Doesn't the TSA limit carry-on liquids based on quantity? Specifically ounces?
There is a website where people post items that have been victim of the shrink ray. Perhaps you've noticed that the amount of the product you get has decreased. For example, a box of crackers might change from 10 ounces down to 9.5. The most noticeable place in resent years is in ice cream. A pint may still be a pint but most ice cream isn't packaged in quarts or gallons anymore. The Lunchable has gone from 4.4 ounces to 3.3.
In Ruby Payne's studies on poverty, she found a clear distinction among the classes with regards to food. In the upper class, it is all about presentation. For the middle class it is taste. For the poor, it is quantity - "Did you get enough?" So where has the fast food industry focused their attention? The poor. People want to think they are getting a good value. It doesn't matter so much if it tastes good. It's cheap and you can feed your family. Even if you end up throwing some of your meal away, there is the satisfaction of knowing you got a good value.
Interestingly, 12oz cans of sodas have been pretty standard my entire life. I have noticed a comeback in the smaller sizes of soda and water. But cans other than 12oz haven't really caught on.
The government already regulates that. A company can't sell 8 oz of something unless it is 8 oz (+/- margin of error). Scales have to be serviced frequently and consumers can file complaints against the store. Prices are also regulated so costumers aren't over-charged. In some states, the percentage of alcohol in beer is regulated and can't be higher than a certain per cent. They also regulate labeling clearly what a serving size is.
When it comes to the size of a drink or ounces in a container of ice cream, customers have very little control in that. Many people are just going to buy the biggest size because they think it is the best value. I see this at the movie theater when people buy a huge bucket of popcorn because you get double in a large what you get in a small for just $1 more! Then they throw a 1/2 full bucket of popcorn in the trash on their way out. I see it at Walmart, Costco, and Sam's Club. At WalMart the generic price per oz isn't always cheaper than name-brand. The 24oz box of cereal isn't always cheaper per ounce than the 10.5oz box. Yet people buy it because they think they are getting the best value for their money.
I watched an interesting documentary about Costco. They don't give many choices so people will think they need to buy something. "Uh-oh, they only have 2 choices of jams! Which one do I need?" Buying in huge quantities makes the consumer think they are getting a bargain, but if you throw away 1/2 bag of stale chips, or won't ever use 1 gallon of mayonnaise, it's wasteful. Yet, they've convince you to buy it because it's a good deal.
I've never met anyone who has said, "No, I don't want to go to __________ because their large cup is only 32oz but I can get 44oz at Sonic."
Mmmmm, Sonic. They have the very best ice. I go there just for the ice (and sometimes unsweetened iced tea on top of the ice. YUM!)
Hi all, sorry I've been MIA so much, I'm still around from time to time lurking, just haven't had time to post much.
I'm really late to this, but in a way, I'm glad that I am.
At first, I was against the ban, too. But only because I heard it wrong when I first heard about it on the news. After scanning through this debate thread, however, it suddenly occurred to me that this was not about regulating how much soda you could drink, after all, but about changing the size of the cup.
That's what I get for jumping to conclusions based on a brief news story instead of learning all the facts/details first. I should have known better, lol.
I don't have a problem with changing the size of the CUP that's available. I mean, before we started to have an obesity problem, way back when, the cup sizes were a lot smaller. I don't think it's a bad thing to go back to that. Not that I'm saying the larger cup sizes caused the obesity problem. People just didn't want bigger cup sizes back then because they were satisfied with drinking less soda. 12 oz cans were the norm when I was a kid, and no-one that I knew even gave a thought to having a second 12-oz. can. Once that was gone, you were done and you threw it in the trash. I'm not sure what caused the bigger cup sizes to come on the scene. Maybe it was the value thing, or maybe people were asking for larger cups, I don't know. Whatever the cause, I don't think it could hurt to go back to smaller sizes.
I think reducing the cup size available will encourage people to drink less. At first, probably not, but over time, I think most will get used to the idea and want less, for those who drink the larger amounts.
That being said, I do wish that the restaurants, etc., would volunteer to do it, without having to be told to do so or face a fine. That part I don't really care for, of it being forced on them. But if no-one will volunteer, then what do we do?
JMO, of course. Subject to change if additional knowledge causes me to want to.
Last edited by FLSunshineMom; 06-10-2012 at 05:15 PM.
~Remembering my father~
*Feb 1931 - Oct 2012*
I admit I have not read the 13 pages of this debate. But it seems to me that instead of wasting time & energy trying to regulate the size of the cup, why not channel that effort into educating the Big Gulp-buying public about the health hazards of it? Didn't that work with McDonald's? I could be wrong, but I think they stopped "supersizing" due to bad PR, that movie by Morgan Spurlock, and consumer pressure. If you educate people on what the hell a Big Gulp does to you and compare it to other foods in terms of fat, chemicals, nutritional content, etc., that seems like a more worthwhile effort and avoids the whole nanny state mentality.
Maybe that has already been suggested...sorry it was too much for me to catch up on. I know I haven't been around, been dealing with some other stuff that hasn't put me in a debating mood. Today I'm a little bit feisty again.
Laurie, mom to:
Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )
Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)
The Health Department is already running commercials encouraging the public to stop drinking soda because of its sugar content.
It's sad, though, that the public has to be "educated" about this, since it "should" be a no-brainer, but unfortunately a lot of people just don't think about the amount of sugar they might be putting in their bodies when they Big Gulp it. Or maybe they just don't care? lol.
~Remembering my father~
*Feb 1931 - Oct 2012*
I know you said that you didn't get to read the entire debate...understandable. But I'll give you my recent encounter at McDonald's again. I will tell you that they no longer ask you "Do you want to super size that?" They just ask you "what size do you want?". Or at least at this McDonald's they didn't ask to supersize. I told them that i wanted the smallest size i could possibly get with my meal deal. She told me she can give me a medium. A medium is 21oz. So I don't think McDonald's has accomplished much.
Here is an excerpt about education that I found from an unedited version of an article. Unfortunately it doesn't provide the source of the info, but the explanation i think is very logical and makes tons of sense:
The entire piece can be read here http://myuctv.tv/2012/05/24/regulati...out-the-nudge/For decades, America?s main strategy to prevent obesity and metabolic disease has been education: nutrition labels, public service announcements, and mainly, school-based health education. There is now solid evidence that health education doesn?t work to change behavior, especially for substances with abuse potential. It can change attitudes and knowledge, but it doesn?t have lasting effects on what people actually do.
Most of us intuitively understand why health education doesn?t work. We may try for a while to eat healthy by limiting added sugar. But we quickly find that it actually takes a lot of planning, money, and effort to not eat sugar, and that many of us crave the stuff due to effects on the brain?s ?reward center.?
The fundamental problem is that we live in what addiction researchers call a saturated environment. You know you live in a sugar-saturated environment when you have to go out of your way to find a drinking fountain or a fresh apple. But junk food counters and vending machines line the walls of workplaces, airports, shopping centers and even schools. Our saturated environment doesn?t just make sugar-laden products easy to get. It makes them hard to avoid.
Last edited by KimPossible; 06-11-2012 at 03:06 PM.
That's true, Kim.
I also think it has a lot to do with what environment we grew up in and what we were used to. Those who are used to healthy eating as a way of life probably don't find it as difficult to seek out healthier foods most of the time, and being surrounded by tempting sweets doesn't bother them as much. Not that we (the general we, lol) can't change from unhealthy habits to healthy ones, it just makes it more difficult, imo.
Those of you that are for the ban feel there is any constitutionality to the ban?
Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson