[Patty55]

Originally Posted by cbg150

Thank you Patty! NYC was just trying to give consumers a chance to have some small gulps too! NYC also led the country in putting calorie counts on menus, so that consumers could make educated choices! I am proud of my city for that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They already had the chance to drink "small gulps", just don't buy the big one. I really don't think the Mayor needed to insert himself into the situation.

I hate to see this being referred to as a NY problem. Truth be told, my food choices in NY were much healthier than here in TV

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Patty55

Y'know, this is not exclusively a New York problem. Big Gulps are sold nationwide.

Exactly, that's part of the reason we have an epidemic of people being overweight and obese.

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Well, on the other hand a lot of women think it is their right to have as many babies as they choose which we will also support. How do you suggest we fix that? which is probably a much larger drain on society than some people drinking pop.

The the problem with right and responsibilities - who gets to make the decision. I for one believe in the United States it is each person's right to choose than suffer the consequences - so maybe that is where we are off base - saving people from consequences they have created for themselves.

Forced Sterilization

[Mack184]

At 60 years old my father was in better physical shape than I have ever been in my whole life. He did not drink or smoke. He was not obese or diabetic. He watched everything he ate & drank. At 60 years old he could still fit into his WW-2 pilot's uniform. He did 100 sit-ups & 100 push-up each morning after he got up. He was the kind of guy that your doctor would point at and say..you should be like "him". 3 out of his 4 grandparents lived to be over 100. His maternal grandfather died at 73 after being run over by a drunk driver, so we will never know how long he would have lived. At 96 his paternal grandfather (who lived to be 102) was a PA Dutch preacher & farmer was still preaching each and every Sunday in his church and still living on the farm that had no electricity or running water. His mother & father both lived to be 87. NONE of them was diabetic or obese. None of them had chronic disease. Now this those genes in his blood, and his own personal care of his body at 60 years old...He dropped dead of a massive heart attack.

Now while I don't suggest you go home & suck on a stick of butter at night, taking the very best care you can take of your body guarantees..NOTHING.

And I'm not willing to sell my soul & my freedoms just because some jerk with money thinks he knows better than I do. No, thank-you.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Exactly, that's part of the reason we have an epidemic of people being overweight and obese.

Big gulps are doing this? Nope. Not even close.

So, it appears you would be OK with limiting other foods that you and the government deem responsible for obesity. Then we can have rationing to make sure no one has more than the government allocation of red meat, or butter/margarine, or white bread, or . . . . Then we can have mandated exercise classes. Sorry, that's not the way I want our nation to go.

Perhaps there needs to be some incentive for people to achieve a healthy weight. But forcing a particular diet on them is not the way.

BTW, did you notice the government you seem to want involved in the obesity problem just agreed to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to help keep the price down?

[cbg150]

Originally Posted by Patty55

They already had the chance to drink "small gulps", just don't buy the big one. I really don't think the Mayor needed to insert himself into the situation.

I hate to see this being referred to as a NY problem. Truth be told, my food choices in NY were much healthier than here in TV

I guess there is a disconnect here. In many fast food establishments in NYC (and perhaps elsewhere?) smaller cups are just not available!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by cbg150

I guess there is a disconnect here. In many fast food establishments in NYC (and perhaps elsewhere?) smaller cups are just not available!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There certainly is a disconnect. Why does the size of the CUP determine how much the person drinks?????? Do soda drinkers not have a BRAIN to decide to stop drinking when they're no longer thirsty????

Maybe this is odd, but I stop drinking when I'm no longer thirsty!! What law says a person has to drink all that is served??? GEEZ......

People are supposed to be responsible for THEMSELVES!!!

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

If you live in New York City, you have a right to drink as much sugary-soft-drinks as you want, not to mention your right to consume other high calorie processed foods. And, if all of that makes you overweight or obese, you have a right to be that way. And if being that way causes you to have a stroke or heart attack, you may have a right to get a "free" bypass operation or whatever treatment you may need (compliments of New York City).

The above rights are untouchable. It may cost the average New Yorker upwards of $500,000,000 per year to supply the "free" medical services but that makes no difference. You may have to give up some of your money to pay for those services if you live there, but so what? What makes you think you have any rights?

You may have to give up some of your money but don't expect soda drinkers to give up even 4 ounces of their cherished soda. It's just too big of a sacrifice, and you have no right to expect it.

Let's talk about the rights of those who pay the bills! What rights do we have?

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Vinny

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

I think this is the most insightful post I've ever read here!!

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I tend to agree, somewhat. But here's the thing: If the New York City health department (or Blumeburg) sees a health hazard developing, like obesity, they should have some latitude to deal with it. It's sad that it has come to this but the only other way to deal with it is to keep raising taxes, and it seems that the city doesn't want to do that. And for that I applaud them.

Given the choice between ever higher taxes and protecting people from themselves, I come down on the side of protecting people from themselves, not to mention protecting them from the fast food industry.

and who will protect the people who do not want to be protected by the people who think they have to protect people from themselves?

let the dept of health recognize a health hazard and conduct an effective campaign about it. let the people who feel strongly about the hazard PARTICIPATE in such a campaign.

no one [other than a parent/guardian] has ANY right to CONTROL another's behavior!

[blueash]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

Can you correlate the amount if soda someone drinks with the number of. pounds put on as a result of drinking that soda? Go ahead and do it for me,
.
Yes it is a challenge and I m betting you come up blank.

Sweet Drinks Tied to Higher Calorie Intake in Kids
Sweet drinks tied to a Higher Calorie intake in kids
"Among all age groups analyzed, the energy density (calories per gram) of food consumed increased with higher sugar-sweetened beverage intake," lead investigator Kevin Mathias, of the department of nutrition at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a journal news release.

He said the findings suggest that higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with consumption of foods with high levels of calories.

"This is concerning because many foods that are associated with higher sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (e.g., pizza, cakes/cookies/pies, fried potatoes, and sweets) are also top sources of solid fats and added sugars; components of the diet that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommends Americans should limit"

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Vinny

hThere are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

Vinny, well said!

[CFrance]

I think Bloomberg went too far on this one. Actually, I think he went too far on the trans fat one too. Making sure the nutritional content is available is one thing; shutting sugar and trans fat down down is going too far into people's rights.JMO. Why not ban the ale of cigarettes in NYC? That's even more harmful than trans fat or sugar.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by Vinny

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

Excellent Post

Not one is perfect, sure don't want to point a finger at the faults of another until I can say I have none of my own! Not my place to look at anyone and tell them what they are doing wrong unless I'm their parent.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by KeepingItReal

Excellent Post

Not one is perfect, sure don't want to point a finger at the faults of another until I can say I have none of my own! Booze does more harm than sugar I would say..not much said about limiting the size of a drink or how many beers can be consumed..

I'll drink to that!