17
   

Mayor Bloomberg proposes super-sized soda ban

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:53 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
And, if you did answer it, in detail yet, I can't seem to find your answer. Which post was it in


Post: # 5,106,006
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 07:08 pm
@ossobuco,
Reply to self - maybe they could charge me for half a lemon..
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 08:42 am
All that's being restricted with this ban is the maximum portion size that can be sold and served in certain locations--the "food service" venues that receive gradings from the New York City Heath Department. Places like 7-Eleven will still be able to sell their Big Gulp. And there is no restriction on the number of 16 oz sodas that someone can order in a restaurant or buy at an arena. No one will have their choice of what to drink affected, so not much is being banned. It's hard to really think of it as a "ban". In fact, I think the one member of the Board of Health who abstained from voting on the proposal did so because he didn't feel it went "far enough".

It is a drop in the bucket as far as trying to address a serious public obesity/public health problem goes, and, until I did some reading, I didn't realize how serious that problem is, specifically in New York City--60% of the adults in the City are obese. This is from today's NY Daily News:
Quote:
Barring a successful lawsuit by the soda industry, starting in March, businesses that are regulated by the Health Department will be restricted to selling sugar-laden beverages in containers of 16 ounces or less.

The industry proclaims that it stands on the side of the public’s right to drink as the public pleases. Nonsense. The industry is worried about losing sales. Why?

Because studies have shown that consumers are generally satisfied to eat or drink the amount that is on their plates or in their cups. As for the right to imbibe, if you want 32 ounces, buy two bottles. No one is stopping you.

On average, Americans ingest 200 to 300 calories a day more than they did 30 years ago — and the consequences can be seen in emergency rooms. Sixty percent of city adults, more than 3 million people, are overweight or obese.

So are 40% of the city’s kids, who are contracting adult-onset diabetes at an alarming rate. Obesity kills nearly 6,000 New Yorkers every year, making it the No. 2 killer in the city, behind smoking. Statewide, obesity-related medical care costs $8 billion a year.

If every New Yorker reduced consumption of one soda from 20 ounces to 16 ounces twice a month, it would mean 2.3 million pounds that weren’t gained.

Medical experts see the wisdom of the ban. So do the owners of the Barclays Center, the new basketball arena in Brooklyn, who announced that the venue would be the first in the city to voluntarily comply. Good for them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/serious-obesity-double-soda-limits-article-1.1159212#ixzz26S3gTiyb


Bloomberg has emphasized his belief that portion size drives consumption, and he is right about that. And consumers have never been in control of the portion sizes of soda served to them in restaurants or other locations--the portion size has always been controlled by the seller--it's the seller who determines how many ounces determines a particular size serving--or by the soda manufacturers who determine the size of their bottles.

Coca-Cola's original single serving bottle was 6.5 ozs, then over time it gradually went to 20 oz. I don't drink regular soda, but, on the rare occasions I bought a Diet Coke or Pepsi, I could never finish that 20 oz size bottle. I paid more for that size, because they didn't have a smaller bottle, but I wind up throwing out about one third of it every time. The manufacturer wasn't giving me the choice of a smaller sized bottle/portion. But I'm sure that many consumers who bought a 20 oz bottle of regular Coke wound up finishing the bottle, even though it was more than they wanted, simply because the extra amount was available. Portion size does drive consumption for many people.

So consumers never had "freedom" over portion sizes of soda--it's always been the restaurant owners or soda manufacturers controlling the number of ounces in a serving--and their goal is to sell more soda, by giving larger amounts in servings, and charging more, so they can rake in more profit. So this time, it's the government who's trying to control portion size of soda by restricting the upper limit in each serving, but at least the government is doing it for a good reason--to try to improve public health.



tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 09:32 am
@firefly,
You're quite right firefly. The use of the fiery word ban is quite misleading and should never have been used when the policy was proposed.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 09:41 am
@firefly,
I agree Firefly totally it is a token and a drop of soda in the bucket however it is trying to establish the right of governments in the US to interfere with adults choices in such basic and small scale matters as their food choices for their own good. In other word to act as a nanny to adults or as a parent would to their children.

There is no limit to or no logical stopping point in what this parent role once assume by governments of adults will lead to.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 10:44 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
it is trying to establish the right of governments in the US to interfere with adults choices in such basic and small scale matters as their food choices for their own good. In other word to act as a nanny to adults or as a parent would to their children.

You drank the KoolAid put out by the soda industry in their media campaign, BillRM--and those sugary drinks are bad for you, BillRM. They seem to have affected your ability to comprehend information.

No one's beverage choice is affected by this "ban". No one's intake, or the amount of beverage they want to consume, is affected by the "ban". So, you're failing to justify anything you're saying.

What you are saying is just plain wrong. You don't seem to understand the issue with this specific initiative.

You, as a consumer, never had any choice in the amount of soda in a single serving offered by a restaurant. The restaurant owner always made the choice of how many ounces went into a serving. This "ban" puts restrictions on the seller, not the consumer--by restricting the upper limit of a serving size to 16 oz. And that's 2 cups, for a single serving, not exactly an insignificant amount, and the consumer can still purchase more than one if that's not enough.

It's the sellers who have pushed increasingly larger sized portions on the public, because that's in the interests of their profit motive. They'd sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors as well, if the government didn't stop them, and the government does that for reasons of public health. And all the City is doing now is putting restrictions on the upper limit of a single serving size of soda--they aren't interfering with businesses being able to sell soda, or other high sugar drinks, or limiting how many servings they can sell to their customers.

So the customer's choice of what to drink isn't being limited at all, and businesses are being limited in only a very minor way, by not being able to use 24 oz and 32 oz cups for a single serving--and most businesses were never selling those super-sizes, so they won't be affected at all. And the restrictions don't even apply to all drinks with high sugar content, or to all businesses that sell super-sized sugar drinks.

So, how is anything you are saying about this "ban" justified?



ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 10:51 am
@BillRM,
Do you complain to manufacturers when they up- and downsize product sizes (it happens every day) that they are interfering with your choices?
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:05 am
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
You're quite right firefly. The use of the fiery word ban is quite misleading and should never have been used when the policy was proposed.

Do you know whether it was Bloomberg who first used the word "ban" in describing the proposal, or was it the media and/or the soda industry that first used it?

If it was Bloomberg, that was his biggest mistake. People have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "ban"--no one likes the idea of something being taken away or prohibited.

But this size-restriction regulation, on sellers, really isn't a ban--no one is having their sugary drinks taken away, it doesn't prohibit buying these drinks, or selling them, or even restricting how much of them consumers can drink.

Probably the most valid complaint that can be leveled at this size-restriction initiative is that it won't accomplish much in terms of addressing the very real public health problem of obesity. But at least it's an attempt to do something, and that's better than doing nothing. And it has stimulated discussion about obesity, and what makes people fat.

It's interesting that most people who complain about this "ban" say they are not soda drinkers. So, I do think it's mainly the word "ban" people are reacting to.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:11 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
The manufacturer wasn't giving me the choice of a smaller sized bottle/portion.


they've had smaller, and larger, bottles and cans for close to a decade now (that I've noticed) - could be longer.

http://www.ad-informatica.com/davideandreani/immagini/Allsizes.jpg
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:14 am
@firefly,
I don't know about the ban word bomb. I could have sworn I dropped the link to the original proposal text online but can't seem to find it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:19 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Do you complain to manufacturers when they up- and downsize product sizes (it happens every day) that they are interfering with your choices?


If I am unhappy with a manufacture for any reason I just buy from another manufacture however the 60 percents of the New York Citizens who by polls who are unhappy with this nonsense have not such choice.

Hell it is my understanding that the board who imposed this silliness is an appointed board so the citizens of New York does not have any direct way of voting them out of office.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:24 am
@ehBeth,
Actually, I think it's quite recently that Coke began again offering the smaller sizes. And that was partly in response to demand from a more weight-conscious public.

The marketing decisions behind these bottle/can size changes is interesting
Quote:
MEDIA & MARKETING
September 19, 2011
Coke Tailors Its Soda Sizes Backing Off of 'Supersizing,' Company Aims for Wider Range of Ounces, Prices
Mike Esterl
The Wall Street Journal

ATLANTA—Coca-Cola Co.'s KO -0.16% growth recipe in the U.S. soda market for much of the past decade included "supersized'' offerings and new flavors such as Coke Zero and Black Cherry Vanilla Coke

These days the beverage giant's sales formula revolves around more package sizes on store shelves. And many of its new bottles and cans are smaller and cheaper, in a nod to how more Americans are counting both their calories and their pennies.

Coke will announce this week the launch of 12.5-ounce, 89-cent bottles to accompany the 16-ounce, 99-cent bottles it rolled out nationally last year as an alternative to 20-ounce bottles in U.S. convenience stores. It will also slash the suggested retail price on its recently introduced eight-pack of 7.5-ounce Coke "mini'' cans in supermarkets by about 20% to $2.99 to try and lure more customers.

The proliferation represents a departure from years of relying heavily on three basic packages—20-ounce bottles in convenience stores and two-liter bottles and cases of 12-ounce cans in supermarkets—as it battled rivals PepsiCo Inc. PEP -0.55%and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. DPS -1.76%in the $75 billion U.S. retail soda market.

Coke is importing the strategy from Mexico, where bottling partners began diversifying package sizes more than a decade ago to offer more price options in the wake of the 1994 peso devaluation and economic crisis. In Mexico, the company's top market by per-capita consumption, Coke is now sold in more than 30 packages, ranging from 6.75 ounces to three liters.

"In the U.S.A., we're really just at the beginning,'' said Sandy Douglas, president of Coca-Cola North America, of the increasingly segmented price-package strategy for the company's Coke, Sprite and Fanta soda brands.


Coke is betting it can boost revenue and profits in the U.S. even as it scales back volume per transaction amid rising costs for commodities such as plastic and high-fructose corn syrup. Although the smaller packages carry lower sticker prices, the consumer pays more per ounce. At the same time, Coke is raising prices on larger bottles and cans for consumers with more money in their pockets.

Many consumer-product companies are tweaking their packaging in a sluggish economy. Kimberly-Clark Corp. KMB -1.15%has lowered the number of tissues and diapers in some of its packages to ease sticker shock, even as it introduces more expensive premium products for affluent consumers.

Many Americans were already scaling back on colas and other sodas for health reasons before the economy soured. U.S. soda volumes have fallen for six years in a row.

PepsiCo, the No. 2 player, recently began rolling out 16-ounce bottled sodas to match Coke. It has also launched a 1.5-liter bottle to compete with the 1.25-liter bottle Coke began introducing last year.

"Price-package architecture is absolutely core to what we do,'' said Simon Lowden, PepsiCo's chief marketing officer for North American beverages.

But many industry observers say Coke has been pushing the strategy earlier and more aggressively, with better results. The company's share of the soda market in U.S. stores rose 1.1 percentage points to 34.3% in the first half of this year, while PepsiCo's slipped 0.2 percentage point to 32.8%, according to Beverage Digest, a trade publication and data service.

"You can't just do this overnight. It takes time,'' said Carlos Laboy, a beverage analyst at Credit Suisse, of PepsiCo's catch-up efforts.

Coke executives speak in terms of "Occasion, Brand, Price, Pack, Channel," or OBPPC. To capture a range of sales,Coke has identified more than 30 drinking "occasions'' ranging from "family home meal'' to "gotta have it to go.''

Outside a convenience store at a Shell station in Atlanta last week, red Coca-Cola signs touted 16-ounce cola bottles for 99 cents. Inside the store, 20-ounce and 1-liter bottles were $1.49 and $1.89, respectively. A bundled "combo meal'' included a 24-ounce Coke fountain drink and two hot dogs for $2.99, among several other pitches at different price points.

"Bring 'em in and then trade them up,'' said Glen Walter, Coke's chief region sales officer, of the multi-price-point strategy.

Coke is hoping the 89-cent price for the 12.5-ounce bottle will be an even stronger magnet. It also expects the stores will increase prices on Coke's 16- and 20-ounce and one-liter cola bottles to around $1.19, $1.69 and $1.99, respectively.

Coke is also attempting to reel in new and lapsed customers in supermarkets with its 7.5-ounce cans, which were rolled out nationally last year but still represent less than 5% of its sales mix. The mini cans replaced eight-ounce cans to bring the calorie count below 100, hopefully attracting more weight-conscious drinkers.

While the retail price of the eight pack of 7.5-ounce cans will fall to just below $3 in coming weeks, consumers will still pay a per-ounce premium. The smaller cans will cost 37 cents each, the same as 12-ounce cans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903374004576578980270401662.html
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:27 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Hell it is my understanding that the board who imposed this silliness is an appointed board so the citizens of New York does not have any direct way of voting them out of office.

That is quite true. But I expect when Bloomberg is out of the office next year [Insert my gratuitous NYC politics/2013 mayoral race here: http://able2know.org/topic/197899-1], I guarantee whether it's a Republican or Democratic candidate that wins the office, this board of health will be booted out for the new mayor's respective cronies.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:28 am
@firefly,
The 7.5 ounce can has been popular here for quite a while (an A2k poster keeps a stash of them at her cottage for guests).
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:28 am
@firefly,
Quote:
sugary drinks are bad for you, BillRM. They seem to have affected your ability to comprehend information.



Sorry dear those sugar drinks are not bad for me as I never drink them due to my choice of what is good or not good for me repeat me.

I have no wish however to turn over such decisions making to some damn government board or even my doctor for that matter.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:32 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Actually, I think it's quite recently that Coke began again offering the smaller sizes. And that was partly in response to demand from a more weight-conscious public.


You mean that the free market and the citizens does not always need the damn government involved with such small scale decision makings concerning such choices in life?
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:35 am
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
this board of health will be booted out for the new mayor's respective cronies.


That depend on how long their terms happen to be and not being a New Yorker I have no clue concerning such details.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:53 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
The 11-member Board of Health remains a vital force today. Most members - appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council - serve six-year terms.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/boh/boh.shtml
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:03 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
60 percents of the New York Citizens who by polls who are unhappy with this nonsense have not such choice.

And most of those people (over half) say they don't drink soda, so they wouldn't be affected at all. And the soda drinkers certainly do have a choice, they can just buy more than one serving.

It's the soft drink industry, and some movie theater owners, who are most upset by this regulation--and the last thing on their minds is public health or the problem of obesity. And they have a choice too, they can challenge this regulation in court, and they have vowed to do so.

So, no one is really being deprived of choices.

And, as is evident from Coca-Cola's bringing back smaller cans, the public does want the choice of smaller amounts of soda.

Bloomberg, this week, pointed out that, when New York City mandated that calorie counts had to be posted in fast-food restaurants, McDonald's took the City to court and sued over the issue--and lost. And now McDonald's just announced they will post these calorie counts in their restaurants, 14,000 of them, nationwide--and they are doing this ahead of a national rule that will require larger restaurant chains to make such disclosures.

So, the City can act as a positive influence on businesses, to get them to make changes, or take actions, which help their consumers/patrons to make better and healthier choices in the area of weight control. And the other health initiatives that Bloomberg first introduced in New York City--like the restaurant smoking ban, and the trans-fat ban in foods, have also gone nationwide--so Bloomberg has helped make positive changes even beyond New York City.

That's what concerns the soft-drink industry--the fact that when New York City makes such health-related changes, and they work, and are upheld by courts, which city will adopt similar regulations tomorrow? Los Angeles? Chicago? It's all about the industry interest in their own bottom line.



0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:14 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
You mean that the free market and the citizens does not always need the damn government involved with such small scale decision makings concerning such choices in life?

Of course citizens don't always need the government to regulate the practices of the free market, but sometimes they do. The practices of a totally unregulated free market might sometimes be injurious to the health or welfare of the public. And that's the reasoning behind this size-restriction regulation.

The public already has no choice in determining beverage portion sizes in restaurants--the sellers, not the consumers, determine portion sizes of individual servings of soft drinks. The NYC Health Dept. is just trying to put a cap on how large those single size servings can be, and it's far from an unreasonable cap by any standard, and it's being done because NYC has a very real, and very expensive, public health crisis due to obesity . People who want more, can just buy more than one serving. The public's choice is not affected.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:21:23