Thread: Another ban on Big Gulps!

Julie Bove <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]..
: > x-no-archive: yes
: >
: > On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:
: >
: >> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.
: >
: > Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)
: >
: > Susan

: Apples and oranges. Making a law for a safe way to drive a vehicle is
: hardly telling us how/what to eat/drink.

Like alcohol? If a food increases the likihood of getting a disease and,
as a result, increasing health costs for either the person,, or for the
health system, whether public or private insurance it may well be the
concern of the nation. It just has not been thought of in that way
before. Auto insurance was not always required, but auto accidents can
cause you to use a great deal of medical care and also those who yu harm
and may well not be able to pay for, so it ws decided that insurance was
compulsary.

Wendy

Julie Bove <[email protected]> wrote:

: "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:js3av5$qab$[email protected]..
: > When we had only horses and buggies no one needed a driver's lisence.
: > When automobiles came in the government decided we needed lisences and
: > made a law that said(if you remember your book you got when first applying
: > for a learner's permit) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. to earn the
: > priviledge you have to pass a test and then continue to drive safely(not
: > too many tickets). What gave the government the right to pass that law?

: What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
: drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
: saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
: tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
: in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
: them. Well... That's their choice.

: Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
: I think so but I'm not in charge.

: Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
: than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
: monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?

: I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
: of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola. Yes, it has its uses. But
: shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
: found that to be harmful.

: But to say that you can buy a food or drink but you can only buy so much at
: once? Beyond ridiculous. Ban the damned stuff or put a warming label on
: it. But don't treat us like children.
: > We accepted it because it seemed clear that something was needed.
: >
: > thisis where it starts, with someone getting a bright idea of how to save
: > the health of individuals and money (via the health care system) for the
: > citizens who have to pay the health care costs of the indigent.
: >
: > Wendy

: That isn't going to help. Everyone will now run out and get a Soda Stream.
: Then they can suck down as much HFCS or Splenda as they want.


But a lot of children are drinking large amounts of the stuff or eating
those huge buckets of glopped up popcorn at teh movies.

If you want you can buy a cold 2 liter bottle of soda and drink it down,
but not at a fod stand in a big bucket with a straw to just gulp down.

Wendy

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 2:07 PM, Cheri wrote:

> Yep, we will definitely disagree on this. If anyone actually believes
> that banning a size of soft drink will stop or even help in the fight on
> obesity, well...I don't know what to say about that. I believe that the
> thinking behind it is to raise the tax sky high on the large sizes
> shortly, and then gradually raise the taxes on all of the sizes after
> the frogs are already in the pot. LOL

If it's banned, how do you raise taxes on it?

I think the change could, at most, make folks more aware of how much is
a serving, conditioning over time.

Susan

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 2:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Yep, we will definitely disagree on this. If anyone actually believes
>> that banning a size of soft drink will stop or even help in the fight on
>> obesity, well...I don't know what to say about that. I believe that the
>> thinking behind it is to raise the tax sky high on the large sizes
>> shortly, and then gradually raise the taxes on all of the sizes after
>> the frogs are already in the pot. LOL
>
> If it's banned, how do you raise taxes on it?
>
> I think the change could, at most, make folks more aware of how much is a
> serving, conditioning over time.
>
> Susan

Large sizes aren't banned, except for the Big Gulp...for now. Next the
decision will be made to sell them, but...tax them like crazy, on to large
size soda bottles in stores etc... then the health issue will become a
non-issue and all will be well in the minds of the food police, and none of
the money will be used for obesity related diseases, like the cigarette
taxes it will be funneled everywhere but smoking related diseases. I'm real
sure that folks already know what a normal sized serving consists of, but
there is no way anyone is going to be able to stop them from having more and
it's stupid to try with nonsense laws. The information needs to be out
there, nutrition labels, serving size etc., but the choice belongs to the
individual. I imagine the *dead horse* comes in at this point. :-)

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 4:10 PM, Cheri wrote:

> Large sizes aren't banned, except for the Big Gulp...for now. Next the
> decision will be made to sell them, but...tax them like crazy, on to
> large size soda bottles in stores etc... then the health issue will
> become a non-issue and all will be well in the minds of the food police,
> and none of the money will be used for obesity related diseases, like
> the cigarette taxes it will be funneled everywhere but smoking related
> diseases. I'm real sure that folks already know what a normal sized
> serving consists of, but there is no way anyone is going to be able to
> stop them from having more and it's stupid to try with nonsense laws.
> The information needs to be out there, nutrition labels, serving size
> etc., but the choice belongs to the individual. I imagine the *dead
> horse* comes in at this point. :-)

Cheri, I don't think folks do know what a normal serving size is any
more. Conditioning and desensitization are really well documented
phenomena.

Susan

In article <[email protected]>,
Susan <[email protected]> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 4:10 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > Large sizes aren't banned, except for the Big Gulp...for now. Next the
> > decision will be made to sell them, but...tax them like crazy, on to
> > large size soda bottles in stores etc... then the health issue will
> > become a non-issue and all will be well in the minds of the food police,
> > and none of the money will be used for obesity related diseases, like
> > the cigarette taxes it will be funneled everywhere but smoking related
> > diseases. I'm real sure that folks already know what a normal sized
> > serving consists of, but there is no way anyone is going to be able to
> > stop them from having more and it's stupid to try with nonsense laws.
> > The information needs to be out there, nutrition labels, serving size
> > etc., but the choice belongs to the individual. I imagine the *dead
> > horse* comes in at this point. :-)
>
> Cheri, I don't think folks do know what a normal serving size is any
> more. Conditioning and desensitization are really well documented
> phenomena.

Agree so much. If you read the nutrition information on a can of soda or
a bottle of Snapple, it's clearly stated that it's 2 (or even 3)
servings. Yet most people *don't* read these panels. And, unless you're
eating with a friend, it isn't even practical to treat a can of soda as
anything other than a single serving. I agree with Cheri that I don't
want to ban large servings (and the NYC regulation I've seen is clearly
banning all large take-out servings, not just the Big Gulp). However, I
*would* like a regulation that requires anyone who sells a large soft
drink to also sell a single-serving version of that drink, with no price
penalty. In other words, no "super-size me".

--
"Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read and then attack
what it didn't say?"--WG, where else but Usenet

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..

> Cheri, I don't think folks do know what a normal serving size is any more.
> Conditioning and desensitization are really well documented phenomena.
>
> Susan

I certainly think you're right in some instances. I think it was Wendy who
pointed out that manufacturers are pretty crafty with their nutrition
labels. Hamburger Helper comes to mind in times past with the "serves 4-6"
on the package, small candy bars listing calorie counts for half a bar and
on and on. I'm sure it's confusing. I was fooled for a minute not long ago
with the 100 calorie pita pockets, but I really believe in the end that
people decide for themselves what a "normal" serving is supposed to be, and
I just don't think the packaging will make a difference.

Cheri

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 7:07 PM, Alice Faber wrote:
I agree with Cheri that I don't
> want to ban large servings (and the NYC regulation I've seen is clearly
> banning all large take-out servings, not just the Big Gulp). However, I
> *would* like a regulation that requires anyone who sells a large soft
> drink to also sell a single-serving version of that drink, with no price
> penalty. In other words, no "super-size me".
>

I think that's a really good idea.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/23/2012 7:10 PM, Cheri wrote:

> I certainly think you're right in some instances. I think it was Wendy
> who pointed out that manufacturers are pretty crafty with their
> nutrition labels. Hamburger Helper comes to mind in times past with the
> "serves 4-6" on the package, small candy bars listing calorie counts for
> half a bar and on and on. I'm sure it's confusing. I was fooled for a
> minute not long ago with the 100 calorie pita pockets, but I really
> believe in the end that people decide for themselves what a "normal"
> serving is supposed to be, and I just don't think the packaging will
> make a difference.
>
Cheri, I think there are a lot of folks who just think it's normal
because they see it all around them and aren't making informed decisions.

Kind of like the folks who were very unsophisticated about banking and
loans and figured if a bank would give them a mortgage, it must be true
that they could afford it.

You and I and some others reading here know how to do the math, others
rely on professionals and advertising too much. Not everyone can make
sense of stuff, not everyone has our depth of interest combined with
ability when it comes to foods and labels.

Susan

In article <js3gub$nfu$[email protected]>, "Julie Bove" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> What gave them the right to pass *any* law? But making laws about food and
> drink (alcohol excepted) is wrong, IMO. Now I have no qualms with them
> saying that the manufacturers have to list ingredients or allergens. But to
> tell us what we can and can not buy? I'm not even sure I agree with the ban
> in NY on trans-fats. People know what they are. If they choose to eat
> them. Well... That's their choice.
>
> Why is alcohol allowed? Isn't it a drug? Shouldn't it be treated as such?
> I think so but I'm not in charge.
>
> Heck at the rate they are going they are going to ban any food that has more
> than a certain number of grams of sugar per serving. Next they might even
> monitor our carb intake! And then what? Fried foods? Butter?
>
> I can even understand it if they find something to be unsafe. I am thinking
> of cocaine that used to be put in Coca Cola.

exactly what was unsafe about the cocaine in Coca Cola and who determined that
it wasn't safe?

Cough syrup often has more alcohol than beer, should we ban cough syrup?


Yes, it has its uses. But
> shouldn't be available OTC. Or Sarsparilla or however you spell it. They
> found that to be harmful.

In article <js4p98$ve2$[email protected]>, "Julie Bove" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > On 6/23/2012 2:21 AM, Cheri wrote:
> >
> >> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and portion size won't work for
> >> obesity.
> >
> > There is absolutely no analogy between the two. It's just a size
> > regulation for sellers, not a limit on public or private use of soft
> > drinks.
>
> But currently most places offer a discount on a bigger size. We will no
> longer get that so it does impact us.

geez, you must think that retailers are stupid. they will find ways around this
little problem, the easiest being free refills (they'll charge the same price as
it would have cost for the ultra-large size) or what they'll most likely end up
doing is selling large empty (more permanent) cups and then sell you 6 small
cups for the same price that they would have charged you to fill the re-useable
cup. They aren't going to lose money and they aren't going to lose customers.
Any customer unsophisticated enough to get around the problem deserves it.

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the
>> size of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I
>> do
>> mind and that's not going to change. :-)
>
> But there is a reason, health care costs that accrue to all of us.
>
> We may disagree about what's a good reason and what isn't.
>
> Susan

How does regulating a size cut health care costs? Or putting high taxes
on cigarettes and alcohol? People will still drink and smoke the same
amounts regardless of personal cost or difficulty in obtaining a
product. I know, I wasn't going to get into this argument. There is no
realistic way at this point in time to cut universal health costs by
putting regulations on things that make us obese or prone to ailments
and illnesses brought on by use of illegal drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or
food/drink/ prescription drug intake. Its just something we have to suck
up, watching our tax dollars get used for things we may not partake of.
Other than health there are many tax payer provided stuff that I have no
or little interest in. I don't as a rule use public transport, the next
tax payer does. I don't do government supported theatre or art
galleries, the next person does. I use public libraries, my neighbour
might not. And so it goes on.

Maybe I have

"Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Ozgirl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>
>> I am not getting into the argument but I have never heard you swear,
>> lol.
>
> Sure you have, you just forgot. :-)
>
> Cheri

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..

> Cheri, I think there are a lot of folks who just think it's normal because
> they see it all around them and aren't making informed decisions.
>
> Kind of like the folks who were very unsophisticated about banking and
> loans and figured if a bank would give them a mortgage, it must be true
> that they could afford it.
>
> You and I and some others reading here know how to do the math, others
> rely on professionals and advertising too much. Not everyone can make
> sense of stuff, not everyone has our depth of interest combined with
> ability when it comes to foods and labels.
>
> Susan



I know in my day, yes a long time ago, the portion sizes were small compared
to now. If you got a burger it was about the size of a McDonalds regular
hamburger these days, not very big at all, and I don't ever remember an *all
you can eat" buffet, or Super Size anything. I'm certainly not opposed to
regulations on posting the calorie, fat, carb count of fast foods...even a
huge printed calorie count right down the side of a Big Gulp. ;-) That's as
far as I can go though.

Cheri

"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:js5117$f45$[email protected]..
> Julie Bove <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]..
> : > x-no-archive: yes
> : >
> : > On 6/22/2012 7:16 PM, Cheri wrote:
> : >
> : >> There is a LAW against driving without insurance.
> : >
> : > Right, and Wendy asked how you feel about it. :-)
> : >
> : > Susan
>
> : Apples and oranges. Making a law for a safe way to drive a vehicle is
> : hardly telling us how/what to eat/drink.
>
> Like alcohol? If a food increases the likihood of getting a disease and,
> as a result, increasing health costs for either the person,, or for the
> health system, whether public or private insurance it may well be the
> concern of the nation. It just has not been thought of in that way
> before. Auto insurance was not always required, but auto accidents can
> cause you to use a great deal of medical care and also those who yu harm
> and may well not be able to pay for, so it ws decided that insurance was
> compulsary.

Alcohol isn't a food. It's a drug.

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the
>> size of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I do
>> mind and that's not going to change. :-)
>
> But there is a reason, health care costs that accrue to all of us.
>
> We may disagree about what's a good reason and what isn't.

There are plenty of people who drink regular soda who are healthy.

"Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 6/23/2012 12:11 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating the
>>> size of soft drinks, period. You don't mind, and that's fine, but I do
>>> mind and that's not going to change. :-)
>>
>> But there is a reason, health care costs that accrue to all of us.
>>
>> We may disagree about what's a good reason and what isn't.
>>
>> Susan
>
>
> Yep, we will definitely disagree on this. If anyone actually believes that
> banning a size of soft drink will stop or even help in the fight on
> obesity, well...I don't know what to say about that. I believe that the
> thinking behind it is to raise the tax sky high on the large sizes
> shortly, and then gradually raise the taxes on all of the sizes after the
> frogs are already in the pot. LOL

Yep. I don't know how the taxes are here now but for a time they tried
adding a tax to all sodas. Even the diet ones. It was supposed to get us
to stop drinking them. All it did was get people to complain.

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 2:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Yep, we will definitely disagree on this. If anyone actually believes
>> that banning a size of soft drink will stop or even help in the fight on
>> obesity, well...I don't know what to say about that. I believe that the
>> thinking behind it is to raise the tax sky high on the large sizes
>> shortly, and then gradually raise the taxes on all of the sizes after
>> the frogs are already in the pot. LOL
>
> If it's banned, how do you raise taxes on it?
>
> I think the change could, at most, make folks more aware of how much is a
> serving, conditioning over time.

Flipping nonsense!

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 6/23/2012 4:10 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>> Large sizes aren't banned, except for the Big Gulp...for now. Next the
>> decision will be made to sell them, but...tax them like crazy, on to
>> large size soda bottles in stores etc... then the health issue will
>> become a non-issue and all will be well in the minds of the food police,
>> and none of the money will be used for obesity related diseases, like
>> the cigarette taxes it will be funneled everywhere but smoking related
>> diseases. I'm real sure that folks already know what a normal sized
>> serving consists of, but there is no way anyone is going to be able to
>> stop them from having more and it's stupid to try with nonsense laws.
>> The information needs to be out there, nutrition labels, serving size
>> etc., but the choice belongs to the individual. I imagine the *dead
>> horse* comes in at this point. :-)
>
> Cheri, I don't think folks do know what a normal serving size is any more.
> Conditioning and desensitization are really well documented phenomena.

Oh come on! The first time I went to a dietician, she whipped out her
plastic foods and asked me to pick the portion sizes. I got them all right
except for the cheese which I grossly underestimated because my mother never
let us have much cheese. She said it would make us fat.