Big Gulp Ban - Page 6
+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 209
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Big Gulp Ban

  1. #51
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Thats how it works. They start with the small stuff that nobody makes a stink about, and then gradually regulate more and more of our lives because you think... well they already regulate this so why not that. It is none of the government's business what size drink I buy or what size drink a company can sell.
    Yeah but Gloria i think you can make a good argument that soda is on the extreme end of things. Its not some little thing. Its really bad for you and has no redeeming qualities. If they started going after smaller things? Sure. But bigger things? THey should be fair game. And we definitely have set the precedent that the government can be involved with how you buy certain products that we think are big problems.

    Or maybe that's the problem...maybe people view soda as 'a little thing' and not a big problem.

    ETA: as you can see i waffle a lot on this issue

  2. #52
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Read this article today. Very to-the-point and I agree with it.

    I'm sure I'll probably hear from some lobby or other for saying this ? I imagine that someone has already dreamed up "fat-ism" as one of those ugly prejudices we need to be aware of and avoid ? but Americans are really, really fat.

    Walk down any street here in any state, but most particularly in any southern state, and you'll see what I mean.
    Bellies hanging down over belts, rolls of neck fat, faces so bloated they?re losing their original appearance, huge rear ends and breasts (on men as well as women), curtains of fat hanging off the undersides of arms, and thick, heavily veined legs muscular from years of hauling around all that extra tonnage. Sometimes the cause is beyond the control of the individual, as with a thyroid condition. But in the vast majority of cases, the cause is over-consumption of over-processed, high-sugar, ultimately toxic food.

    According to the latest data from the federal Centers for Disease Control, 35.7 per cent of American adults ? more than 78 million ? are obese; about 41 million women and 37 million men. Among adolescent boys, 18.6 per cent are obese. The figure for young girls is 15 per cent.

    About two-thirds of American adults are just plain overweight. (Obesity is defined as a body mass index, a mixture of height and weight, over 30. Anyone with a BMI over 25 is overweight.)

    And yet efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, to fight childhood obesity by encouraging healthier eating have been widely ridiculed by conservatives here, many of whom are plenty fat themselves. Step right up, Rush Limbaugh.
    What's wrong with deep-fried cheese?

    This is statism, they cry. Worse, it's nanny-statism. How dare these snobby elected elites presume to tell us how we should eat? Who is Michelle Obama to suggest we eat more vegetables? Whose business is it but our own if we want to gorge ourselves on sugary cakes and sugary drinks and deep-fried cheese and tubs of ice cream? Star Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said Michelle Obama's views were typical of "the hard left."


    Channelling millions of his listeners, Limbaugh blasted the president?s wife for suggesting Americans eat "cardboard and tofu ? roots, and berries and tree bark," and howled with glee when she and her family were spotted dining on ribs in a restaurant.

    "It doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he declared, insinuating that she could stand to lose a few pounds, too.

    "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit Issue."

    Yes. Well. Michelle Obama is a swan, compared to Limbaugh and millions of other obese Americans. That?s not the point, though. If obesity was just some jolly extra poundage, a harmless sign of prosperity, it wouldn?t be an issue. But it's not.
    High cost of obesity

    Again, according to the Centres for Disease Control, obesity is directly related to heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancer, and, of course, Type 2 diabetes, which is becoming an epidemic here. Those conditions kill.
    In 2008 (and things have worsened somewhat since then), medical costs related to obesity were about $147 billion. The medical costs to third-party payers (mostly health insurance companies or government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid) for people who are obese are $1,429 higher than for people of normal weight.

    What Limbaugh and the get-your-government-hands-off-my-jelly-doughnuts crowd are really saying is that they not only have the right to get fat, but the cost of their over-indulgence should also be disproportionately borne by everybody else ? hardly a conservative position.

    The costs aren't just at the doctor's office. A study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that obesity has a direct bearing on the productivity of a business, not just because of increased sick days, but due to "presenteeism," the lower performance of obese employees. Toilets in the United States are being made stronger to cope with a much higher average weight than decades ago. Obesity is now the most common disqualifier for military service, to the point where military officials have called obesity a threat to national security.

    Advocates for the obese are increasingly demanding that airlines give them two seats for the price of one because to charge for both is unfair. In other words, the other passengers should subsidize the obese passengers.

    But Michelle Obama hasn't come under anywhere near the sorts of attacks levelled recently at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who wants to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces from restaurants, movie theatres and various other venues in his city.
    A threat to public health

    In doing so, Bloomberg has provoked some powerful forces, the ones that make enormous profits marketing unhealthy food to adults and children and fight hard to keep school food vending machines stocked with sugary garbage.
    They make a fortune by combining syrup with carbonated water and charging markups of several hundred per cent. (Such drinks account for more than 10 per cent of the added sugar in Americans? diets).
    The Centre for Consumer Freedom, a lobby run by the fast-food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries, has run full-page colour attack ads captioned THE NANNY, with Bloomberg's head Photoshopped onto a church-lady dress, tut-tutting the nation.

    "You only thought you lived in the land of the free," screamed the ad, citing Bloomberg?s "latest diktat banning sweet drinks."

    Actually, no, not sweet drinks. Sugary drinks. Bloomberg has no problem with vendors dispensing gallon-size tankards of diet drinks, or juice. But doggone it, lots of Americans like the real thing: concentrated sugar. Try to buy a diet soda at a service station south of the Mason-Dixon line and you?ll have to search through the wall cooler. And concentrated sugar, in huge, regular doses, can reasonably be considered a toxic product. At the very least, it?s a threat to public health. Like cigarettes. Or, yes, hard drugs. Governments have not just the right, but also the duty to regulate such products, if for no other reason than to protect the rest of society from the costly excesses of a (growing) minority.

    Put more simply, were I an American, I'd rather not help pay for Rush Limbaugh's bypass surgery, once he qualifies for Medicare.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...n-obesity.html

  3. #53
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kris_w View Post
    I am also admittedly more free with these sort of government health-based restrictions because of coming from Canada. I figure the gov't picks up the health care bill, so if they want to say "no giant pop allowed - it is making diabetes worse" or whatever, they have that right. I see it as sort of a public health care trade off.
    See, this is why I do not want public health care. I do not want the Government to step in and say, well we are paying for it so we get to make all your health decisions.

    This is more about not wanting the government to control our lives, then caring about how big your soda cup is.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #54
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Good article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    Read this article today. Very to-the-point and I agree with it.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...n-obesity.html

  5. #55
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    See, this is why I do not want public health care. I do not want the Government to step in and say, well we are paying for it so we get to make all your health decisions.

    This is more about not wanting the government to control our lives, then caring about how big your soda cup is.
    Well, not to change this to a healthcare debate but is private health care that says "We don't want to cover your expensive (yet fatal) medical condition because its too expensive and we knew about it beforehand" any better?

    I'd say its worse.

    ETA: And yes, that article was very compelling. This topic is so depressing and alarming to me.

  6. #56
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    See, this is why I do not want public health care. I do not want the Government to step in and say, well we are paying for it so we get to make all your health decisions.

    This is more about not wanting the government to control our lives, then caring about how big your soda cup is.
    But, really, is the govt controlling your life by limiting you to 16 oz of sugar per glass? I'm all for small govt too, but I really don't see this as much of a control issue or a slippery slope. I hardly imagine the govt kicking pepsi, coke, nestle, and friends out of the country.

  7. #57
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kris_w View Post
    But, really, is the govt controlling your life by limiting you to 16 oz of sugar per glass? I'm all for small govt too, but I really don't see this as much of a control issue or a slippery slope. I hardly imagine the govt kicking pepsi, coke, nestle, and friends out of the country.
    Yes it does control my life. DH works for a company that makes cups. This ban will affect all kinds of companies that will have to change what products they sell and could potentially lose a lot of money on products that they have already made. It doesn't just affect the consumer.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #58
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    Wait, are you suggesting that the government shouldn't make any decisions for the sake of our health because they could potentially cost businesses money?
    Last edited by KimPossible; 06-06-2012 at 03:55 PM.

  9. #59
    Posting Addict boilermaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mtns.
    Posts
    19,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Yes it does control my life. DH works for a company that makes cups. This ban will affect all kinds of companies that will have to change what products they sell and could potentially lose a lot of money on products that they have already made. It doesn't just affect the consumer.
    Really? A ban in NYC is going to affect cup sales across the country? I doubt it. And by your own argument, wouldn't they sell MORE cups bc they'd need two 16 oz cups instead of one 44 oz cup? And just imagine how much money your husband's company would save if 1/3 of their employees weren't obese....

    That article is/was very compelling and I do agree with much of it. Our country is shockingly fat. I'm reminded of this every time I travel (I live in one of the healthiest cities in one of the healthiest states....so obesity just isn't as common here.) But when I'm in the Midwest, Texas or the South....wowzers.
    Audra
    DH Trey
    DD 8.03, DD 6.05, DS 3.07, DD 5.09, and DS arrived 6.17.12
    www.mamaginger.com

  10. #60
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boilermaker View Post
    Really? A ban in NYC is going to affect cup sales across the country? I doubt it. And by your own argument, wouldn't they sell MORE cups bc they'd need two 16 oz cups instead of one 44 oz cup? And just imagine how much money your husband's company would save if 1/3 of their employees weren't obese....

    That article is/was very compelling and I do agree with much of it. Our country is shockingly fat. I'm reminded of this every time I travel (I live in one of the healthiest cities in one of the healthiest states....so obesity just isn't as common here.) But when I'm in the Midwest, Texas or the South....wowzers.
    Actually yes, the company he works for sells cups nationwide. Think of all those cups that have already been produced, and the machines that will have to be retooled. Even selling more cups it would take quite a while to cover the difference of those losses. Large franchises will also have to make changes to their menus and promotional materials specifically for that market. NYC may not have a big effect right now, but that is the whole point isn't it to start in NYC and try to get other places to follow suit? The whole thing is silly to tell grown adults how big of a cup they can buy. And many of the same people who want to limit soda want to make marijuana legal. It just seems so hypocritical to me.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions