This is a relief. It gets scary when governments think they can dictate what people eat or drink or the quantity.
I voluntarily cut my soda intake several years ago. I don’t buy the 20oz bottles anymore. Even a 12oz Coke is a rare treat every couple of weeks. I made that change because of health warnings. That’s how the problem of poor diet and obesity should be addressed.
Big brother government is never the answer. Now something needs to be done to stop the new mayors vow to eliminate the horse drawn carriages in Central Park. Exactly the same heavy handed and misguided approach to governing that Bloomberg loved.
I support the ruling to strike this ban but the government definitely has the right to control what you put in your body. There are countless drugs and foods that need to be tested for safety and there is no way that any one of us has the ability to do so. I don’t believe in the whole buyer beware philosophy because it seems to absolve corporations of any liability. Everything that is legally sold in the US is the government’s business. This soda ban just crosses the line but I agree with the spirit of what its doing. I’m fine with them banning trans fats
First they came for the giant sodas, and I said nothing… :rolleyes: As much as people made fun of the law, it was a sensible policy: the only reason “gigantic” was the default size of a soda at the movies was that it let the movie theater companies soak their customers for giant profits while giving them a product that was absurdly unhealthy. Reducing the size has a public health benefit and doesn’t cost anyone anything since you could still buy a huge-ass soda if you wanted one. All it did was change the default, and that’s a decent way to make public policy.
Thankfully 2 different courts feel its a step too far.
I totally agree medicines and additives that go into food or cosmetics should be regulated. The FDA does a vital job.
Regulating the size of someones non-alcoholic beverage at dinner is intrusive. Whats next? Ban a double meat burger? No more than 1/8 teaspoon of mayo on a sandwich? Its not a suitable role of government.
Most people buy something to eat with their soda. Sodas in all restaurants were included.
Now that the courts have knocked this down. Perhaps they can focus on public education. Keep reminding people of the dangers of obesity. Public demand for huge drinks will drop. Eventually these fast food chains will voluntarily eliminate the super size cups.
Few restaurants serve giant-ass sodas, but you’re right that included places like McDonald’s. But that’s the same issue as it is with movie theaters: it’s a way for the companies to make an easy profit, and moving the needle could actually help consumers.
By some weird coincidence, the same people who say things like ‘it gets scary when governments regulate drink sizes’ don’t like it when the government gets involved in things like nutrition for kids. What you need is a combination of simple changes like these with education about healthy food and reforms that make it easier to get that food. But there’s no harm in ditching giant drinks either.
Another interesting point: the ruling doesn’t say NYC can’t ban giant sodas. It says the board of health can’t do that on its own, which is an entirely different argument.
Yes, because obesity is a major problem and sodas are a significant contributor. NYC may continue to pursue it. And it’s apparently legal if done through the legislative process. Does that also scare you?
But surely reducing the maximum size of individual servings IS a form of public education; it teaches people what a sensible sized serving looks like.
I’m sure the legislation wouldn’t have stopped anyone from consuming a gallon of soda if they so wished, they would just have to have done so in several smaller cups.
I have to say, I really dislike it when people make these kinds of assumptions. I was very much against the ban on large sodas but I’m very concerned with the content of school lunches, I’m a fan of free lunch programs, and I want to see vending machines with candy bars and sodas taken out of schools. But I’m an adult and if McDonald’s wants to sell me a 32 ounce Coca-Cola and I want to buy a 32 ounce Coca-Cola then it’s not the place of any local, state, or federal government telling us we can’t do it.
I should’ve elaborated here: opposing the ban and finding it scary are two different things. I understand why people are against this kind of move even though I think they’re wrong. Saying it’s scary when there are all sorts of regulations applied to food and drink and packaging and labeling is kind of daft. Stalin didn’t start by regulating cola and horse-drawn carriages. :rolleyes:
Then you get two cups - or refill the one you have. Although come to think of it I thought fast food places gave you free soda refills anyway. It’s a limit on cup size, not on how much you can drink.
I find the attitudes behind the justification of the ban to be a bit worrisome but I wouldn’t say the ban was scary in and of itself.
One big problem with the scheme was that convenience stores like 7-11 were exempt as were juices, coffees, and alcoholic beverages which pack just as many empty calories as a soda. And, yes, I’m aware that the ban was on container size but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for it. Yes, I certainly recognize that there are times when regulations are necessary and desirable. But in this case I do not believe that the reasons to limit soda size by law are compelling enough to trump the rights of consumers and merchants to purchase and sell their soda in whatever sizes they wish.
I have a bit more faith that most people are smarter than Sarah Palin. And, let’s face it, this is hardly a Democrat versus Republican issue. It’s not like most New Yorkers were clamoring for the large soda ban. That’s why the mayor had to attempt to subvert the legislators by trying to push the ban through the health department.
To list a few reasons this is wrong: the regulating was done by the board of health, not Bloomberg (though he obviously supported it); while your advocacy for huge soda companies is touching, I don’t think you can hold an elected official liable for this kind of thing anyway; and the regulation never even went into effect, so good luck identifying damages.