The NY soda law

[Jackass]

Not really, many would simply sell a never ending supply in a 16 oz cup so refills would be on demand. This is nothing more than sham politics trying to regulate grains of sugar. It is like trying to regulate grains of sand on the beach.

 

Of course New York City's quest to have the nations highest taxes is never ending so there could be some truth to that.

 

 

well yeah that would be pretty stupid if they could offer refills. I haven't read the law but i would guess there's some provision to prevent that.

[bushwacked]

You can't stop people from being people.

 

All you can do is waste time and money on bad legislation.

 

I used to be a fan of big govt, but it has truly gotten out of control

 

 

Yup, sovereign state legislation is great until they touch the soda. Now it's an outrage.

[detlef]

Interesting. I accuse Ice of over-simplifying things to a fault and he proves how wrong I am by then fixating exclusively on weight loss/gain as the only things that seem to matter rather than the litany of other health concerns related to consuming massive amounts of refined sugars, specifically in the absence of any fats, proteins, or fiber.

 

Then again, perhaps I just need to have faith that everyone here is smart enough to either know that Ice is defecating bad info or at least has the sense to look it up for themselves before they assume his, "calories are calories and it doesn't matter where they come from" garbage, is actually true.

[bpwallace49]

So now I am terrified of getting diabetes or some other disease anytime I feel like a soda.

 

 

Eff you detlef.

 

[detlef]

So now I am terrified of getting diabetes or some other disease anytime I feel like a soda.

 

 

Eff you detlef.

 

 

 

Sorry, bro. Just think of it like this. You shouldn't worry about whether or not you're becoming an alcoholic if you knock back a beer every now and then. But you should if you find yourself starting early every day and keep at it all day long.

[Ice1]

Interesting. I accuse Ice of over-simplifying things to a fault and he proves how wrong I am by then fixating exclusively on weight loss/gain as the only things that seem to matter rather than the litany of other health concerns related to consuming massive amounts of refined sugars, specifically in the absence of any fats, proteins, or fiber.

 

Then again, perhaps I just need to have faith that everyone here is smart enough to either know that Ice is defecating bad info or at least has the sense to look it up for themselves before they assume his, "calories are calories and it doesn't matter where they come from" garbage, is actually true.

 

 

The only one who is really simplifying anything is Bloomberg.

 

You seem to think because I have pointed out just one of countless products with, as you say, has massive amounts of sugar and empty calories that I am deflecting. That is not true at all.

 

When it comes to getting fat calories are calories; that is a basic fact and you know it. Obviously there are better drinks on the market, no one is disputing that.

 

I get you may think the government should legislate the individual from themselves making claims soda is the devil but I and I suspect many others think the government Bloomberg, in this regard is foolish as it makes no sense.

 

Personally, I rarely drink soda but find it crazy that some idiot will tell me I can't order 26 oz of the product if I so desire knowing that the extra 10oz at a sitting will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.

 

I have already pointed out a single product, by the same manufacturer no less that also is no better than soda but is not regulated at all. I have also pointed out that regulating this given refills, or the ability to purchase another defeats the purpose.

 

One would think the government has better things to do than simply attack one drink just because it contains sugar. Yes there is stupid in the world but reducing a Styrofoam cup from 20oz to 16oz in one city will not fix it and if you really believe that then go to the back of the line and start over.

 

Too much of anything is not good over years and decades but Bloomberg assuming I am personally drinking too much coke when he hasn't a clue is friggen crazy.

 

I suspect when you really think about it you are only advocating reducing sugar intake. In typical feel good Liberal Fashion you are now somehow advocating going after a single product because the dart hit soda on the board and you are fine with telling the populace they can now only drink 16oz when out in public yet don't really care if they go down to the corner grocery and purchase cases of the product.

 

That is faulty logic by measure. Coke, sugar water, cake, or candy may not be the best products for you but there are no real issues with any in moderation however it is not Bloomberg's place to tell us in one specific place on one specific product type that we can't have 17oz but 16oz is just fine.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

The only one who is really simplifying anything is Bloomberg.

 

You seem to think because I have pointed out just one of countless products with, as you say, has massive amounts of sugar and empty calories that I am deflecting. That is not true at all.

 

When it comes to getting fat calories are calories and that is a basic fact and you know it. Obviously there are better foods are drinks for that matter on the market, no one is disputing that.

 

I get you may think the government should legislate the individual from themselves making claims soda is the devil but I and I suspect many others think the government Bloomberg, in this regard is foolish as it makes no sense.

 

Personally, I rarely drink soda but find it crazy that some idiot will tell me I can't order 26 oz of the product if I so desire knowing that the extra 10oz at a sitting will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.

 

I have already pointed out a single product, by the same manufacturer no less that also is no better than soda but is not regulated at all. I have also pointed out that regulating this given refills, or the ability to purchase another defeats the purpose.

 

One would think the government has better things to do than simply attack one drink just because it contains sugar. Yes there is stupid in the world but reducing a Styrofoam cup from 20oz to 16oz in one city will not fix it and if you really believe that then go to the back of the line and start over.

 

Too much of anything is not good over years and decades but Bloomberg assuming I am personally drinking too much coke when he hasn't a clue is friggen crazy.

 

I suspect when you really think about it you are only advocating reducing sugar intake. In typical feel good Liberal Fashion you are now somehow advocating going after a single product because the dart hit in on a board and you are fine with telling the populace they can now only drink 16oz when out in public yet don't really care if they go down to the corner grocery and purchase cases of the product.

 

That is faulty logic by measure. Coke, sugar water, cake, or candy may not be the best product for you but there are no real issues with any in moderation however it is not Bloomberg's place to tell us in one specific place on one specific product type that we can't have 17oz but 16oz is just fine.

 

Actually, only sort of. I'm saying that sodas in particular (and, yes, I get that there are things just like them that are marketed as healthy) are uniquely bad. And, given the fact that during this thread alone, people have compared them to fried chicken, mac and cheese, and even meat in general, clearly illustrates that people don't actually understand the specific issue with consuming large amounts of sugary drinks. That, in fact, it is worse, calorie for calorie, than other things.

 

And, yes, I do entirely understand that random nature of the law, which is why I've only given a luke warm endorsement of it (one that I didn't even do initially). In fact, the only reason why I think it makes any sense at all is because other random restrictions on things have had meaningful effects on overall reduction of their use. Like I've said countless times, I would choose other methods over this to increase public awareness but that it is abundantly clear that great steps need to be made. Simply knowing that sodas (yes, but mostly refined sugars) aren't good for you really downplays how bad they really are.

 

This thread is a perfect example of this. From people who don't pretend to know better assuming that you may as well ban fried chicken to people like you who act like they know what they're saying, regurgitating the "calories are calories" bit that is such bad info. Then you have the purported "success" of the twinkie diet. Scratching off just one layer of that study shows that it was anything but impressive and, yet, that's what people grab on to. That this dude lost 27 lbs eating junk food.

 

So, we're losing the information war and badly. So, it comes back to this. If you're prepared to endure the rising health costs and tax bill associated with more and more people (both those who can and can't afford the medicine) getting really sick because of sugar, then, by all means, stand back and wait for the market to correct itself.

[Ice1]

So, we're losing the information war and badly. So, it comes back to this. If you're prepared to endure the rising health costs and tax bill associated with more and more people (both those who can and can't afford the medicine) getting really sick because of sugar, then, by all means, stand back and wait for the market to correct itself.

 

 

1) Sugar, Glucose is the primary energy source of the body.

2) Obesity is a problem but obesity is a result of individual calorie management in most cases.

3) Diabetes resulting from sugar intake is a myth. In fact there is no relationship. Obviously, if one has diabetes then sugar management is critical but sugar does not cause diabetes.

 

Not sure we are losing the information war. Many in society are simply lazy or simply find the convenience of a snickers and coke for lunch acceptable.

 

Health care costs will continue to skyrocket regardless. We have outstanding technology and simply know how to keep people alive longer. This coupled with the age of society are the real contributing factors. No doubt a great diet will help marginally.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Ice1

[Clubfoothead]

Soda is bad for you and its consumption should be minimized.

[Savage Beatings]

Soda is bad for you and its consumption should be minimized.

 

 

Eveything is lethal to the human body if the dosage is not correct.

[detlef]

1) Sugar, Glucose is the primary energy source of the body.

2) Obesity is a problem but obesity is a result of individual calorie management in most cases.

3) Diabetes resulting from sugar intake is a myth. In fact there is no relationship. Obviously, if one has diabetes then sugar management is critical but sugar does not cause diabetes.

 

Not sure we are losing the information war.

 

 

Apparently we are.

 

1) Yes glucose=energy but to go from that to "it's no different to introduce massive amounts of refined sugar into your bloodstream than it is to have your body mine whole foods for glucose, thereby avoiding blood sugar spikes" is foolish to say the least.

 

2) Again, weight is only part of the problem. It's a handy and convenient number to get our heads around, so that's where most people stop thinking. Of course, that's what give credence to idiocy like the twinkie diet. Further, much of why people consume too much is because they're not feeding themselves. You pound a coke, you introduce maybe 10% of the calories your body may need for the day. But it's gone and used up in a matter of minutes and, oddly, you're still hungry because you haven't fed yourself anything. Eat a healthy meal and you feel sustained for hours, thereby reducing the amount you actually consume.

 

3) That is BS and the results of a flawed conclusion. Essentially, development of the glycemic index showed that there were some other non-sugar foods that were just as bad as sugar. From that, one of two things could be decided. That we should avoid both sugars and those foods that act just like sugars or that because other things were just as bad, sugar must be fine. They seemingly went with rationale #2. Probably because people don't like bad news. Here's just one article on the topic. I could find 100s more if you like.

Edited June 18, 2012 by detlef

[detlef]

Eveything is lethal to the human body if the dosage is not correct.

 

So should children be able to buy smokes? I mean, basically what you're saying is that everything, in the wrong dose, is lethal, right? So, why single anything out?

[Savage Beatings]

So should children be able to buy smokes? I mean, basically what you're saying is that everything, in the wrong dose, is lethal, right? So, why single anything out?

 

 

Children continue to not have any rights that are not granted by their parents. But way to try to stretch the point into something nonsenseical. That point being, that since everything is bad for us, why single out just soda? Why not regulate every single dose of every single thing that we ingest? Or maybe we can just knock it the SNICKERS off and leave it up to people to not be idiots like we've done for thousands of years?

[stevegrab]

Detlef you said this in one post, and I know you've probably written a million words in this thread already, but I'm curious what proof there is. And what specific examples where "random restrictions" were made and had meaningful effects.

 

"In fact, the only reason why I think it makes any sense at all is because other random restrictions on things have had meaningful effects on overall reduction of their use."

 

 

This thread seems like a giant splitting of hairs. I think we can all agree

- people in this country are becoming increasingly fat/obese

- part of that is the large amount of poor foods (including soda) that some consume

- getting people to drink less soda and more healthy drinks (especially water, which has no calories) would be good

 

But for some reason you continue to support a law that many have pointed out really addresses nothing. The only place I read any specific details of the law did NOT say that refills would not be allowed. So your average fast food place or regular restaurant is still going to be able to serve the customer way more than 16oz of soda without an increase in cost. So where is the benefit? Those who get their food/drinks to go will have to survive on the 16oz (or buy extras).

 

Most of us see this as bad legislation, because it says "ok we're dumb and cannot eat right, so restrict what we can have". I don't see limiting the size of other foods as being that different, just because they are not as bad for you as soda. The fact that you give any support to this legislation based on the "it will do some good and educate some people" claims is scary. Limiting the size of other unhealthy foods could benefit people as well, so why not do that?

 

Basically most of us feel that the government should not be doing this stuff at all. It has little impact, costs money, and sets some bad precedents on government controlling our ability to eat what we want.

 

PS I don't need a degree in nutrition to make these claims, nor does all your information about how bad soda is make your stand more correct.

[bushwacked]

That point being, that since everything is bad for us, why single out just soda?

 

 

Becuase soda seems to have a massive amount of bad stuff that is easily consumed more than everything else? Again, I'm indifferent to the law and really don't give a chit, but I do find it humorous that everyone that used to love state's rights in theory isn't that fond of it when the rubber meets the road.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Or maybe we can just knock it the SNICKERS off and leave it up to people to not be idiots like we've done for thousands of years?

 

 

 

Because when it comes to food consumption we don't leave it entirely up to people. In the end, sure you can say a person has control over the food/drink choices they make but we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't admit that these choices are heavily (pardon the pun) influenced by advertising, price, and availability.

Edited June 18, 2012 by SayItAintSoJoe

[Clubfoothead]

Eveything is lethal to the human body if the dosage is not correct.

 

 

Well again, I don't think anyone has a right to be fat and unhealthy and nobody has been able to show they do. So if you are asking me why stop at soda, my response would be good point.

[Ice1]

3) That is BS and the results of a flawed conclusion. Essentially, development of the glycemic index showed that there were some other non-sugar foods that were just as bad as sugar. From that, one of two things could be decided. That we should avoid both sugars and those foods that act just like sugars or that because other things were just as bad, sugar must be fine. They seemingly went with rationale #2. Probably because people don't like bad news. Here's just one article on the topic. I could find 100s more if you like.

 

 

I challenge you to find any legitimate study from any medical professionals that can prove sugar causes diabetes. I assure you will not because sugar ingestion does not cause this affliction.

 

You can sugarcoat it all you want, pun intended, but there is no scientific link that sugar causes diabetes. Diabetes is a body production issue around the hormone insulin.

 

Making any wild claims to the contrary based on the science today is not remotely based in fact. I can't tell if you are somehow inferring otherwise but in the event you think for a second that consuming sugar causes diabetes you are wrong.

 

I have already stated sugar management is crucial to persons with diabetes but reducing consumption will not reduce the amount diabetics in the country by even 1 individual because it has nothing to with it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Ice1

[Clubfoothead]

I challenge you to find any legitimate study from any medical professionals that can prove sugar causes diabetes. I assure you will not because sugar ingestion does not cause this affliction.

 

You can sugarcoat it all you want, pun intended, but there is no scientific link that sugar causes diabetes. Diabetes is a body production issue around the hormone insulin.

 

Making any wild claims to the contrary is not remotely based in fact. I can't tell if you are somehow inferring otherwise but in the event you think for a second that consuming sugar causes diabetes you are wrong.

 

I have already stated sugar management is crucial to persons with diabetes but reducing consumption will not reduce the amount diabetics in the country by even 1 individual because it has nothing to with it.

 

 

Well that is flat out wrong.

[Big Country]

I challenge you to find any legitimate study from any medical professionals that can prove sugar causes diabetes. I assure you will not because sugar ingestion does not cause this affliction.

 

You can sugarcoat it all you want, pun intended, but there is no scientific link that sugar causes diabetes. Diabetes is a body production issue around the hormone insulin.

 

Making any wild claims to the contrary is not remotely based in fact. I can't tell if you are somehow inferring otherwise but in the event you think for a second that consuming sugar causes diabetes you are wrong.

 

I have already stated sugar management is crucial to persons with diabetes but reducing consumption will not reduce the amount diabetics in the country by even 1 individual because it has nothing to with it.

 

Well that is flat out wrong.

 

 

Assuming you are talking about the link of sugar consumption to diabetes, ICE1 is right in that it can not be scientifically linked, although (paraphrasing from the harvard medical article I quoted early), the increase in fructose consumption from the early 1900s to today alarmingly paralells the increases in obesity, diabetes and fatty liver disease. I'll quote part of that article again here:

When fructose is joined to glucose, it makes sucrose. Sucrose is abundant in sugar cane, sugar beets, corn, and other plants. When extracted and refined, sucrose makes table sugar. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the average American took in about 15 grams of fructose (about half an ounce), mostly from eating fruits and vegetables. Today we average 55 grams per day (73 grams for adolescents). The increase in fructose intake is worrisome, says Lustig, because it suspiciously parallels increases in obesity, diabetes, and a new condition called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease that now affects up to one-third of Americans. (You can read more about nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a Harvard Health Letter article.)

 

Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.

 

None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the “fat is bad” mantra prompted a big shift in the American diet. People and food companies replaced fat, often healthy fat, with sugar, almost always refined sugar. But this sort of low-fat diet—one rich in refined sugar and thus in fructose—is really a high-fat diet when you look at what the liver does to fructose, said Dr. Lustig.

 

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them. There are plenty of reasons to avoid sugary drinks and foods with added sugar, like empty calories, weight gain, and blood sugar swings. Lustig offers another.

[Jackass]

I think if you can run 2 miles in under 16 minutes you can drink all the soda you want. Otherwise, no soda for you.

[gbpfan1231]

It honestly scares me to see that a few people are indifferent to this law or think it is one bit legit.

[Ice1]

Well that is flat out wrong.

 

 

You may think I am wrong and perhaps your perception is reality but to date there a no studies on the other side of the argument. There have been studies that show there is no linkage.

 

Here is one from discussed by the American Diabetes Association.

 

http://care.diabetes.../26/4/1008.full

 

BTW, just because I am pointing out current fact does not mean I am a major sugar advocate. I also get that we have seen a major increase in diabetes since the 1900 but then again multiple factors go into this ranging from technology to diagnose to population makeup. There are several races that are more susceptible to type 2 diabetes as one example.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Ice1

[gbpfan1231]

Detlef,

 

We know you think soda is bad for you - if this same exact law was used to ban the large tub of popcorn at movie theaters would you be ok with that?

[Savage Beatings]

Well again, I don't think anyone has a right to be fat and unhealthy and nobody has been able to show they do. So if you are asking me why stop at soda, my response would be good point.

 

 

Excellent! So we are agreed, that the State has an interest in regulating the doses of all things that we ingest (since the State ultimately pays something for our health care, and everything we ingest is potentially fatal). I believe that we also agree that it is only the good health and viability of each person that is the goal of these regulation, and that the enjoyment of the individual has no bearing on how the State should regulate what we ingest (otherwise we could smoke or drink soda, just for the simple pleasure of it, even though those things are bad for us). And really, if the State is going to have an interest in regulating everything that we ingest, and since our own individual liberties and pleasures don't really matter, then the State should probably mandate that we no longer add any artifical flavors or colorings to our food and drink too. We could save a lot of money by not getting held up with worrying about people enjoying the taste or the look of the food we eat. Agreed.