What do the Nerds think about the soda ban?

[chasely]

Posting this as a reflection to the cost of obesity in America thread.

What do you guys think of the soda ban in New York that's going into effect? For those that need more information, here's a quick story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html

I'll add my own thoughts after my class...

[Tocho]

Well, I think the intention is good, but it won't help at all. Unless it was changed somehow (don't see how that'd happen), people can just buy 2 x 14 oz drinks if the limit is 15 oz, and so on.

It won't actually do anything. And some stores are exempted from the soda ban, aren't they? Pointless.

(I've read about this before, but my connection is slow today so I didn't bother reading the link you provided, sorry if this is all mentioned in it)

Plus a decision like this... well; where's the limit for what a government can decide? The intention is good, but it's not something that they should decide, and it's not something they ever will be able to decide.

[bigm141414]

I think it is terrible. I understand that they have good intentions but it is an overstep of governmental powers to limit the size of a drink. If I want to drink a 64oz big gulp of sugary beverage, I should be able to.

[Waldo]

I think they went about it wrong.

I strongly disapprove of banning anything that is not acutely unhealthy (which neither soda nor smoking are), but have no qualms with them taxing the snot out of it; this country would be better off if they applied a steep fatness tax to things like sugary soda and potato chips, help fix gov't budgets and help curtail obesity at the same time, win-win.

[rtalencar]

It's a highly political move (some of the irony shines through when you look at Bloomberg's response to national donut day around this proposal), and will ultimately have little to no effect (in my opinion). If I didn't think it was just politics, I'd have less of an issue with it. I do not think it's attacking our freedom or anything.

[Gobnait]

Just slap a warning label on it. Next they'll be telling smokers that they can only buy one pack at a time, or limiting beers to 6-packs.

[SusieBlu]

The U.S. tried to ban things and/or over tax them to eliminate/reduce use the result is smuggling and black markets. From alcohol to cigarettes bans have not worked. People find ways around it and the fastest way to make someone want a 64 oz soda is to tell them they can't have it. People need to be responsible for their own choices. The U.S. governments should find other ways of promoting healthier lifestyles. Carrot stick concept.

[Daverin2112]

Its silly, not the least of which reason is that the most obvious way around it is to buy that many ounces worth of smaller containers. Even given that can be more expensive, its not going to stop overconsumption of soda (lets face it, America has a deep-seated issue with serving sizes.)

In some ways, I find I respect Bloomberg a bit more than the average circus performer in America today, but this one was silly. Taxing really is a much better controller of products we want to reduce usage of, or rather, making revenue off of it (it can easily backfire with actually reducing usage.)

This is just one of way too many examples of the problem with how things are done: Liken a problem to a tree, and to kill it we need to hit the root. Unfortunately, we haven't even hit the branches yet; we are still on the leaves.

[ETFnerd]

I strongly disapprove of banning anything that is not acutely unhealthy (which neither soda nor smoking are), ...

i thought it was interesting that you believe that smoking isn't acutely unhealthy...

[Waldo]

i thought it was interesting that you believe that smoking isn't acutely unhealthy...

Smoking a cigarette will not make you drop dead or put you in a hospital bed. Years and years of smoking a lot of them might. While I don't think anyone would argue that it is unhealthy, the degree of acuteness just isn't there to outright ban something (here's looking at you, MJ laws). Of course smoking is very unhealthy so they should (and do) tax the crap out of cigarettes to help curtail smoking, and it definitely is working, slowly but surely.

[ETFnerd]

i guess it all depends of how you interpret what "accutely unhealthy" is...

http://www.cdc.gov/features/TobaccoControlData/

Smoking costs Americans in dollars and lives

All Americans—smokers and nonsmokers—pay the price for smoking. Smoking is still the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing 443,000—or nearly 1 of every 5—deaths annually. These include 46,000 heart attack deaths and 3,400 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Smoking is also a major contributor to many chronic diseases that are driving up the nation's health care costs. Each year, diseases caused by cigarette smoking result in $96 Billion in health care costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs.

[andygates]

Fundamentally, people accept the default that's available. Changing the default will change what they do. After all it was stores making gigantic mega-sodas the default that made people drink 'em. Nobody in the 1980s asked for a half-gallon of Mountain Dew.

Now, you can go on about personal choice or about legislative overreach all you like, but that doesn't change the facts, just your spin on them.

I predict a win.

[Gobnait]

I think perhaps that his point about smoking and cola is that a reasonable amount won't be the catalyst. Problem is that I never hear about smokers who talk about their habit in any other terms than packs per day. I'm sure that there is a wider spread who enjoy one movie-pail full of soda once per month and that's it.

[flourless]

i guess it all depends of how you interpret what "accutely unhealthy" is...

It seems pretty clear to me that he means acute vs chronic. The argument isn't that cigarettes are good, but that they take time and more than one exposure to kill you.

Acute - Of or relating to a disease or a condition with a rapid onset and a short, severe course.

Chronic - Of long duration. Used of a disease of slow progress and long continuance.

I've inhaled second hand smoke on multiple occasions, but any effects are slow and minor at this point. On the other hand, a good wiff of ricin, and I'd be on a slab somewhere.

I don't think that acutely unhealthy is really the best metric, though. Chlordane (a banned pesticide) is highly carcinogenic. It's actually one of the most carcinogenic molecules ever tested in animals. But it's still a chronic issue. It was banned because even though it requires chronic exposure, it bioaccumulates in animals, is taken up by plants grown in treated soil, breaks down incredibly slowly and leaches slowly into ground water. People have no ability to control (or even be aware of) their own exposure, so it makes sense to legislate protection from chronic exposure.

I'm pretty aware of drinking soda, or inhaling second hand smoke. I can take action to protect myself from either of those risks relatively easily. I can't protect myself from chlordane in my food supply or in the water table.

As a law, I think it's a bad idea. I don't think it will solve the problem it's intended to solve. I think it will effect the economy more than people's waistlines, and if I lived in NYC, I'd be objecting in great detail. For people who would like to discuss specifics of the change - here's the full text of the amendment. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/notice/2012/notice-adoption-amend-article81.pdf

[Avistew]

I think it might work for the people who don't think about it. Now they'll have to. They'll ask the usual size, they'll be told it's too big, they might decide to go for the smaller size instead.

Has anyone seen that thing with chips, every ten chips was coloured red or something? They did tests, and the people who had the chips with red chips regularly ate less of them, because it forced them to think about how much they were eating.

For people who don't care if it's bad for them, they'll just work around it. Some people though will probably think twice and switch to smaller sizes. Which they probably should have before but always thought "if it was that bad, they wouldn't provide this size!"

Well now they can't justify it that way anymore.

I still think it's stupid to take these measures though. The government shouldn't have to take people by the end and tell them what's good or bad. Or course, I find it insane to begin with how huge the portions are in the US. I remember my honeymoon in New York, everything we ordered we shared and often couldn't finish, food-wise, and for drinks I remember ordering a small, being given something huge and saying "I said a small" only to be told it was the smallest size they had.

In France, and I think a lot of other places in Europe, you pay for one drink, and if you want refills, you pay for each refill. That makes it way more expensive, but as a result you're more likely to stick to water, which they provide for free (provided you don't get bottled water, which they'll make you pay for). I've certainly noticed that in the US, instead of one (250mL) glass of (diet) soda, I tended to have it refilled since it was free anyways. I can imagine how that could get you addicted.

I think it's not the way it should be, but maybe that will work. The change should come from within, but if it doesn't, and considering it is costing the government a lot of money, I can see why they'd want to take action.

Honestly, I think it might be more effective if instead of banning them, they were renamed something incredibly embarrassing, so that lots of people wouldn't dare order them.

[flourless]

After all it was stores making gigantic mega-sodas the default that made people drink 'em. Nobody in the 1980s asked for a half-gallon of Mountain Dew.

You're right. In the 80's my dad would drink a 32 or 44oz Dr Pepper (which is only a third of a gallon) and a quart or three pints of chocolate milk instead. With a couple of 3 musketeers bars. Three times a week. As the drinks got larger, he drank more soda and less chocolate milk, because the milk tended to upset his stomach. I'd say it was lousy for him, except that he was (and still is, at 65 - better than 30 years of this habit) pretty much smack in the middle of a healthy BMI. And when they cut him open to take 4" out of his left femur due to a bicycling accident, they said he had the muscle response and density of a man half his age.

I don't disagree that pricing structures and an authoritative "So you want the monster-size, right?" influence people to buy and consume more food than they ought. It also encourages people to buy more material goods than they ought, to have more expansive vacations than they ought, to buy all-inclusive passes that cause them to spend more than they otherwise would, have better health insurance than they need, etc. If you start legislating for people's "own good", I'm not sure where you stop.

[Gobnait]

Avis did bring up something that it would be reasonable to legislate: Making single-serving cups of soda available. How much is that, 8oz? 12? I think a can is 12 and more than a serving...

[Tocho]

Oh... had no idea that you pretty much get unlimited soda for a cheap price in the US at restaurants.

In Sweden, one glass (0.3L or so) is about $3.5 to $4. Naturally, you will buy less soda when eating out. In grocery stores you can get 1.5L for $2 or so, however.

[concretecavewoman]

How about removing subsidies on corn (and, by extension, HFCS) rather than limit the quantity of soda a person can purchase? That would allow the -actual- cost of the product to be reflected in the purchase price, so instead of $1.99 (or however much a 5-zillion oz soda costs) it would likely be much more expensive and disincentivize purchasing.

[ETFnerd]

How about removing subsidies on corn (and, by extension, HFCS) rather than limit the quantity of soda a person can purchase? That would allow the -actual- cost of the product to be reflected in the purchase price, so instead of $1.99 (or however much a 5-zillion oz soda costs) it would likely be much more expensive and disincentivize purchasing.

i don't think the problem is that simple. in essence corn is food. corn is very efficient to produce from a cost per calorie perspective. the world needs to be fed and the US is a net exporter of corn as we have a relatively disproportionate amount of arable land compared to other countries. the US produces about half of all the corn in the world. without corn subsidies, there would be less food in the world and it would be more expensive. subsidies are a tool or lever to "right-size" or optimize the global food supply from a policy perspective as, in many parts of the world, starvation is a more serious problem than obesity. reducing subsidies for corn may be effective to curtail obesity here, but may have the unintended consequence of increasing starvation in another part of the world. it can also be argued that corn or food price controls are a mechanism to advance US policy objectives (or imperialism or hegemony, etc...).

also an excess supply of corn above the market equilibrium level is desirable because agricultural production in general is variable as we are learning from this year's severe drought season. food production differs from other products because it has the potential to affect mortality and political stability in many countries around the world.

an increase in the price of corn through the removal of subsidies would disproportionatelly impact adversely the lives of some of the poorest people of the world. i've heard the argument that they're not americans, so why should we care... i was at a loss as to how to respond to that... to me life is precious regardless of where one was born...

otoh, burning corn in the form of ethanol so that we can put cheaper gas in our oversized cars is a moral travesty imho...

in sum, all decisions have consequences...

[LRB]

It'd be better to stop subsidizing the cultivation of corn (and HFCS) that makes soda so cheap to make and to consume . . . But it's not as if NYC has any say over the farm bill, right?

[rtalencar]

I am extremely wary of any solution when it comes to politics that is 'simple', even if it makes complete sense. There are a tremendous number of potential consequences which need to be addressed, like ETF's mention of starvation in other parts of the world, or the effect such changes would have on the agriculture industry and what that would mean to our economic recovery.

[Gobnait]

If we need farm subsidies for starvation-halting exports, perhaps we need a mechanism to get corn exported. Or at least shunt it to everything except HFCS.

[Rayen]

As far as i know soda is not banned but the xlarge unlimited refill things are. So that makes what? Less unlimited?

I don't see a reason why people cry about that.

i don't think the problem is that simple. in essence corn is food. corn is very efficient to produce from a cost per calorie perspective. the world needs to be fed and the US is a net exporter of corn as we have a relatively disproportionate amount of arable land compared to other countries. the US produces about half of all the corn in the world. without corn subsidies, there would be less food in the world and it would be more expensive. subsidies are a tool or lever to "right-size" or optimize the global food supply from a policy perspective as, in many parts of the world, starvation is a more serious problem than obesity. reducing subsidies for corn may be effective to curtail obesity here, but may have the unintended consequence of increasing starvation in another part of the world. it can also be argued that corn or food price controls are a mechanism to advance US policy objectives (or imperialism or hegemony, etc...).

also an excess supply of corn above the market equilibrium level is desirable because agricultural production in general is variable as we are learning from this year's severe drought season. food production differs from other products because it has the potential to affect mortality and political stability in many countries around the world.

an increase in the price of corn through the removal of subsidies would disproportionatelly impact adversely the lives of some of the poorest people of the world. i've heard the argument that they're not americans, so why should we care... i was at a loss as to how to respond to that... to me life is precious regardless of where one was born...

otoh, burning corn in the form of ethanol so that we can put cheaper gas in our oversized cars is a moral travesty imho...

in sum, all decisions have consequences...

There are more obese people than starving people at the moment. And starvation would not be a problem if the western world (Specialy USA and Europe) Wouldn't destroy the marked for african products in africa. There is enough food in the world. The problem is people can't afford it, because they can't sell it, because the us or european produce is cheaper because of subsidies. So by exporting food we are starving people. And than we even kill out old grains that could be used as seed the next year because we mutate it so it becomes impotent. The world is starving because it is good business.

[Breakfast]

I don't think there should be any bans or increasing the price to disincentivize. Everyone should have the choice to drink and eat however much they want. If businesses had an incentive to slowly decrease the size of soft drinks and portion sizes, then maybe the norm will change back to smaller sizes for later generations?