What next???

[Lady's Human]

STE, the "Distributed costs to society" argument is getting old. How long until the government decides that they have to regulate who reproduces based on the probable cost to society?

How much of our behavior are we as a society willing to have government regulate for "the greater good"? Seatbelts, sugar, alcohol, .....where does it end?

My kids drink soda. I'm a bad parent. However, they are also very active, and there isn't an xbox anywhere to be found in the house. Every once in a blue moon they get to use the playstation 2 upstairs. THey're both skinny as rails, yet they eat candy, cookies, drink soda, koolaid, chocolate milk, and other nasty things.

I somehow don't think the food is the issue.

[Varga]

I don't necessarily agree with his idea but I have to say this, you Americans do realise just how huge the portions they serve here are, right? I still get surprised, even after having lived here for two years.
What is considered a large soda here, is unheard of back in Europe. Even in the same chains - such as Burger King and McDonald's - you order a large soda and it's going to be the size of of U.S. medium soda. I don't know why it's like that though. I don't think anyone at any point banned larger sodas. The need for them just never popped up I guess? I dunno.


I gotta say I like the huge portions at restaurants though. And how it's just totally normal and acceptable to get a box to bring home the leftovers! That whole idea is just unheard of back home. At most, some people might ask for a doggy bag to bring scraps for their dog but even that is considered pretty odd.

[Roxyluvsme13]

I don't think he's considered that people will just go back for more refills if the drinks are smaller...

And has anybody considered that some people's obesity problem is genetic or due to a medical issue? Because a lot of people are overweight because of those reasons, not because they eat badly...

Education and information is what we need though, not taking away large drinks.

[mon]

I agree that people generally feel they shuold simply be able to choose whatever they want to ingest, healthy or no. Unfortunately there are many bad choices as well as good ones. It's pretty clear to me that some people will sell a person pretty much anything now a day to make a buck or two regardless if it makes the customer drop dead Large portions are kinda rampant in the U.S. though I think..

[smokey the elder]

So the distributed cost of society argument is old...it doesn't make it any less valid. BUT...some other mechanism of changing behavior may be suitable. My unscientific observation is that the presence of calorie counts on the food displays at fast food places at least makes people think about what they're eating, if only for a nanosecond.

Has there been regulatory creep? Absolutely! Has it been needed? That can be argued pro and con, and is a debate for another time.

[Lady's Human]

The basis of the United States has always been freedom, and banning and restrictions of anything, be it drugs or any other consumer product, just creates black markets and contempt for the law.

Make all the PSAs you want, but banning a super slurpy is just ridiculous. It would be one hell of an incentive for restaurants to move out of NYC proper and into the suburbs, though.

[moosmom]

I think it all boils down to personal choices. People have the ability to choose what and how much they eat or drink. Moderation is the key. JMO.

Catmom,

I've been trying to save you from yourself since I met you. I've finally come to realize that you just don't mess with perfection!!!

[Jessika]

I think it all boils down to personal choices. People have the ability to choose what and how much they eat or drink. Moderation is the key. JMO.

Personal choices and personal responsibility. It's not anyone else's fault but my own for eating fast food or going back for free refills. Placing the blame on the government or food industry is outrageous. On the same hand, the government shouldn't be responsible for putting restrictions or bans on my personal choices. Even if it's my "best interest", that is my decision to make. Too many people lack responsibility, though, and want to place blame elsewhere. That behavior disgusts me. If we, as a country, started making ourselves accountable for our own actions... We'd all be better off. I personally don't need the government or anyone else to tell me drinking sugary drinks is bad for me, but I guess some people do.

[sallyandsnowx]

This reminds me of when certain cities banned/tried to ban happy meals from fast food industries to help the problem with childhood obesity.

Yes, I think the mayor has good intentions, but he is going about it the wrong way. Banning these large portion drinks is taking away New York City citizens the freedom to choose. And isn't that what America is about? Freedom?

[Miss Z]

I don't necessarily agree with his idea but I have to say this, you Americans do realise just how huge the portions they serve here are, right? I still get surprised, even after having lived here for two years.
What is considered a large soda here, is unheard of back in Europe. Even in the same chains - such as Burger King and McDonald's - you order a large soda and it's going to be the size of of U.S. medium soda. I don't know why it's like that though. I don't think anyone at any point banned larger sodas. The need for them just never popped up I guess? I dunno.

I do have to agree with this statement... you certainly get value for money!

Since the drink 'refill' has been mentioned several times on this thread, perhaps it would be more beneficial (i.e. in terms of lowering incidence of obesity) to scrap that. I honestly don't know anywhere over here that does drink refills for free. When I was nine and holidaying in FL, of course I loved the fact I could run down to the hotel restaurant every morning and get a monster sugar rush before I'd even eaten breakfast . As an adult? It's a peculiarity. If I'd grown up with the idea and become accustommed to it, would I really feel like my 'liberty' was infringed upon? As a Brit, not a chance. As an American, I guess I can't say. One thing would be for sure - I'd probably be far less healthy than I am now (and I wouldn't count myself as the image of physical fitness as it stands!) Sometimes, one can be blinkered by an affinity for one's comforts. I respect the American passion for freedoms of all kinds, and can see how well ingrained it is in all American people that I have ever met. That is a wonderful thing; by no means is my opinion meant to cause offence. My stance is that I, personally, find that conservatism stretching to preserve drinks under the 'freedom-to-have-what-we-want' clause a little excessive.

We are more of a nanny state than you guys, no doubt. Sometimes that is indeed a bad thing. We are also an overweight nation.

What do most British obese people blame their weight on? Fatty and sugary foods being cheap, and accessible. They know the dangers of carrying so much weight, and many admit they don't even enjoy the food anymore - they just eat out of habit. And a habit, so they say, is impossible to break when it's staring you in the face most of the time.

Maybe some people need a little nannyin'?!

Again, NOT to flame. I have no sympathy for morbidly obese people hooked up to oxygen machines and unable to reach to put on their own shoes. On no basis is that condition genetic; terrible addiction, yes, genes, no. Addictions can, and should, be addressed before getting to that state. In this country, their care is financed out of the wallet of the taxpayer. We are bitter when we see millions spent on what we deem could have been avoided.

I believe the Delphic phrase is 'Nothing in excess', not that I know the Greek off the top of my head...

Perhaps I am beating around the bush. Our government recently tried to impose a tax on pasties and various other baked goods, depending on their temperature. Banning of supersized drinks seems such a more straightforward idea.

[Lady's Human]

Again, NOT to flame. I have no sympathy for morbidly obese people hooked up to oxygen machines and unable to reach to put on their own shoes. On no basis is that condition genetic; terrible addiction, yes, genes, no. Addictions can, and should, be addressed before getting to that state. In this country, their care is financed out of the wallet of the taxpayer. We are bitter when we see millions spent on what we deem could have been avoided.

Meet a couple of them sometime. It's easy to judge someone at a glance on the street.

Some of them do have issues, genetic or otherwise, that LEAD to the obesity, and not a problem with addiction.

[K9soul]

Even people without a medical condition or "excuse" to be morbidly obese deserve compassion and to not be scorned and judged. Often they are suffering from depression, anxiety, and other extreme stressors that make them feel beaten down and make them give up or reach for the only comforts that they can. On that note, people suffering from addictions usually aren't somehow lesser or weaker or more lazy people, but people with mental disorders, poor support networks, or situations of extreme prolonged grief and stress that get them caught up in a cycle they can't seem to escape.

[Lady's Human]

Just as an aside, carping about American dietary habits is nothing new. Baron von Steuben complained mightily about the diet and preferences of the Colonial soldiers.

[momcat]

Ellie, it looks like Bloomberg stirred up a potential hornets nest with this nonsense about limiting soda and other "high sugar" drinks. On this morning's news it was announced that Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia will be trying to implement the same ban. With all of the serious problems facing our cities, why is THIS any kind of priority?