/2 L) for a long time... Then the fountain soda inflation took over... A Big Gulp was the biggest thing ... In 1980... At 32 oz... And that's not even special now.

http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-reviews/super-sized-beverages

Now if they will address the next big beverage problem... Caffeine. That stuff is just as evil as High Fructose Corn Syrup. Not to mention all the health problems it enables by encouraging sleep deprivation (including over eating sugary beverages, and other stuff to stay awake)

Then we can have New York work on Pride, Greed, Usury....

16 oz is less than 500ml (4, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 2 years ago | (#41644821)

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.

We're the GOVERNMENT, and WE know what's best! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644133)

Ooooh! Hold my PEE PEE! I can't THINK FOR MYSELF!

What do you expect from a nation of Bibendums ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644135)

Watch photos of american citizens in the sixties and seventies. All age groups, they were healthy and slim.
Nowadays, your run of the mill american citizen is nothing more than a bibendum.
This ban is a very very very small return to sanity. Having a healthy population is a good thing.

Re:What do you expect from a nation of Bibendums ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644575)

It's sad to see those bibendums trying to move rapidly or climb several stories via staircases.

I don't think badly of them but I do pity them. They will never know what it should feel like to be a normal sized human being.

A liberal city. (3, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#41644169)

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.

Re:A liberal city. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644233)

The flaming was not because it was far-fetched scare-mongering, but because what the conservatives were saying is entirely plausible and predictable.

Re:A liberal city. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644255)

We're just looking out for you health since you obviously aren't as smart as we are. By the way, we've noticed you haven't been exercising enough. Time for your mandatory 5 mile hike.

Re:A liberal city. (1, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#41644469)

What I find interesting is that liberals will get whipped into a frenzy over any limitations on a woman ripping an unborn human out of their body, but think its a-ok to pass laws banning them from putting more than 16 oz of soda into it.

WTF?

Liberals, they're all for your liberty except when they think you're living your life wrong, then you don't deserve any.

Re:A liberal city. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644547)

Don't blame this on the liberals. This bill is massively unpopular among everyone. It was Bloomberg's weird idea.

Re:A liberal city. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644691)

Actually, what liberals have been resisting is the paranoid conservative fantasies about this leading to some sort of police specifically tasked with regulating your food intake.

Which despite misrepresentations to the contrary, is not the case for this law. I can't count how many times I've seen somebody saying that this is a ban that impacts consumers, that you'll be arrested for drinking too much soda.

That's nothing but hyperbole, as the reality is this is a regulation on a commercial enterprise and what it can portions it can serve. A regulation similar to what you'll find all over the place. Just check how many states have had size limits on servings of alcohol.

Including a few bastions of "conservatism" like Alabama.

But heck, you still bothered by this law? Fine, here's my free market solution. Put next to the price the profit level. Then consumers will make an informed decision. Oh wait, these same groups already got upset with regulations requiring calorie counts?

Huh.

A real truism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644215)

Americans should get it through their thick skulls that eating healthy is not the same thing as eating a lot.

Re:A real truism (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644269)

Some people eat to live, others live to eat.

Why ban it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644235)

Just tax the hell out of it instead.

Exponential the larger the serving. Done, simple.

If people want to destroy them selves, make them pay for it.
Banning just pisses people off.

Ban Orange Juice Too (2, Insightful)

jamesl (106902) | about 2 years ago | (#41644267)

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.

Re:Ban Orange Juice Too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644503)

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.

Yup, somehow the amount of calories in fruit sugar in orange juice is considered healthier than the amount of calories in the HFCS in Coca Cola. I guess the sad ones are the ones that cannot look up proper facts.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+liter+orange+juice+vs+1+liter+coca+cola+ [wolframalpha.com]
Nutritional value is more than just calories.

Posting AC because I moderated.

Re:Ban Orange Juice Too (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41644745)

You're right that OJ is also high in calories, but how often do you see people ordering an entire quart of OJ to drink in one sitting the way they do with soda?

Except That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644509)

Coke is full of chemical shit as opposed to freshly pressed Oranges. But I assume that does not qualify as "orange juice". Freshly squeezed Oranges contain lots of healthy stuff, including Vitamin C, which helps your body's immune system.

But if you are a beancounter, only the amount of beans matters.

Not even good liberalism (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41644311)

You know, while I fundamentally disagree with the law as being unconstitutional, at least it seemed well intentioned. Now I find they exempted all kinds of places from it. WTF? It's okay to stop by the convenience store and grab a 96 ounce coke for my drive home but I can't have one at the Cinema? You gotta be kidding me. What the hell makes it okay to indulge at 7-eleven but not at the Movies? jeez!

Re:Not even good liberalism (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41644461)

You know, while I fundamentally disagree with the law as being unconstitutional, at least it seemed well intentioned.

To me, at least, that's the worst thing about it because other well-meaning people are going to be tempted to let it stand because "they're trying to do good." Laws like that must never be allowed to remain on the books, no matter how good the lawmaker's intentions are because letting just one bad law pass sends us all down a very slippery slope!

Re:Not even good liberalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644661)

Exactly! Like, say, Habeas Corpus! ...

soda ban science misinterpreted (4, Informative)

jayrtfm (148260) | about 2 years ago | (#41644431)

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. [theatlantic.com]

Let's take a poll... (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | about 2 years ago | (#41644459)

I'm curious as to how many of those opposed to this law are obese (weight in kg divided by square of height in meters > 30). Stats on average BMI of Big Gulp purchasers would also be interesting.

While I don't like the nanny state aspect of this law, if it mostly only applies to the obese and it sends a message that obesity is not good, I don't see the harm.

Re:Let's take a poll... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41644753)

While I don't like the nanny state aspect of this law, if it mostly only applies to the obese and it sends a message that obesity is not good, I don't see the harm.

I'm sorry.. I didn't intend to kill your wife.. most people don't need insulin, so when I kept it from her, I was just trying to keep a poison out of her hands.

Logical thinking (0)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#41644477)

One could attempt to analyze the situation using logic.

There is a perceived problem with obesity. Fair enough, it's widely recognized and backed by studies and trends.

It's apparent from the literature that obesity is not caused by sedentary lifestyle or eating too many calories, at least not directly. Changing to a more vigorous lifestyle or reducing caloric intake is usually ineffective, as evidenced by the myriad exercise plans and fad diets available. We now see obese children as young as 6-months - since children of this age cannot choose their lifestyle or caloric input, there must be something else going on.

On a recent Slashdot article, the commentary held not a single premise or conclusion about diet which was universally held as correct. None, nada. Like economics, every position had opponents and adherents. If smart people can't agree on even the basics, how can we expect lawmakers to pass effective legislation?

Passing a law to combat obesity right now is pointless. No one knows what causes obesity, so any law must be misdirected almost by definition. This is amply illustrated by describing the law using fuzzy, imprecise terms. Drinks which are "sugary" and more than 16 oz? Why not 15 oz? Or 20? Is the caloric content important or the type of sugar? Is HFCS the problem, or the fact that most sodas are a mixture of a diuretic (caffeine) and salt, so that drinking makes you more thirsty? And some stores are exempt (WTF)?

Passing a law which affects the end users rather than the makers only promotes disrespect for the law. Cigarettes are heavily taxed but Philip Morris can freely make and sell them. If HFCS is the culprit, taxing the Coca Cola corporation in proportion to the amount of HFCS it uses will be more effective in solving the problem than end-user laws.

And finally, as the war on drugs has shown, education is more effective than prohibition. Dollar for dollar, money spent on drug education is several times as effective as money spent on prohibition (around 7x more, IIRC). Why not put the effort into education instead?

Legislators are just guessing at a solution to a real problem about which they know nothing. They should shut up and keep quiet until we know more. Once we can identify the root causes, we make correct policy which will reduce the problem.

Until then, it seems that illogic and counterproduction are having their moment.

Re:Logical thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644731)

Diet and exercise work. A lot of the biological mechanisms are well understood. The problem is that people don't stick to it, because dieting sucks and exercise isn't easy. (What we don't understand as well, and this is probably what you're refering to, is WHY some people have such a hard time sticking to a healthy lifestyle, while others willingly get regular exercise and have a moderate diet.) Social trends are pushing people towards desk jobs, rather than manual labor, and food is cheaper than ever. Combined with our innate programming to be lazy and eat a lot, it shouldn't be surprising that people are getting fatter.

I agree that we probably don't know enough to form public policy on diet, but saying that changing lifestyle is ineffective is just nonsense.

Sugary Drinks? (1)

fullback (968784) | about 2 years ago | (#41644485)

How about calling them what they are: corn syrupy drinks?

It's not a ban (1)

Ranger (1783) | about 2 years ago | (#41644681)

It's a restriction on portion size. You can still buy more than one. The human body wasn't designed to handle that much liquid sugar all at once. Those mega-drinks do make obesity more likely. Consumers do not have perfect knowledge. Human's evolved under feast and famine conditions. We live in a society of plenty and it's difficult to overcome human biology even with perfect knowledge. Our physiology works against us. It's very easy to regain the weight lost. I know. I lost nearly 60 pounds but have gained it back. That's over a period of 10 years. I'm in the process of losing it again, but it's going to take longer because I'm older.

There are several questions that need to be answered: Are we our brother's keeper? Do we need a nanny state? Should we pay for the health costs associated with obesity of our neighbors?

Taking personal responsibility is great and all, but it can only do so much. I think a better solution would be a sweetener tax than a portion limit. Congress uses the tax code for social engineering. A sugar sales tax would also be social engineering. By making one of the ingredients more expensive the cost would be passed on to the consumer. The revenue could be used for education or healthcare costs.

6.5oz (192ml) was the original coke size (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41644717)

6.5oz (192ml) was the original coke size
And we wonder why people are getting fatter.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21751119/winona-last-6-5-ounce-u-s-coke

Can you bring your own cup . . . ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41644805)

Just sell the drink contents . . . not the containers . . . ? Any other silly ideas . . . ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?