Ban on "Supersize" Drinks in NYC?
avatar
Olivia_WebMD_Staff posted:
New York City Mayor Bloomberg wants to limit restaurants, movie theatres and stadiums in the city to selling drinks of only 16 ounces or less .

While right now this would only affect the citizens of NYC, the supersize controversy has become a nationwide discussion due to anti-obesity campaigns.

So, chime in and tell us what you think.

Is it right to ban businesses from selling any size drinks they want?

Will these limitations help cut down on obesity?
Reply
 
avatar
katurnbow replied to kirstieleah98's response:
I we should. I think corporations should be fined for what they are doing to our foods. We are living in a science lab and we are their test dummies and the price we are paying are with out lives. I am so disgusted with GMO. How dare we call it food.
 
avatar
chocolatecity77071 responded:
Sedentary lifestyle makes people fat. Banning large drinks is simple ridiculious. It will not change a thing. How about making healthy foods more affordable. These days, foods that are bad for you are cheap. Healthy foods cost way more. With the cost of everything going up, except our pay, sometimes there is no choice but to get the cheaper, unhealthy foods.
 
avatar
bpcookie responded:
Wow, the original post was made 5 months ago and ppl are still replying to it. Its a very popular post.

Thats totally ridiculous. This in no way is going to help anyone. They are giving the states and the government way too much power. They already run our lives and have their little fingers into everything. I say, stay out of our lives and just let us do our own thing. Isn't this the land of the free?
 
avatar
therichardhorton replied to 3point14's response:
Actually it isn't pointless. I've read an article about this ban for a college paper, and the research makes sense. Namely, that people will generally purchase the most convenient option, which in this case would now be a 16oz drink. If this becomes the norm, 16oz is what will be consumed rather than 32oz or something more.

However, I disagree with this ban simply on the principle that the government should not have the authority to dictate our diets. That is our choice as people. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the act is wrong. Michael Bloomberg is not the most popular policy maker though.

If they want to help, perhaps they should think more creatively about encouraging people to get more fit. Extend education in the area etc.
 
avatar
Anon_475 replied to therichardhorton's response:
But they're not dictating your diet. They're simply changing the packaging so to speak. You're still free to drink 2 x 16 oz -> 32 oz if you so desire.
 
avatar
timvasi responded:
I really thing that banning stuff like this is a little big brotherish. People ought to be responsible for the decisions they make and especially teaching their children to make good decisions.

This is just another example of people not being responsible for their actions and for what they teach their children.
 
avatar
gkovats replied to timvasi's response:
The issue I think is the marketing. If you sell a 2 liter bottle as it is, it's fine. But if you market it as a viable option for consuming with a lunch meal - all 1600 calories of it (or so) - it's irresponsible, and a city has the right to object to this marketing. Sell it as a family drink, put 3 straws in it, whatever. But pretending it's normal to drink 64oz of high fructose corn syrup and red dye is egregious.
 
avatar
brunosbud responded:
Hooray for Michael Bloomberg. The best way to get elected is to let your voters know you care. The best way to let them know you care is to help their children succeed. The best way to help their children is to protect their health...reduce sugar, reduce salt, stop smoking. Someone has to teach the kids the importance of good health. Do you hear NYC kids bellyaching about the new laws? Of course not!

Just the parents...Only, parents