One Small Victory For Personal Responsibility

[Nomad Jay]

Judge Overturns New York City Ban On Big Sugary Sodas

 

I'm all for people making good decisions, but at some point we have to treat folks like grown-ups.

[sumdawgtwigg]

I agree, if people want to be unhealthy that is their choice, just like it is our choice to be healthy. 

[Zorch]

I agree with the intent, but not the methods of Mayor Bloomberg in this case.

 

My general view on the government's proper role as relates to foods is:

 

• Ensure Safety(i.e. restrict things that are overtly harmful, known to cause cancer, etc)
• Ensure Transparency - consumers need to know what they're eating, so they're empowered to make their own decisions.  IMO this should go beyond ingredients and caloric labeling, and include things like farming practices and the presence/absence of GMO's, presence/absence of BPA can liners, when possible.

I don't think banning extra-large sodas falls under the category of what the government should be worried about.  If something is overtly toxic, then it should be banned - if it's something that we merely get into trouble if we over-consume, that's not the government's job to fix, IMO.

[I-Jo]

Finally. That was such a ridiculous law to implement.

 

[guest439437484421]

I've got mixed feelings on this one.  On one side, I'm like "no, they don't have that right, people should get to make their own choices", but on the other side I can't help but think "it's not preventing them from drinking it, it's just portion control."

[KingZora]

I agree it was a crazy law, but I think that was it's purpose.  Just to get people talking about this and bringing up the fact that drinking 32oz of Dr. Fat Juice is really bad for you, it has gotten a lot more media attention now that it ever did in the past.  People are actually talking about the fact that you should/shouldn't drink it rather than just consuming because it tastes good.

[Sage]

You can't legislate portion control. Or, you can, but a judge with a common-sense-having bone in his/her body is going to un-legislate it for you with a quickness.

[Elastigirl]

I agree it was a crazy law, but I think that was it's purpose.  Just to get people talking about this and bringing up the fact that drinking 32oz of Dr. Fat Juice is really bad for you, it has gotten a lot more media attention now that it ever did in the past.  People are actually talking about the fact that you should/shouldn't drink it rather than just consuming because it tastes good.

I don't think its a new thing to say drinking 32 oz of pop is bad for you. Most people have heard that message before. And I don't think its a good idea to pass crazy laws just so people will talk about the issue. Mainly because next I know they'll come after my bacon because its bad for me

[I-Jo]

The government isn't here for our protection against our own stupidity.  

 

Ya'll need to go back and watch Demolition Man again.  if they can do that- where does it stop- salt- one pack of soy sauce for my rice?  one piece of fruit? 

 

Hell they continue to push fat is bad and we all love bacon- we going to get portion control on bacon at this point?  The government needs to get put back in it's place and let stupid people be stupid. 

[Rostov]

Well.... it's not my country and none of my business, but I'd have absolutely no problem with a role for government in regulating the food mega-corps in the interests of public health.  It would be better to have voluntary self-regulation and industry consensus, but failing that (and it does seem to be failing), I don't see a problem with government action.  Whether soft drink sizes is the most sensible first step, I'm not entirely sure - depends what the evidence says.  In the UK we wouldn't have the food labelling and the nutritional information displayed on foods that we do if government hadn't forced the corporations to do it.  And even now, they wilfully and deliberately present the information in a confusing and misleading manner.

 

It's a difficult one.  Is government there to protect citizens against their own stupidity (or at least what the govt regards as stupidity)?  Arguably not.  Is there a role for government in protecting citizens against the behaviour of over-powerful and under-accountable corporations who seek to manipulate and mislead as part of their quest for greater profits?  Arguably so.  Is public health and public safety an area of legitimate interest and concern for government?  I'd say so.

 

As for "slippery slope"/"where does it stop"/"thin end of the wedge" arguments, well, it stops where we decide it does, unless there are particularly strong reasons for thinking that either in principle or practice, allowing X will actually lead to Y.  And I think that's an argument that needs to be made, not just asserted.

[OrangeJorwell]

I don't really agree with the law, but at the same time, I wish it were possible for me to do so.  I used to drink a lot of pop, and the way I drank it at fast food restaurants is very similar to how a lot of other people drink it: I drank one cup of whatever size with my meal, and then refilled it for the road.  Now, assuming that the person at the restaurant gets enough refills to drink the same amount in the restaurant as he would have before, he's still taking less on the road with him.  Ergo, it's (slightly) healthier.  I also don't really believe the whole "stepping stone" theory about suddenly wanting to regulate bacon at restaurants.  Bacon has not been labeled as the single greatest cause of obesity in the United States, nor will it ever be.  There will always be much worse problems than 6 slices of bacon with your omelette at Denny's.  Also, with ObamaCare, WE are paying for these people to drink 9,000 oz. of pop every day when they go to the hospital for their 6th heart attack.

However, despite the fact that I think the law would do much more good than harm, I can't support it.  It isn't the government's place to tell us that we can't be fat.  I would, however, whole-heartedly support a tax on pop.  Tack on a penny for every 5 oz.  People will buy less or they'll pay up and help to balance the budget.  Win-win.

[Nomad Jay]

The US government exists to protect individuals from each other, not from themselves. The problem, at least in the US, in saying the it ends where we say it ends is that in the US it doesn't. In the last decade we have had an increasing number of US Congress-critters trying to save us from ourselves. They try to legislate public religion, legislate what is "acceptable" free speech, legislate how we spend our money, and how we use the very things we own, justifying it all by saying it's for our own good. I'm skeptical of the idea that we, as a society, can somehow legislate people into making better choices.

 

If I may paraphrase Serenity, some believe that they can make people better, and I do not hold to that.

 

 

 

[KingZora]

No matter how many laws are made saying you can or cannot do something, until good ole conventional wisdom changes and unhealthy foods start getting the same bad press and vilification that things like tobacco receive, it will be up to the individual to be able to sort through the information and come to a good conclusion of how to be healthy.  Here in the rebellion are people to have taken the initiative and drive to care about that, and for us passing regulations like this is wrong... if only I could have the faith the rest of the population is capable of that.

[UberTumbleweed]

Well.... it's not my country and none of my business, but I'd have absolutely no problem with a role for government in regulating the food mega-corps in the interests of public health.  It would be better to have voluntary self-regulation and industry consensus, but failing that (and it does seem to be failing), I don't see a problem with government action.  Whether soft drink sizes is the most sensible first step, I'm not entirely sure - depends what the evidence says.  In the UK we wouldn't have the food labelling and the nutritional information displayed on foods that we do if government hadn't forced the corporations to do it.  And even now, they wilfully and deliberately present the information in a confusing and misleading manner.

 

There's a fundamental difference in mandating food labelling and mandating portion control: one is about providing people knowledge to make their own choices, and one is making the personal choice for people.

I believe the government should involve themselves in the former, and should avoid the latter.

 

Providing nutritional information is false equivalency to regulating pop sizes.  A comparable action to those of the UK government would be if NYC required nutritional information on each glass of pop served.  Limiting portion sizes is not at all comparable.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

Well.... it's not my country and none of my business, but I'd have absolutely no problem with a role for government in regulating the food mega-corps in the interests of public health.  It would be better to have voluntary self-regulation and industry consensus, but failing that (and it does seem to be failing), I don't see a problem with government action.  Whether soft drink sizes is the most sensible first step, I'm not entirely sure - depends what the evidence says.  In the UK we wouldn't have the food labelling and the nutritional information displayed on foods that we do if government hadn't forced the corporations to do it.  And even now, they wilfully and deliberately present the information in a confusing and misleading manner.

 

It's a difficult one.  Is government there to protect citizens against their own stupidity (or at least what the govt regards as stupidity)?  Arguably not.  Is there a role for government in protecting citizens against the behaviour of over-powerful and under-accountable corporations who seek to manipulate and mislead as part of their quest for greater profits?  Arguably so.  Is public health and public safety an area of legitimate interest and concern for government?  I'd say so.

 

As for "slippery slope"/"where does it stop"/"thin end of the wedge" arguments, well, it stops where we decide it does, unless there are particularly strong reasons for thinking that either in principle or practice, allowing X will actually lead to Y.  And I think that's an argument that needs to be made, not just asserted.

The problem I see is that government never stops regulating.  The US was founded by people who didn't trust government, which is why the articles of confederation created such a weak central government.  When that didn't work, the US Constitution was drafted consisting mostly of things government isn't allowed to do.  I do not trust the government to regulate my life because the people writing regulations are usually not even elected officials who have virtually no accountability to the public.  Even elected officials often do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of trust.

[guest439437484421]

I think it all boils down to two things:  1. corporations need to be more responsible for what they're selling and what they're putting in their products and how it affects the health of their consumers.  too many things are approved for consumption without adequate drug trials.  2. consumers need to be given more and better tools to enable them to make better decisions.  instead of eliminating the large sodas, print on the cups just how many calories are in that soda (no stupid servings crap, i want the total numbers without having to do math) and just how much of each ingredient is in it.

 

it'd be nice if each company was required to give an extensive breakout of the nutritional facts of its products, the list of ingredients, and definitions for what each ingredient is.

[Rostov]

 

There's a fundamental difference in mandating food labelling and mandating portion control: one is about providing people knowledge to make their own choices, and one is making the personal choice for people.

I believe the government should involve themselves in the former, and should avoid the latter.

 

Providing nutritional information is false equivalency to regulating pop sizes.  A comparable action to those of the UK government would be if NYC required nutritional information on each glass of pop served.  Limiting portion sizes is not at all comparable.

 

To be clear, I'm not claiming they're equivilent - just that there is (in my view) a legitimate role for government in regulating the food mega-corps in the interests of public health.  One form that that regulation might take is food labelling, another is preventing the sale of certain drink sizes.  As I said earlier, that's not neccesarily the best first step, but it seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) that some people are against all forms of regulation, or at least hadn't considered that there might be forms of regulation that they would accept.  I'm aware of US traditions of deep hostility and suspicion of government, though I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that I understand it, never having spent any time in the US. 

 

As for what the rebellion is.... I think that's very much an individual thing.  Do you want to conquer the empire on your own, for yourself and your comrades-in-arms, or do you want to bring it down for everyone, or at least weaken it sufficiently to make the battle for the next generation of rebels that bit easier?  The former is in our control, the latter isn't, so I can understand people concentrating on themselves.  But personally, I'd like to see the Empire weakened because improved public health (however you fund and organise your healthcare system) is important economically and socially to any country. 

 

And I think there are things that can be done to weaken the empire which I don't think will significantly impact on individual freedom and individual choice.  They'll impact on corporate choice, and corporate behaviour, but that's not the same thing at all.  Ideally I'd like to see corporations regulating themselves and their own behaviour in the public interest, but if they can't or won't, I'm more than happy for my government to bang heads together.  Sometimes the threat of regulation leads to positive results - essentially saying to companies that they need to put their house in order, or it'll be done through regulation.

[UberTumbleweed]

I'm Canadian and I am pro-big government.
 

And I think there are things that can be done to weaken the empire which I don't think will significantly impact on individual freedom and individual choice.  They'll impact on corporate choice, and corporate behaviour, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

You're right. Except, telling me how much I am allowed to eat is absolutely confining on my individual freedom and choice.  

 

Give me knowledge.  Regulate the hell out of corporations so that they have to give fully accurate information.  Fine corporations that mislead (eg: Coca-cola, for their new "we're helping you be healthy" commercials about artificially sweetened low-calorie drinks that are decidedly NOT helping health).

 

Once my Coke bottle comes with accurate information on it, let me have the freedom to choose how much I can drink of it.

 

Regulate corporations, not people.  Regulating corporations isn't the easy and quick fix.  The government required to do that properly will be larger than the government required to regulate people's consumption.  But so what?  I'll gladly pay taxes to fund getting accurate information, because we sure don't know.

 

You seem to be claiming that people can't be trusted to make the choice you want them to make.  Well, maybe it turns out that your desired choice sucks.  Or maybe, as you admit, it's because our governments have failed on getting us fully accurate information.  Let's fix that, before we start taking away choice.

[Zorch]

 

There's a fundamental difference in mandating food labelling and mandating portion control: one is about providing people knowledge to make their own choices, and one is making the personal choice for people.

I believe the government should involve themselves in the former, and should avoid the latter.

 

Providing nutritional information is false equivalency to regulating pop sizes.  A comparable action to those of the UK government would be if NYC required nutritional information on each glass of pop served.  Limiting portion sizes is not at all comparable.

Agreed 100%.

 

Regardless of how you feel about "pure" free-market economics, for a free market to function "properly" and yield the benefits that is proponents claim, consumers need access to accurate information on which to base their decisions.  Based on this requirement, the government's role should be to ensure that this information is available to citizens so that they may make their own decisions.

 

• Yes, tell us the carb/protein/fat/calorie content of our food
• Yes, tell us the ingredients(and don't lump them into "spices" or "natural flavor")
• Yes, tell us how our food was raised and/or genetically modified
• Don't ban things unless they are overtly harmful(I'm not talking "OK in moderation" foods here)
• Don't regulate portion sizes

 

  Also, with ObamaCare, WE are paying for these people to drink 9,000 oz. of pop every day when they go to the hospital for their 6th heart attack.

 

To me, this is the one sticking point - in any "pooled" health insurance environment the healthy tend to end up subsidizing the sick.  Now, I don't mind those who are using insurance as insurance was originally intended - i.e. as a buffer against unpredictable/uncontrollable events - but I do object to subsidizing the outcomes of others' unhealthy habits.  Unfortunately this isn't just a problem with government health insurance - it happens with private insurance too(though any kind of mandate potentially makes it worse).  At some point when the collective health decisions of society end up impacting everyone's budget, it does enter into the realm of public policy.  While I don't support regulation of portion sizes, I'm also extremely NOT OK with subsidizing someone who doesn't make the effort to be healthy.

[Rostov]

Here's why I don't think restricting corporations on portion size - preferably through voluntary industry self regulation, but through government action if not - presents any real threat to individual freedom.

 

To use the drink size example, if the ban had gone ahead and I found myself inexplicably in New York, there would be nothing whatever to prevent me from drinking over 16 ounces of soda.  Nothing whatever.  I could buy that much and drink it in the privacy of my own home, or I could go into one of the newly-regulated fast food outlets affected by the ruling, buy myself two 12 ounce drinks (or whatever, I have no idea about sizes), sit down next to Bloomberg and drink the lot, and there's nothing he could do about it.  Because it's not my freedom to drink what I want that's being restricted, it's the freedom of corporations to sell drinks in whatever size they want that's being restricted.

 

Now I'd accept that if I wanted lots and lots and lots of drink it would be marginally - marginally - more inconvenient for me to have to buy what I want in two helpings rather than one.  Now for me - and I accept and respect that others may disagree - that inconvenience is (in principle) a price worth paying for better health outcomes.  Because I think that people tend to buy the largest size not because they want precisely that much, but because they think it represents the best value and because of all kinds of complicated reasons around status, conspicuous consumption, and self-worth. 

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

Here's why I don't think restricting corporations on portion size - preferably through voluntary industry self regulation, but through government action if not - presents any real threat to individual freedom.

 

To use the drink size example, if the ban had gone ahead and I found myself inexplicably in New York, there would be nothing whatever to prevent me from drinking over 16 ounces of soda.  Nothing whatever.  I could buy that much and drink it in the privacy of my own home, or I could go into one of the newly-regulated fast food outlets affected by the ruling, buy myself two 12 ounce drinks (or whatever, I have no idea about sizes), sit down next to Bloomberg and drink the lot, and there's nothing he could do about it.  Because it's not my freedom to drink what I want that's being restricted, it's the freedom of corporations to sell drinks in whatever size they want that's being restricted.

 

Now I'd accept that if I wanted lots and lots and lots of drink it would be marginally - marginally - more inconvenient for me to have to buy what I want in two helpings rather than one.  Now for me - and I accept and respect that others may disagree - that inconvenience is (in principle) a price worth paying for better health outcomes.  Because I think that people tend to buy the largest size not because they want precisely that much, but because they think it represents the best value and because of all kinds of complicated reasons around status, conspicuous consumption, and self-worth. 

The problem is, as I stated earlier, once government starts regulating something, it never, never stops.  If we let the camel get its nose under the tent, it will eventually get all the way in.  One of the U.S founders said, "The price of freedom is constant vigilance."  Ben Franklin once stated, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."  I'm a big boy, and I don't need the government telling me what to do with myself, let me take responsiblity for my actions and I'll think for myself, rather than abdicate that responsiblity to others.

[Lyra Rigby]

My two cents is that if someone wants liquid sugar, they're going to get liquid sugar. Case closed. So you can't walk into McD's or your neighborhood Quik Mart and get a 32oz or larger soda? Fine. I'll buy a 24pk or 6 3 liters next time I go to the store. And for those who don't get to go to a store and are stuck shopping at the bodegas and Quik Mart-type places that populate the inner city, that means that you start buying 12 pks and 2 liters like they're going out of style. Instead of nursing 1-2 fountain drinks throughout the day, you're chugging a 2 liter to get your fix. Or maybe you just say screw it all and switch to coffee, Starbucks drinks, energy drinks or chocolate milk to get your liquid sugar fix.

 

People do buy the larger sizes because they perceive them to be a better value. Also because they last longer. For example, when you're working an 8 hour shift, you want a drink that is at least going to last 2-4 hours. You can't be going to the vending machine every hour or two to get another shot of liquid sugar. Not to mention, that vending machine can be expensive, anywhere from .75 cents to $2 a soda and that's if you don't decide to grab a Honey Bun or a bag of Funyuns while you're there as well.

 

Government controlled portion sizes will never be an effective measure against the spread of obesity, diabetes and other health maladies in the US. There are other ways it could be done, but the gov. will probaby not look into them. Take this whole healthier school lunch thing that Michelle Obama has been shilling for awhile. In theory, it sounds wonderful. Balanced lunches for all and no seconds until you eat all your veggies, only low-fat milk is to be served!!! In reality, those lunches are not anything I'd want to eat or anything that I'd want my future kids eating. I don't want to derail this thread, but I do feel that the lunch program is in a similar vein as the large-soda-ban. It's an attempt to control the eating and drinking habits of a population without a shred of viable evidence that it actually works or will help to achieve the desired outcome.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

My two cents is that if someone wants liquid sugar, they're going to get liquid sugar. Case closed. So you can't walk into McD's or your neighborhood Quik Mart and get a 32oz or larger soda? Fine. I'll buy a 24pk or 6 3 liters next time I go to the store. And for those who don't get to go to a store and are stuck shopping at the bodegas and Quik Mart-type places that populate the inner city, that means that you start buying 12 pks and 2 liters like they're going out of style. Instead of nursing 1-2 fountain drinks throughout the day, you're chugging a 2 liter to get your fix. Or maybe you just say screw it all and switch to coffee, Starbucks drinks, energy drinks or chocolate milk to get your liquid sugar fix.

 

People do buy the larger sizes because they perceive them to be a better value. Also because they last longer. For example, when you're working an 8 hour shift, you want a drink that is at least going to last 2-4 hours. You can't be going to the vending machine every hour or two to get another shot of liquid sugar. Not to mention, that vending machine can be expensive, anywhere from .75 cents to $2 a soda and that's if you don't decide to grab a Honey Bun or a bag of Funyuns while you're there as well.

 

Government controlled portion sizes will never be an effective measure against the spread of obesity, diabetes and other health maladies in the US. There are other ways it could be done, but the gov. will probaby not look into them. Take this whole healthier school lunch thing that Michelle Obama has been shilling for awhile. In theory, it sounds wonderful. Balanced lunches for all and no seconds until you eat all your veggies, only low-fat milk is to be served!!! In reality, those lunches are not anything I'd want to eat or anything that I'd want my future kids eating. I don't want to derail this thread, but I do feel that the lunch program is in a similar vein as the large-soda-ban. It's an attempt to control the eating and drinking habits of a population without a shred of viable evidence that it actually works or will help to achieve the desired outcome.

The last sentence is full of win!

[guest439437484421]

Here's what i find funny.  We're slowly but steadily making cigaretts an impossible habbit to have by increasing taxes on them, and the majority tends to be ok with that.  Try to do the same thing with something that cause almost just as much health problems but is more socially accepted?  Nope, not gonna have that.

[UberTumbleweed]

Here's what i find funny.  We're slowly but steadily making cigaretts an impossible habbit to have by increasing taxes on them, and the majority tends to be ok with that.  Try to do the same thing with something that cause almost just as much health problems but is more socially accepted?  Nope, not gonna have that.

 

For the record, I'd totally be okay with a consumption tax on artificial sweeteners and products containing them.  Not for sucrose, though, as it's naturally occurring in many healthy foods.  There is no food necessary for a diet that will naturally contain artificial sweeteners, similar to how cigarettes are a highly-modified product that doesn't occur naturally in anything necessary to life.