Yes, Banning 32 Oz Liquid Sugar Bombs Can Help

[phantom power]

editor's note: author embedded like six links to some studies in a single sentence, which I am not going to reproduce

Whenever I blog about food, food industry apologists insist that there are no health problems associated with obesity. So let's get this straight: That is just so fucking not true. If you really think these people are all wrong, I suggest you write them and explain to them the error of their ways. When they admit they are wrong, be sure write me and I will offer an apology to you.

And that is why this study is so important, and why banning supersized portions of soda - note: NOT banning sodas, just insanely large sizes - is a pretty good idea. It's not as good as taxing soda, but that is all but impossible politically.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/yes-banning-32-oz-liquid-sugar-bombs.html

[MercutioATC]

1. More Nanny-State BS.

It's just an attempt to make Bloomberg looks like he cares about something other than breaking up Occupy protests.

I can still go to a convenience store and get my Big Gulp. I can still order more than one soft drink at a restaurants. Restaurants are still free to offer unlimited refills. There's no provision to exempt sugar-free soft drinks. This law is a hot mess. It creates the ILLUSION of dealing with an issue without really doing anything. The one thing that it DOES accomplish is to injest government regulation into something so simple as how large a dring we are allowed to order at a restaurant.

Not only is this law pap, it's dangerous slippery-slope pap.

[sl8]

10. I don't see how the ban would apply to sugar-free drinks

unless the drink has another caloric sweetener added.

from http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/notice/2012/notice-adoption-amend-article81.pdf :

(1) Sugary drink means a carbonated or non-carbonated beverage that:
(A) is non-alcoholic;
(B) is sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another caloric sweetener;
(C) has greater than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces of beverage; and
(D) does not contain more than 50 percent of milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient.

[DollarBillHines]

2. Sugar bombs? What sugar?

HFCS is what's in those things.

I forget what chemical is used in the Diet crap.

Let 'em drink beer.

Or, heaven forbid, water.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. How about letting 'em drink what they want to drink? n/t

[DollarBillHines]

4. I have no problem with that.

I just don't want to pay the health-related costs.

However, I am for socialized health care, but if I get cirrhosis or smoking-related cancer the costs should fall on me.

It's a darned sticky wicket, ain't it?

Hopefully, I'll just be hit by a bus and get it all over with, right quick-like.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. So you only want to pay for healthcare

that results from behaviors you approve of?

Who will be the final arbiter of whose diseases get paid for, in your scenario?

[DollarBillHines]

7. No, no, no

I just believe that the parameters are very wavy.

If two gang-bangers shoot each other, do we all get stuck with the bill?

If I o.d., is the bill everyone's?

Now, if I get drunk and run down two pedestrians and then crash into a tree, shouldn't I get stuck with the bills?

I am awfully glad that I don't have to draw the lines.

By the way, I have no insurance at all.

[4th law of robotics]

5. Being sedentary is worse for you than drinking one 32 oz drink

perhaps NYC should randomly cut off the power for an hour or so at a time. To encourage people to get some exercise.

[redqueen]

8. If *obesity* is the concern, then they should ban high-calorie foods, too!

Sugar has been linked to serious health problems besides just obesity.

If obesity is the reason for this there are a LOT of fast foods and restaurant dishes that need to be banned as well.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

9. Ban HFCS.

That would probably fix a lot of this crap.