New York to ban large sugary drinks

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
In a move to combat the obesity problem the city of New York is to ban sugary drinks sold in 16oz containers. Needless to say the move is being criticised by some.
Is it good that the authorities prohibit the sale of things which are undeniably bad for us?
What are your views?
 
Food industry has a lot to answer for.
 
gramps said:
Food industry has a lot to answer for.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, but it doesn't force feed people. There is a general lack of control and self-discipline too. We can't lay the blame on the food and drink producers.
 
Yes we can, the additives, salt, sugar and fats added to our foods is a disgrace.
 
gramps said:
Yes we can, the additives, salt, sugar and fats added to our foods is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

All depends on whether you cook from scratch or no.

All processed foods are as such. But not proper cooking ;)
 
they ought to ban diet drinks too they contain additives that are far worse for us than sugar
 
I don't believe you can protect people from themselves, or necessarily have an obligation to do so. Our lifestyles are now so anti-health that it has to be a conscious choice to be fit. I think it's a well intentioned idea that will achieve absolutely nothing.
 
Squawk said:
I don't believe you can protect people from themselves, or necessarily have an obligation to do so. Our lifestyles are now so anti-health that it has to be a conscious choice to be fit. I think it's a well intentioned idea that will achieve absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Exactly - can't educate pork.
 
It's a case of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Food manufacturers don't exactly always have healthy diet in mind and use some pretty influential marketing techniques to create a demand, but there aren't many people who don't appreciate that fizzy drinks, fast-food burgers and what have you are pretty unhealthy options to have regularly.

Forcing corporate responsibility is all well and good but it means nothing if people don't take personal responsibility as well.

I wonder how many people will simply order 2 8oz drinks instead.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
In a move to combat the obesity problem the city of New York is to ban sugary drinks sold in 16oz containers. Needless to say the move is being criticised by some.
Is it good that the authorities prohibit the sale of things which are undeniably bad for us?
What are your views?
Click to expand...

Empty posturing from the authorities to be honest. Most eateries out here offer unlimited free refills on sodas, so it won't make a jot of difference (except perhaps to the waiting staff who will lose weight via the added journeys to refill your glass!)
 
If they ban 16 oz drinks whats to stop people buying 2 10 oz ones:D
 
what ever happened to margarine didn't this supposed healthy option over butter turn out to be seriously worse and was banned
 
Soda was only created to get rid of corn syrup. It's incredibly bad for you. Healthy option is water. That's free.
 
srichards said:
Soda was only created to get rid of corn syrup. It's incredibly bad for you. Healthy option is water. That's free.
Click to expand...

s'not what my water rates bill says.... :lol:


In fairness, can't speak for America but certainly here most places offer tap water free, though I have been in the odd London pub that has charged for it.
 
It's all about money...Upsizing (Go Large) is a marketing trick where as a company you may loose a small percentage on profit, but you actually increase your profits by turning over more. This is particulary done by fast food outlets, but not immuned to just them.

Not too long ago, a standard glass of wine in a pub was 125ml, it soon became 175ml, and now is in many 250ml. 25ml spirit shots are now 35ml, and a lot of bars I hear are pushing 50ml and 70ml shots as standard.

Should authorities step in and put limits on things? I guess I agree with SQUAWK
I don't believe you can protect people from themselves, or necessarily have an obligation to do so. Our lifestyles are now so anti-health that it has to be a conscious choice to be fit. I think it's a well intentioned idea that will achieve absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Sonriendo said:
And how so?
Click to expand...

Well, what happens is people with less money buy crap food.

We did a healthier shop in asda once, where we bought healthier, fresh (rather than frozen) food and it cost an extra £30. That and it's all gone off inside a week if not eaten.
 
neil_g said:
Well, what happens is people with less money buy crap food.

We did a healthier shop in asda once, where we bought healthier, fresh (rather than frozen) food and it cost an extra £30. That and it's all gone off inside a week if not eaten.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe to be honest, but I guess it also depends on what type of foods you (generic) are buying and cooking.
 
the thing is your not forced at gunpoint or anything to eat crap foods everything in moderation i think one way that would help change peoples mind is if youget so fat its affecting your health you should have to pay for your own health care.

obviously exceptions would be made for people who cant help it like due to medication or other things out of there control what ever they maybe

i think the main thing is people need to slow down there eating abit there not giving there brain enough time to tell them there full so are over indulging hell im even guilty of this myself sometimes i can sit and eat 2 or 3 times more if im packing it away but i dont do it all the time
 
neil_g said:
Well, what happens is people with less money buy crap food.

We did a healthier shop in asda once, where we bought healthier, fresh (rather than frozen) food and it cost an extra £30. That and it's all gone off inside a week if not eaten.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, mass produced junk food is almost always cheaper - compare getting some fresh fish against a box of dubious 'fish' covered in some salty/sugary/fat sauce, or a calorie-packed coating and you'll see just how true this is.

Yes we do have a responsibility to protect people from themselves, we have successfully done so by things such as crash helmets, seat belts, cigarette warnings etc.
 
gramps said:
Yes we do have a responsibility to protect people from themselves, we have successfully done so by things such as crash helmets, seat belts, cigarette warnings etc.
Click to expand...

I never thought of that analogy....

Whenever I go to the USA I am always struck by how many obese people you see and how big restaurant meals are.
 
and in reality it isn't a case of only affecting those who get fat or ill due to wrong diet ... it affects all of us in the form of increased demand on the NHS from cases of diabetes, heart problems etc ... we have a vested interest in getting it right.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Yes it does, but it doesn't force feed people. There is a general lack of control and self-discipline too. We can't lay the blame on the food and drink producers.
Click to expand...

Cant we?, cant we persecute them like we did the tobacco industry. force compliance on them and make it harder for them to sell to our children.

Shouldn't we be doing this to unhealthy food products also?
 
I got the hump when McDonalds stopped serving super sized meals.

I rarely have a McDonalds but when I do I used to like to make it count! :lol:

Just another case of the Nanny State/World we live in. People can't or won't take responsibility for themselves or their off-spring.

It's self perpetuating as the more "Nanny like" things get, the less responsibility people take for themselves.

An example of this was in the local rag the other week. I live about 3 miles from Southend-on-Sea, over the course of the summer holidays there's been at least one story a week about people having to be rescued from the Thames and now people are calling for "extra measures" to keep people using the beach safe....... :bang:

I mean, I only used to pretty much live on the same beaches with my mates when I was a kid with and somehow we all made it through to adulthood without needing to scramble the search & rescue team :lol:

We knew the waters were dangerous, we knew not to go out too far.

It was the normal "I only turned my back on Johnny (10) for two minutes".... Errrrmmm..... not good enough, you don't turn your back for a second if your kids are playing in a tidal estuary!!!

</rant>
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Cant we?, cant we persecute them like we did the tobacco industry. force compliance on them and make it harder for them to sell to our children.

Shouldn't we be doing this to unhealthy food products also?
Click to expand...

That is ignoring the choice that people make to eat unhealthily irrespective of the consequences. Yes it can be legislated that restaurants etc can't serve certain stuff, but the consumers should also be responsible for their own actions.
 
Russ77 said:
An example of this was in the local rag the other week. I live about 3 miles from Southend-on-Sea, over the course of the summer holidays there's been at least one story a week about people having to be rescued from the Thames and now people are calling for "extra measures" to keep people using the beach safe....... :bang:

I mean, I only used to pretty much live on the same beaches with my mates when I was a kid with and somehow we all made it through to adulthood without needing to scramble the search & rescue team :lol:

We knew the waters were dangerous, we knew not to go out too far.

It was the normal "I only turned my back on Johnny (10) for two minutes".... Errrrmmm..... not good enough, you don't turn your back for a second if your kids are playing in a tidal estuary!!!

</rant>
Click to expand...

People visit sea/estuary areas from inland and don't have knowledge of what things are like in these areas. We have just had a case near us where a small boy was walking down an open jetty and slipped into the sea ... he got carried away by the undercurrent and died. The parents were walking with him and could do nothing to prevent what happened (other than have him on a lead) they had no idea of the tides and no reason to suspect that their son was in danger. Take precautions to stop another little boy losing his life? No-brainer to me.
 
gramps said:
People visit sea/estuary areas from inland and don't have knowledge of what things are like in these areas. We have just had a case near us where a small boy was walking down an open jetty and slipped into the sea ... he got carried away by the undercurrent and died. The parents were walking with him and could do nothing to prevent what happened (other than have him on a lead) they had no idea of the tides and no reason to suspect that their son was in danger. Take precautions to stop another little boy losing his life? No-brainer to me.
Click to expand...

I heard about that Gramps, it sounded truly terrible but IMO that's a slightly different scenario to letting kids playing freely in the water and turning your back on them. You shouldn't leave kids unattended near water whether it's tidal or not.

From what I understand the child in this instance managed to "break free" (for want of a better phrase) from his parents and in that instance the unthinkable happened.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
That is ignoring the choice that people make to eat unhealthily irrespective of the consequences. Yes it can be legislated that restaurants etc can't serve certain stuff, but the consumers should also be responsible for their own actions.
Click to expand...


I'm with you, but the choice comes down to cost and poor people cant live without buying the rubbish, so they really don't have that choice you mention.
 
So it's too dangerous to sell people large drinks, but okay that anyone in New York can go and buy a gun?
 
Johnd2000 said:
So it's too dangerous to sell people large drinks, but okay that anyone in New York can go and buy a gun?
Click to expand...

Gun ownership isn't what this thread is about though is it. You could start a new thread though.
 
i dont think eating fresh is too expensive you just have to be abit smart about it fresh veggies are cheap enough esp in the likes of lidl or aldi's

but for protein there are cheap fish you can buy instead of cod or sea bass ect and if you go to the butchers for your meat its alot cheaper than asda for instance i can get a whole pork loin for about £25 now that would feed my family of 5 2 adults 3 children for at least a week prob longer i can get 32 sausages for about £4 that does us four meals worth of protein so thats £1 per meal + veg or mash potato and peas prob cost us £2.50 for us all per meal

now weigh that up against a ready meal for 1 about £2 or a kebab from the chip shop £4

or to feed my family pizza we would need 3-4 pizza's at say £1.25 each your looking at £3.75 - £5

so the junk is not always cheaper its just people are getting lazier
 
neil_g said:
i leave home in the morning at 6am, i get home at 7pm. the other half does longer days than me.. sometimes its not laziness, there still needs to be some convenience.. i dont have time to go to several different shops.
Click to expand...

there is always online shopping delivered to your door
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top