@BillRM,
Quote:Most of us do not wish for nannies...
But, some people need nannies...like, maybe you...
I repeat, tell us again, BillRM, how you stuff yourself, and drink like a fish, when you stay at a place that's all-you-can-eat-and-drink, because you want to get your money's worth, You prove Bloomberg's point perfectly, and your excessive consumption when larger amounts are available, justifies the thinking behind this super-sized soda ban.
You've got this super-sized soda ban all wrong, it's not the consumers who need nannies, it's the vendors, who are pushing serving sizes that promote behaviors deleterious to health, who need nannies to discipline them. And it's those unhealthy practices the vendors promote that this ban is designed to curb, and it's the vendors that will be penalized with fines if they violate the ban. The nanny isn't for the consumer, who is still free to guzzle as much soda as he or she wants to--the nanny will be watching those vendors, and disciplining them, because they're the ones acting like irresponsible children when they ignore the negative impact of their product on public health. And that nanny will be performing a legitimate function of a government health department.
You have completely managed to avoid addressing the obesity epidemic in New York City which is the reason for this regulation. You'd think this regulation came about for no reason at all judging by your posts.
Don't kid yourself, New Yorker's are concerned about the obesity problem, and pretty much support Bloomberg's efforts to do something about it--40% of obese people want to lose weight. And trying to curb sugary drink sizes is only one aspect of how the City has approached the problem--they've run educational ad campaigns showing just how much sugar and calories are in the super-sized drinks, and they've gotten calorie counts posted in restaurants, to help consumers make better choices, and they are trying to make healthier food options accessible and available in less advantaged neighborhoods, as well as in the City hospitals and schools--they've given people information, more choices, and provided options to the junk.
But,most importantly, because Bloomberg hasn't ignored the obesity epidemic in his city, and he has taken action, he's greatly increased public awareness of the issue, he's stimulated discussion of the many factors involved in obesity, and he's gotten people thinking about their food and drink choices, including the portion sizes they consume. That's a very significant first step in tackling this problem--and trying to prevent it in the next generation.
You ignore things that Bloomberg, as mayor, and as someone genuinely interested in public health, doesn't want to ignore. Like the fact that the obesity rate among the Hispanic population in the Bronx is particularly high, and within that group, soda is consumed an average of three times a week. Reducing serving size may help to make a big impact within that group, in terms of obesity and the inset of Diabetes II. And there are other demographic groups in the City where high soda consumption and high obesity rates are linked.
You may rarely drink soda, but that's not true for a great many people in New York City who are drinking it regularly, and who are drinking it in portion sizes that are at least 20 oz each--I don't think you can't buy a smaller sized soda in a bottle at a deli, and I'm not sure you can get anything smaller in a NYC movie theater. A medium Coke at McDonald's is 21 oz, and the large Coke is 32 oz--limiting a serving size to 16 oz (McDonald's current "small") will make a big difference in calorie and sugar-intake for a frequent soda drinker over the course of a year. But the biggest difference will be in what's considered a normal serving size--and that's an important perception to change.
Quote:But the real question is, ''Are we really smart enough to eat less when we are offered more?'' Probably not, according to Brian Wansink, director of Cornell University Brand and Food Lab and author of the 2007 book ''Mindless Eating.''
''Most of us are blissfully unaware of how much we eat,'' he wrote. In fact, he argues that, ''We all think we are too smart to be tricked by packages, lighting or plates. That is what makes mindless eating so dangerous. We are almost never aware it is happening to us.''
Wansink spends his time researching human behavior and food. What he finds is the bigger the plate, bowl, cup or spoon, the more we eat. He has done countless studies on this simple premise with everyone from movie theater patrons to nutrition professors and found the same thing: Give us more and we will eat it. The results are the same, no matter how ''smart'' we are.
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, Americans are consuming about 800 calories per person per day more than we were in the late 1950s.
Whether you are ordering a bagel, burger or a plate of pasta, you are getting more than ever before. Today's Happy Meal served to toddlers was the size of an adult meal when McDonald's first opened its doors. As portions grew, so have we.
If we are offered less, we will eat less. This new law challenges us to change the norms in America. This is a first step to making smaller portions the new normal and reversing the decades-long trend. Don't we deserve less?
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/09/nycs_limit_on_soda_sizes_impor.html
Anyway, all of this debate is really moot. Unless this ban is successfully challenged in court by the beverage industry (aka New Yorkers for Beverage Choices), it will go into effect in March. And, like Bloomberg's other health initiatives, the people will accept it, mainly because it's not going to drastically change anyone's life--the big gulpers will just buy more than one cup of soda if one isn't enough, or they'll go over to 7-eleven and get a mega-sized one, because 7-eleven isn't a vendor covered by this regulation.
The main problem with the "ban" is all the loopholes in it, but at least it's a move in the right direction in terms of the obesity problem.
Can you get any more absurd? 