With Missouri ranked as the 11th most obese state in the nation in a study published about a year ago, we thought it would be worth a discussion about a ban on giant sugary soda sales in New York City.
If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, that's what's coming next to your favorite five-borough restaurant, movie theater or street vendor.
The mayor plans to eliminate the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces in each of those places in an "ambitious" effort to combat obesity, The New York Times reported last week.
“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” Bloomberg told the paper.
Exemptions, such as for diet drinks and sales in supermarkets, are expected to be part of the new law, eyed for spring 2013, according to the Times.
It would mark the first such ban in the country, but follows the mayor's successful efforts to ban trans fats and curb public smoking.
The New York City Beverage Association is certainly not thrilled.
Does Missouri need to consider something similar to combat the rotund waistlines? Is this nanny-state-gone-mad or nice job Bloomie?
When I was younger, an occasional soda was considered a treat. At that time, most sodas were bottled in 6 or 6 1/2 oz portions. After drinking our 6 oz treat, we would have never considered following it up with 9 or 10 more! I would hope that if the medical and dental problems associated with excessive sugar intake could be imbedded in our youth at an early age, we could begin to see a more healthy society.
Like Mr. Tate says below, I have a tough time understanding why anyone would want to drink a HALF GALLON of anything. Somehow we've come to a place where that seems reasonable, so soda is probably just a small part of the American weight problem. I think the Mayor recognizes this and is using the issue to start a conversation. If this kind of legislation seems ridiculous, so does drinking from a "cup" you could also bathe in in a pinch.
Our government can't even get itself in line. Why do we always think they are the handyman when they break everything they touch? Housing, Banking, Education... Paradigm shift, what happens if you don't wear your seatbelt? You pay the government. What about a helmet? Same thing. Same for nearly every one of these kinds of laws. Is paying a fine really more of a deterrent than what could happen if you don't wear a seatbelt or helmet? No but they get money. What about these? Could they make car makers build cars that won't go into gear until the belts are fastened? Or cars that won't start when they sense alcohol? Or a cellphone (which all have GPS) that won't allow texting if it's moving faster than 5 MPH? Of course they could. Would it save more lives than fines, or DWI Checkpoints? By light-years! Then why don't they do that? There are tons of simple alternatives. It's seems clear that no matter how much they tell us otherwise, saving lives is a DISTANT 2nd to finding a new source of revenue.
The question of personal responsibility, ends up being more complicated than it may seem. Parents are working longer, and takeout meals have become a default dinner. Gym classes have been cut. The real price of soda has fallen 33 percent over the last three decades. The real price of fruit and vegetables has risen more than 40 percent. The solutions to these problems are beyond the control of any individual. They involve a different sort of responsibility: civic — even political — responsibility. They depend on the kind of collective action that helped cut smoking rates nearly in half. Anyone who smoked in an elementary-school hallway today would be thrown out of the building. But [until recently with new regulations] if you served an obesity-inducing, federally financed meal to a kindergartner, you would fit right in. [Taxing fat people idea] may have its problems. The obvious one is its severity. The more important one is probably its narrowness: not even one of the nation’s most prestigious hospitals can do much to reduce obesity. The government, however, can. And that is the great virtue of [the] idea. Acknowledging that any effort to attack obesity will inevitably involve making value judgments and even limiting people’s choices. Most of the time, the government has no business doing such things. But there is really no other way to cure an epidemic.
My suggestion was not that fat people pay more, my suggestion was that everyone pay for his OWN healthcare, it's the only way to promote responsibility, accountability, and incentive. You & I paying for it provides NONE of that.
Because they are all about freedom as long as it's in line with their concept of freedom.
I'm all for you smoking as much as you want, just don't do it near me and don't expect me to pick up your medical tab.
It's the "SIZE" of Government that All Americans must get rid of. Not the size of soda. There is a difference in Banning the Size of a product vs. Banning The Product. Gee! I wonder if a man/woman sexual relations could be next in Limiting the SIZE OF P_ _ _ _.
(see, we can agree on something :). There are so many poor diet and snack choices -and big sodas are just one of them. It's impossible and counterproductive to regulate. Perhaps the extent of what the government can or should do is try to get some or better labeling on those big cups. It costs very little do that calories, sugar, and % of daily intake for that serving size. Granted, labels will have limited affect and may just drive people to drink giant diet sodas -which isn't exactly healthy either (some study shows diet soda drinkers have more obesity problems than regular soda drinkers.) -perhaps some diet soda warnings. I don't know...it all may be a wasted effort.
ooh! You used that phrase "Government Dictates". That is not what any country needs. The people should "dictate" on everything ----not the Government. All of our laws come "From the People". The congress (Government) or State only approves what the people want.
This is NOT a Soda Ban. It is a Size Ban. There is a big difference. No one has Banned smoking. It's where you can smoke.
You can also argue that restricting smoking is a Pandora's box as Rahib seems to suggest. Why ban pot and not alcohol? Science? No... Look, this can be argued until we're blue in the face but the reality is that Bloomberg's ban on selling Big Gulps in certain establishments for certain types of drinks in New York City will have no impact in St. Louis, nor will it likely last in NYC. It's a cannard that incites page hits.
Maybe you need the government to coddle you & make all your decisions for you, the rest of us have a brain. It's funny how ALL WEEK, we were talking about "my body, my right". Where did that go?
I disagree Roark, I'm not sure if you noticed but many of the new laws we have in the area are a direct result of "X put a regulation in place, maybe we should too". Case in point the prescription requirement on the OTC drugs. One of the arguments was that other counties had already done it. The smoking ban...the same thing. There seems to be a standard for passing laws called "everyone else is doing it" If you want a big scale example, the ACA was repeatedly sold on the concept that other nations have a national healthcare plan. Granted what was ultimately passed is different, but you get the idea.