Did NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg go too far with his planned ban on sugar based drinks over 16 oz in NYC?

Of course he is going to far. But get ready for more of these types of things as America goes to more of a nanny state.

Well it is Bloomberg. He is the “too far” guy.

How about doing some corrective parenting for those who let their kids do anything they want? Ooooh no, that would be infringing on civil liberties.

Yeah, nanny state? Some people dislike government from doing welfare but when government pushes you towards so maybe you won’t avail yourself of health welfare when you got sick of diabetes, they balk and throw labels like “nanny” state.

I sort of approve. The sight of a person carrying around these ginormous glasses and jugs is ridiculous. Nobody needs that much fluid. I mean, I don’t care, really. It won’t affect me. I don’t lug gallon jugs of fluid around. But on the other hand, why not just back a tanker up to your face and shove a hose down your throat?
Where I live people can use their freaking food stamp cards to buy slurpees in the store. Really? Some people obviously need to have decision making taken out of their hands.

@mazingerz88 That is exactly what it is. A nanny state mentality. Bloomberg does not know what is best for me. I do. Who the hell is he to tell me I can’t have a large coffee from Starbucks when I am over 6 feet tall and weigh 175 lbs, exercise regularly, and take care of myself. What a joke.

I think he should have mandated that they add a neurotoxin that becomes lethal in the dosages of such large drink portions.

People can always switch to the diet drinks. They seem safe from regulation so far. Maybe the tap water in NYC tastes like shit so no one wants it. Or is that what is going into the big gulps? Yum.

I don’t think so. Almost anyone can figure out you can get two smaller ones to make a bigger one. If they can’t, they deserve to be told what is a reasonable size of something that isn’t good for them in the first place.
@missingbite This idea is not aimed at people like you, but at people who are 50 or more pounds overweight. And there are a LOT of them.

Yes, he has definitely crossed a line. It’s not a question of whether or not it’s good for you- I think everyone is on the same page with that. But when did my right to decide what to consume get taken away? My decision to drink a large, probably unhealthy soda affects no one but me. People can harp on and on about how unhealthy it is, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a personal choice and it’s not the government’s place.

I think it is too far. I really liked when he required chain restaurants to put calorie counts easily available and visible to consumers, and tightened up smoking laws, but the drink thing seems over the top.

One comment I have about drinks is growing up in NY served drinks were typically around 12 ounces, if you wanted a second you had to pay for it. We were never allowed to have a second when I was a child. I had never seen free refills of any drink until I had iced tea at Ruby Tuesdays when I was a teen and living in MD. Soda/pop was kind of like alcohol at restaurants for us in that we supplemented the soda with water if we were still thristy. But, another difference was we did not have a ton of ice in our drinks back then, and in my family we usually have soda no ice. I was allowed to drink tons of soda at home, my mom didn’t really limit it. In restaurants it was more about the cost.

Plus, another thing to consider is a 24 ounce glass in America typically only has about 16 ounces of beverage in it probably.

@woodcutter NY consistently wins awards for their water. Taste and quality.

Oops, wrong link.

Of course he did? Government telling people what to eat is as far-reaching as you can get!! It’s sickening to me. What’s less understandable is the generation that embraces this crap.

Its the typical wrong headedness with the banning of objects because these kind of people have no faith that people can make good decisions about their personal well being. Let’s just forget about personal responsibility, thats a goner so, demonize things and that way you get to do an end run around the real problems.

@woodcutter As much as I agree the Mayor is going too far, do you really think people are making good decisions regarding health and weight in America? Generally I say a good law does not infringe on those who are already doing the right thing, and the people doing the wrong thing will have to change. I never use it regarding food and drink though, I say it about other types of laws. Anyway, the healthy person probably does not drink more than 16 oz of soda at once, so the law doesn’t affect them, or if they want more once in a while they probably won’t care too much they can’t. It is the people drinking crazy amounts of soda in one sitting who will be most affected.

I still don’t like this idea, epecially if it means more styrofoam and plastic cups overall, not sure how that part of it would work out for to go cups if people buy two.

@Sunny2 Thank you for posting your response because it shows exactly how stupid this new law would be.

It won’t keep anyone from drinking too much soda or anything else.
It affects people who it is not intended for and is a huge waste of government.
I’m sure there are bigger problems for N.Y. to worry about.

Where does this stop.

People have got to learn to do things for THEMSELVES!

The sweeteners in diet soda are not exactly safe either.
This is absurb. There are much bigger fish to fry.

Today, Friday 6/1/12, he declared Donut Day in NYC because today is National Donut Day. It’s not clear yet, as of the news at 7:00 am, whether or not he’ll appear live in Central Park for Donut Day.

Can anyone spell “mixed message?”

@Fly :: “My decision to drink a large, probably unhealthy soda affects no one but me.”

It doesn’t until you get type 2 diabetes and the state covers the bill. My mom has it and the state covers a few hundred a month for her pills. So It isn’t just you.

@Fly @johnpowell Not just the state. Even if you have private insurance it raises premiums on everyone.

So does this mean no more 2 liters sold in stores? Will they still sell cases of 12oz cans or only single ones?

Do they no longer sell cartons of cigarettes? Is a pack the largest amount of cigarettes available for purchase? Of course they could still buy more than one…

It is way over the line. Sure, one thing may sound ok, what about the next thing and the next thing and the next until everything including your particular poison is the one on the chopping block?

When will the portion size of things like red meat, eggs, chocolate, butter and everything else that can be seen as unhealthy be limited? Why not just limit sales to pre-packaged, government approved boxed or frozen meals. Only individual size, of course; we wouldn’t want a single person buying a family size meal. That also means no buying in bulk discounts to save families money.

@johnpowell Not everyone who drinks soda develops diabetes. Also, drinking soda is not the only thing that can contribute to developing diabetes. Should we legislate everything that might? How about everything that might cause cancer? (That list is damn long.) Asthma? (That would be interesting.)

@Supacase It’s the increased body weight that contributes to the likelihood of diabetes in my opinion. I think Bloomberg is worried about obesity more than “sugar” consumption specifically.

Bloomberg is trying to solve a problem that to some people does not exist. Or they believe it exists but they are so terrified of their present and future liberty being devoured by the Marxist bear. Going too far for me is banning poor obese people in NY from drinking any soda.

@mazingerz88 What do you mean by a problem to some people does not exist? that they are thin and don’t need to be told what to do? Or, they are fat and fine with it?

@johnpowell You and I both know that drinking soda does not exclusively lead to diabetes. There are many factors, including uncontrollable things like family history. In general, it’s about lifestyle as a whole, and the types of people who tend drink these sodas regularly are likely to develop diabetes regardless. And, the same thing would happen if I developed any other disease, why should diabetes get singled out? What about lung cancer from cigarettes, or liver problems from alcohol?

For the record, I very rarely consume sodas of this size and I almost always drink diet sodas. For me, this is more about the fact that I reserve the right to consume however much soda that I want as opposed to me actually consuming 16+ oz sodas regularly.

@JLeslie Yes, both. It includes people from those two groups you mentioned. They are self-aware of their bodies’ reaction to sugar consumption but do not give a damn as to how it may affect anything else. They are creatures of liberty who believe they have the right to ignore, not care and hate well meaning, naive do gooder types.

@mazingerz88 I guess it can be argued like the seatbelt and helmet laws. Sometimes the government makes laws for a persons protection and societies and doesn’t care about individual rights. I do think soda is different though, I come down on the side of being against the soda law as I mentioned above.

Personally, both my husband and I cannot imagine how people drink so much drink? Sure once in a blue moon if it is very hot out or we have been exercising we might consume a lot of liquid in one sitting, but typically a 32 ounce drink is a ton of liquid. We watch people drink beer after beer and we arw stunned by the liquid consumption, forget about the amount of alcohol. Heavy people more likely have their stomachs stretched out and they consume much bigger servings of everything including liquid I guess. Large serving size is a problem in America. Everything is bigger than 30 years ago. Bagels, muffins, dinner plates, glasses, mugs, and I do think that is part of our problem. Consuming large amounts can be learned. Push yourself enough times to finish large servings and eventually that become normal for the person, their body learns to handle it.

@JLeslie The difference with soda and seatbelts is the time when the deadly effect takes place. With seatbelts, it’s at the same time as the accident. With soda, it takes much longer and research data on it could be easily assaulted with all sorts of counter data creating a debate similar to the global warming debacle. The question NOW is, what are you going to do about it? Bloomberg made his decision.

Personally, I’m consuming less soda now that they came up with smaller cans. To be honest, I’m one of those who needs and wants to be regulated. I just can’t do it by myself! Lol.

@mazingerz88 That is not the reason I see seatbelts and soda as different. The reason I see it as different is because there are zillions of other foods and drinks that are bad for our health from a dietary perspective. Control soda consumption they still might eat 10 Hostess Ho-Hos in a day. As far as seatbelts, there really is not other alternative to safety in a car. You either wear the belt or you don’t.

If you drink less now that there are smaller cans then maybe Bloomberg is on to something? Kind of like the whole McDonald’s supersize thing. I realized about a month ago that now some of the individual bottlee sizes are 20 oz. When did that happen? People are mindless when they eat, just noshing away until all the food is gone that was placed in front of them.

I think it is going too far.

I also think drinking that much soda is stupid. It’s not necessary for anyone, but sometimes I make some stupid decisions that don’t affect anyone else, that I would rather not see legislation about. And I get pretty bitter hearing about people with no concern for their health, because I had no %&$ control over whether I got type 1 diabetes, and because I can’t have juice or soda for fun. If I’m drinking it, it’s because I need it to keep from fainting.

Where the hell was he when I was pigging out on 3 large pieces of angle food cake and 3 glasses of milk this morning? I feel sick now, and it’s ALL his fault because he didn’t stop me.

I like most of Bloomberg’s quality-of-life mandates because in general they have direct benefits for most citizens. I used to hate going to bars because I and my clothes would stink of cigarette smoke. I’ll go now. Bar and restaurant business has gone up not down since smoking bans not least because people can smell their drinks and food. Exotic bar drinks are much more fun if you can actually smell and taste what you’re drinking.

But big drinks? Limiting the size?
a) there is no hazard to the person next to the soda abuser, so what they drink high-fructose corn syrup to their detriment? Why is a smaller dose of that poison tolerable?
b) someone who used to get a 16 oz bottle will get 2×12 oz containers now.

I don’t like sugar that much and I’d almost never get a 16 oz of soft drink. But I consider this a personal liberty issue with no obvious benefit for the public at large, &/or no strong evidence it will even help the problem at which it’s aimed.

Why not just ban fat people? Then nobody will be left to buy all the junk food he wants to ban and it will simply disappear from the market place.

@josie New York actually is one of the states with low stats on obesity by comparison, but the number is still so very high. New York City fairing better than the state as a whole with the city at about 53% of people overwieght. When I am in NYC most people I see are thin to average weight, but it probably has somehwat to do with the part of town I am in. Manhattan only being 42% overweight.

I think most people in America don’t even know what overweight looks like they see it so often it looks average weight to them when only slightly overweight.

@JLeslie: I agree. In NYC, the culture dictates that any overweight is too much. Also, NYC has a large proportion of upper class residents, and among the upper class, overweight is unacceptable and inexcusable. As they say, you can never be too rich or too thin.

Correction: I should have written NY is low statistically for peope who are overweight, I was not separating out the statistics by obesity.

@jca Exactly, the culture in Manhattan is very different than other areas regarding weight. Part of it for sure is income level, but even the middle class in Manhattan tend to be thin. I am fat in NYC and FL and average sometimes thin in other parts of the country. Technically, I am the heavy side of average weight if a doctor evaluated me.

LOL @josie.

I approve. I just think those massive containers of soft drink look utterly ridiculous. At least be discrete about the amount of Coke or whatever you’re going to consume, geez.

@JLeslie: Yes, in NYC when you see very overweight people they’re usually tourists.

@jca Reminds me of the Sex and the City episode when Sarah Jessica’s character bets her boyfriend a woman at a bar is from out of town because she has a scrunchy in her hair, which he is unwilling to believe, and then the woman opens her mouth with a strong southern accent.

@JLeslie: When you’re in NYC and you see women with fanny packs and colored cotton short pants, you know they’re definitely tourists! LOL!

@jca Are short pants cropped pants or Bermuda shorts? I am trying to get a picture. LOL. I told a friend of mine who was going for a long weekend to not wear white pants in NYC, and she asked why. I mean, it’s a city, you sit on benches, if it rains the dirt from the streets will get on the cuffs of your pants, sittng on the subway and in cabs not always the cleanest place. She thought I meant for fashion reasons, I meant practical.

Cropped pants about six inches shorter than regular pants, kind of baggy, colored like blue, white, pink, turquoise or yellow. Colored cotton.

I hate cropped pants. I own some for practical purposes, but I think they look terrible usually. They can be cute on short petite women. Everyone says they look better on tall people, but I completely disagree.

They look bad on everyone, and the tourists usually are dumpy so it’s worse. Add to them the fanny pack and the white sneakers with the short socks. Terrible look.

@jca Too funny. It’s really the “dumpy” that does them in. If they were slim the fashion would matter less. Although, the sneakers with the cropped pants is terrible. If you are going to wear sneakers, which I do sometimes in NYC, wear jeans. The crop pants have to have some sort of sandal or slide to look reasonable. Like a Laura Petrie look can look cute. But, when you’re a tourist you do a lot of walking and they want to be comfortable, understandable. When I am vacationing I am more casual and concerned with comfort while touring. When I am in NYC most of my time is with family, and maybe one day a few hours in a museum or the park, but I am not touring 5 days straight. Anyway, I don’t think those tourists think they look good, I think they are just being practical. In Memphis I never see smeone with cropped pants and sneakers, but the same people might be wearing it in NYC.

Probably half the volume in a 44oz slurply is ice with the majority of drinkers.Thats frozen H2o. What’s to keep people from acquiring their own big containers to carry their drinks in? Several ways to beat this if people get creative enough. It won’t have the intended outcome the lawmakers hoped for. But because something is being done about a percieved problem, we all can sleep easier now.

I also find it hilarious that his proposal for this came out on a Thursday, just one day before National Donut day that he supports. 20 oz soda…..bad! Eat a half a dozen donuts in one sitting and that is fine!

I meant to put “Big Gulp” in that last post. I just remembered a Slurpy is pretty much all ice. It’s been a long time since going to a convenience store. Bloomberg should ban “Little debbies” and sausage and egg sammiches sold in quicky marts. At least the soft drinks are almost all water by content.

I don’t think this soda size restriction is going to be an effective way to address the obesity epidemic, but the the bulk of people who are going into conniptions about the “nanny state” are just plain full of it. You can bet most of them aren’t complaining about liquor regulations, class A cigarettes, the size of the fish you’re allowed to catch, and all the myriad ways the government regulates how food you eat is produced, stored, packaged, and sold to you.

Over-consumption of soda and other products containing refined sugar is presenting a host of health problems for people, and you can bet it’s affecting you at least indirectly by driving up the costs of your healthcare. It’s probably a much bigger threat to your health, at least these days, than alcohol, marijuana, and all kinds of other things prohibitionists get uptight about it.

I think there are a billion reasons why Bloomberg is an authoritarian ass. Like, maybe stopping and frisking black people for being outdoors is a good example of a nanny state that is out of control. But before flaunting your arbitrarily selective libertarianism, at least try to think through why this is being proposed.

@woodcutter: I heard they did a comparison on one of the shows (don’t know if it was a local show or a national show – when I refer to local, it’s because I live in the NYC area) where they showed the drinks and the quantity of sugar, and it’s a major amount of sugar, not “almost all water by content.”

@missingbite: Good point about National Donut Day. He was on The Today Show and they asked him about that, and he said in moderation, one donut is fine. He brought it back to the issue of the soda, and he said in moderation, i.e. 16 oz. or less is fine. Too much, not fine.

@jca People gonna get their soda-buzz. They’ll make whatever arrangements they need to maintain their intake. If that means getting two smaller drinks to make it up they will. The only thing this is going to change for the better is the retailers of these drinks who will make even more money ,as usually two smalls cost more than a single large.They market these off the cups and lids. That’s where the countable inventory is. This will be a boon for the stores. There will be those that will still count this as progress because they get so used to seeing NOTHING being done that any change will look good to them. Bloomberg’s heart is in the right place but but this is just empty lawmaking.

@woodcutter The increased cost will be a deterent to consumers. It is for me and I can afford all the coca colas I want.

It’s probably not even a deterrent. The large soda servings will still be available from supermarkets, with food stamps, same as always. If something like this were to work, it would need to attack soft drinks, candies, and pastries at the very.

As it stands now, even if @JLeslie is right people who are already obese or prone to obesity will just get their high somewhere else.

@bolwerk It definitely could redirect purchases, I agree there. People might run into the supermarket instead of a restaurant. I am not sure where exactly Bloomberg is limiting the drinks? When I am in NYC many times the food carts on the street still sell 12 oz cans. I rarely can find that where I live, in vending machines they are all 16 or 20 oz bottles (we don’t have food carts here in my county. I wanted to own one and sell hot dogs and some other products and I can’t get a business license for it, they don’t allow it.).

I have never seen someone in NYC with a 32 oz slurpee. Where are these people, and where are they buying these huge drinks in NY? Maybe it is outside of Manhattan?

In fast food it is often, not always self serve soda, so that doesn’t affect much. Even if it isn’t self serve, they still might allow free refills.

@JLeslie If weed goes up a few bucks an Oz. we won’t be seeing people cutting back much, if at all- same deal with pop.

@JLeslie: if that is a problem, it likely is outside Manhattan, or at least outside Manhattan below ~96th Street. I really don’t know much about container habits, but I would venture to guess the containers from fast food outlets could often if not usually be over 16oz. (Isn’t a 16oz “small” these days?) What seems a bit less likely to me is the idea that most of the soda consumption comes from fast food outlets. I would guess most soda is bought in supermarkets, and supermarkets will be exempt from these requirements anyway.

Slurpees were probably nearly impossible to find in NYC until recently because 7/11 only recently started penetrating the NYC market. It’s becoming rather common now, but it was rare even 6 years ago. I don’t know how much Slurpees caught on.

Off-topic, instead of a food cart, can you investigate a food truck? The licenses are often easier, if there is even one needed. Google around about them – they’re quite the reach amongst urban foodies these days.

@woodcutter: if that’s so, it’s likely because weed is a choice drug for wealthier white kids. And, it’s almost impossible to track the demand very accurately because it’s a clandestine part of the economy.

OTOH, soda is popular at least in part because it brings a lot of calorie bang for the buck. Even if it’s made more expensive – questionable prospect under this policy – it might be cheaper than consuming healthy food.

@woodcutter: I am not saying I agree with Bloomberg’s ban. You’re preaching to the choir. I was merely pointing out to you that when you said sodas are mainly water, that they do have a significant amount of sugar in them.

@bolwerk Thanks for the suggestion, but I don’t think it would work for what I wanted to do. But, I do appreciate it.

In NYC soda is bought in so many different places. Small corner mart, restaurant you walk up and order (sandwich place, pizza parlor, etc) fast food, regular super market, drug store. Where is Bloomberg proposing to ban?

@JLeslie: I am guessing the huge 32 oz drinks might be from 7–11 which can be found in the Bronx and Queens. Not sure about Manhattan. Also, fast food places and restaurants like Applebee’s, but let’s face it, where there’s a will, there’s a way. If people want to get around these things, they can. Unfortunately, the rich can afford several sodas whereas the poor cannot.

There is an Applebees in NYC?! The world is ending for sure.

@JLeslie: off the top of my head, in practice it would affect movie theaters and restaurants. I believe it affects coffee shops if their product contains less than 50% coffee, but I would have to check that. And it’s not strictly a ban, simply a limit on the amount that can be served per container.

(Taco trucks are getting popular in NYC, and many of them are quite delicious.)

@bolwerk Well, he has to limit the popcorn size if he is going to limiy the soda size IMO.

Just a reminder: I am against the restriction he is proposing regarding drink size,

I just saw on the news that it affects any establishment that gets a letter grade from the Health Department (another Bloomie thing which IMHO is a good thing- a letter grade on their front door telling the public how they did in their most recent inspection – A, B, C, not sure about D and then I would think F means they close until they fix the violations).

@JLeslie: I would guess Times Square has those tourist crap traps like Applebees.

@jca I have to google it. Applebees in NYC. I just cannot believe it.

Edit: You’re right.

@jca: that’s right, but in practice fancier restaurants probably don’t sell greater than 16oz servings of soda (probably not greater than 8oz or 12oz). It may technically apply to Les Halles, but it’s aimed at places where people drink ostentatious amounts of refined carbohydrates.

And I agree with @JLeslie that it’s kind of a pointless policy. I just find the gnashing of teeth about “nanny states” to be generally disingenuous.

@bolwerk I think 16oz glasses are probably pretty standard in most restaurants except for orange juice with breakfast.

@bolwerk I like some nanny state policies. I like Bloomberg’s rule about calorie counts in chain restaurants. I like seatbelts when driving. I like motorcycle helmets. I’m sure I could come up with more if I was not falling asleep.

I do think a 32 oz soda is ridiculous. I don’t understand people who spend $20 at the theatre for popcorn and soda. I think our portion size is completely out of control in America. I remember the first time I went into starbucks, their coffee sizes were huge. This all has me wondering if physiological fat people need more drink? Is that way we want bigger sodas, because we eat bigger burgers and french fries?

@JLeslie: in a typical NYC sit-down eatery that isn’t fast food, I’d be surprised to see greater than 12oz – smaller than a pint glass anyway, which is 16oz. Places that serve soda to go probably start around 16oz for a “small” cup though, IIRC. Some steakhouses and BBQ places seem to serve more like 16oz or 20oz, but at least the latter is more akin to Applebees than a local restaurant – and border on fast food.

I don’t even really see how any of those are “nanny state” policies. Calorie information is just information. Nobody is forced to change their habits. Seatbelts at least reduce the risk of driving for everyone by reducing insurance rates. Hell, even this soda thing isn’t strictly just about nannying people. The effect of obesity drives up the costs of everyone’s healthcare. Even if I don’t agree with the specific solution, the people yelling about nanny state policies are just being disingenuous – probably as they themselves piss in the community stream.

Who can drink that much soda before the ice melts and makes it taste watery? seriously

I don’t live in NY and I don’t drink soda. Aren’t I lucky.~

^^on both counts^^

A good point there. Many people never completely finish a tall 32 oz fountain drink. They just don’t as the ice does dilute it if it sets too long, but if someone is forced to get the small cups, they are probably going to drink it all so…that’s another reason I think it’s not going to have that great of an impact on consumption. It will have a net consumption that won’t be much less, and the customers are also going to be more conservative with the ice, which is the big reason for the really tall cups- you can get more ice in it and still have room for the drink which is handy if you plan on not being in the a/c. The ice will last longer. Less ice = more syrup, more ice =less syrup by volume.

Sometimes I used to drink large servings – probably 24oz – for the caffeine high. But that was diet soda.

@dontmindme I drink soda without ice. But, most times drinks are served witha. Ton of ice in America.

@bolwerk I agree most NYC glasses are 12 oz, but 16oz is not very rare I would say even though less likely.

I agree whether my examples are nanny state or not is arguable.

NYC as a culture generally is not about huge portions food or drink, but the chain restaurants from fast food to mid-level dining are. I think Bloomberg is very focused on that with his demand of calorie counts and control of drink sizes, but obviously I am not in his mind, I am just hypothesizing. Most people in NY get a slice, maybe two at the most, and a 12 oz coke or water. Other parts of the country get a pizza, slices are not available, and a larger drink. NY has “salad” bars all over where you can buy food by weight, soeverything you take costs you more, and premade salalds, sandwiches and meals that are not huge and easy to pick up. Fast food restaurants are fast also obviousy, but with less healthy food, and sometimes more calories, depending on the dish, but the sit down restaurants like Applebees and Fridays the servings and calories are astronomical and the refills are free, they refill your glass without asking a lot of the time. I actually agree with Bloomberg the huge servings a problem. I think it is a person’s individual resposibility what goes in their mouth, so I am not in favor of suing McD’s or Friday’s restaurant. But, I do think some sort of regulation on calorie counts in a served meal might help. I know they can order two meals, but I really think people who aren’t overweight yet might be less likely to get into a habit of large calorie consumption in one meal if they never get in the habit. Gaining weight and becoming accustomed to larger calorie intake is an incidious process.

People need to be responsible for themselves. It’s a RIDICULOUS ban if you asked me. For some reason this exchange I had with a clerk at McD’s today came to mind.

I decided Chicken McNuggets sounded ok for dinner. I was debating whether to have a 6 piece or 10 piece. I settled on a 10 piece. The gal, who was very overweight, said, “You know, over all the cheapest buy is the 20 pieces! You pay $5.99 for the 20 pieces and $4.99 for the 10 pieces…you get twice as much chicken for only a dollar more!”
I looked at her and said, “It’s not a deal if I throw half of it away. And I would because there is no way I can eat 20 pieces.”
She looked at me like I was crazy.

@JLeslie: I dunno, most of the problem is economic. More calories are cheaper. An apple can cost more than a candybar. People with low food security are motivated to get the most calories they can. It’s why the poor are fat and the rich don’t have as much in the way of weight problems.

@Dutchess_III: it’s not a ban. It’s a restriction on serving size. Less harmful substances like alcohol or marijuana are more heavily restricted or outright banned, though few of these situational libertarians screaming about personal responsibilities care.

We are in danger of going off on a tangent with your claim that “People with low food security are motivated to get the most calories they can.” I can’t disagree more.

It’s a ban on anything over 16 oz. But it can’t be enforced, of course. It’s a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

@Dutchess_III: you can disagree about the circumference of the Earth too. It’s still well documented fact. And it can very easily be enforced. NYC already inspects restaurants rather frequently. I really have no idea where you’re getting that.

I have been a person with “low food security” according to almost any definition you can give regarding an American (not including drug or alcohol addiction or homelessness—although I was close on that last one.)

So…the Mayor proposes to install “police” at the restaurants to be sure people aren’t ordering more than one pop during a sitting? Is he going to install police at the convenience stores to make sure that a person doesn’t buy two 16 oz pops? One is for a “friend” after all. Is he going to prohibit six packs and two liters of pop from the grocery store? How could they possibly enforce that?

This kind of reminds me of a short article I read in our local, small town newspaper back in 2007. The police were going to start enforcing collar and tag laws on cats. They were going to start rounding up cats who were outside, with no collar, and hauling them in to the animal jail, just like they do with dogs. My first thought was, “Wow! Someone get me a camp chair and some pop corn so I can watch! This is going to be good!” I could see the admittance rate at our local hospital rising well before the admittance rate at the animal jail. Of course, never heard another word about it after that. :) Some things are just stupid.

“So…the Mayor proposes to install “police” at the restaurants to be sure people aren’t ordering more than one pop during a sitting? Is he going to install police at the convenience stores to make sure that a person doesn’t buy two 16 oz pops?”
You can still order 2 or 2 million smaller sized jugs if you so please. But then you are making the conscious decision to do so and make yourself aware that you are indeed buying multiple servings.

And…? People sit in denial, excuses, when it comes to calorie intake, all the time. Maybe that’s where my McDonald’s story came from. The server couldn’t fathom that I couldn’t sit down and eat 20 pieces of chicken McNuggets at one sitting. Can you imagine the look on her face if she’d realized that was all I was going to have for dinner (my last meal of the day,) 10 pieces of chicken bites? No fries, no nothing else?

Most people tend, yay even force themselves, to empty the plate regardless of portion size (waste not, want not), but with a smaller portions, most will already be full enough to not bother to ask for seconds.
To take your fake chicken meat as an example, if the 20 piece portion was not available, most would only order one 10 piece portion, and once they are done with that, will not be hungry enough anymore to order a second 10 set, whereas with the 20 piece portion, most would force all 20 down their esophagus, even though they would already feel full after the first 10 or so.
Now of course you could order 2 10 sets, but most would not do that, only the most gluttonous and they are beyond help anyway.

Also, a really funny thing to do would have been to stare at her intently, then have your glare wander down her body and back up (so that she knows you do), and then slowly say “I-don’t-think-so.”

@ragingloli No. It would not have been funny. I’m sure that she quickly compared her weight to mine and got the picture.

The rest of what you said is spot on. It’s there. They eat it. Never mind that THEY ordered the “Super Size.” It’s not their fault. If they had to go home and make all that food from scratch…cook the hamburger, fry the fries, make the milk shake…they wouldn’t do it.

@Dutchess_III: The state already regulates your food and what you can do with your body to no end. You aren’t complaining about more mundane things like the ways liquor can be dispensed or the temperature at which your meat can be before it is cooked. Soda is actually contributing to a widespread obesity epidemic, having an effect on health that few other substances can approach. Maybe cigarettes are worse, and their use is waning. You can’t possibly think other mundane food regs are justified but a limit on soda serving sizes is not.

@bolwerk An apple rarely costs more than a candy bar. Back in the day the poor were skin and bones, and now they are the heaviest in America. Part of it is culture. A lot of the minorities in our country who are more likely to be poor also think being overweight is a normal weight. Honestly, there are plenty of white people who also think overweight looks nomral too. Our southern states are more likely to be poorer, and to cook what most would agree is unhealthy foods. The “normal” all around them is what other parts of America would find fat. Poorer communities are more likely to have a lot of fast food restaurants and small produce sections in the grocery store. Oneof the better suburbs where I grew up had an ordinance against fast food restaurants within the city limits. I don’t know if it has changed. This is going back 25 years ago. I bet it is still the same if I had to guess.

Another possible reason we see more obesity is single parenting is up compared to 50 years ago. I think that situation means it is more likely for a parent to serve foods not made from scratch at home more often than in the past, which I believe probably contributes to the weight problem in our country.

@JLeslie – rarely? My casual perusal of even suburban supermarkets says otherwise. :-|

Anyway, more importantly, on a per calorie basis, an a kCal of apple costs wayyyyyyyyyyy more than a kCal candy bar. Poor people being fat is because of the changed economics of food distribution as much as it is about habits. Southern people traditionally fried foods because that added some extra calories to a starvation diet. Now, of course, it adds too many.

Single parenting may be a factor, but it’s probably a small one. Another small one is that fewer people are involved in agriculture than ever. Also, anecdotally, American produce has never seemed that good to me.

@bolwerk Isn’t that the point? The apple has less calories. That is one reason why we prefer it for everyone. A medium apple probably weighs about a quarter poind, so probably 50¢ on average, a dollar for very expensive ones. A banana is cheap compared to a candy bar too.

I agree those who are unable to get enough food in a day are more likely to, and probably should, load up on caloric foods. But, the poor who are very fat are not missing meals. I also agree southerners wanted to add calories back in the day, but the day is over. Now it has to do with tradition and lack of education about nutrition.

That whole big is beautiful movement 20 years ago did not help either in my opinion. All those people saying their doctor told them they are healthy even though they are obese. And, the psychology of feeling good about oneself. There was some detriment in those messages.

Also, I agree with @ragingloli. He stated better what I was trying to say about portion size with his examples about the chicken nuggets.

@JLeslie: hmm? I see candy bars sold loose here for well under 50¢. Granted, they’re off-brand and usually revolting looking. The important point is that, while the apple has fewer calories, the candy bar has a lower cost per calorie. If you buy $1 of apple and $1 of candy bar, you’re getting more calories for the candy bar. Hence poorer people are given economic incentive to buy the candy bar to fill themselves up. Same is true with other junk foods.

I kind of wonder about education. Physiology may enter into the picture too – those with more money may feel less vulnerable to scarcity, and therefore more willing to balance their diets, but even that eventually goes back to economics.

@bolwerk Where do you live?

I am not worried about nutrition in regards to vitamins, mineral, and fiber in the apple example. The very point of the apple example is if they ate an apple they would consume fewer calories and be satisfied with their hungry, because the majority of poor people in America are not starving, that is why they are fat. Similar to the chicken nugget example, if only 10 were available most people would eat that and be fine, instead we are a country that stuffs ourselves silly and has become accustomed to that feeling of overstuffed meaning you are done with your meal instead of simply not being hungry anymore. Pretty much I believe calories in calories burned equals weight, so the mode of the calories whether it be a not very nutritious candy bar (althought it probably has some protein in it) or an apple that has somen fiber and a few vitamins is irrelevant to me for a weight discussion.

Cheap foods and yet high caloric foods such as mac and cheese in a box are definitely less cost per serving than something healthy. Mac and cheese in a box is between 50 cents and a dollar, I believe (I don’t eat it because it’s gross but I see it on sale all the time at the supermarket) and probably feeds a few kids whereas to buy a pound of broccoli or something like that (cauliflower, string beans, steak) will cost you a few bucks. Even in fast food, like McDonalds, you can order the usual crap off the dollar menu but to buy a salad would run you about $5.

@jca Some healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy, but a balanced diet with reasonable sized portions is probably not more expensive then the bad diet with an overabundance of calories. The dollar menu gets you a hamburger and small fries, which is not crazy high in calories. The number 5 combo is a different story, and probably costs the same as the salad. Plus, if your salad has a bunch of ranch dressing your calories are up there anyway. When I eat healthy and watch my calories I don’t spend more. I consume less food total. For some people they save money because they stop eating out when they diet, but I don’t eat out often to begin with. Organic produce and other products might be an exception, they tend to be very high priced.

There is no question on a tight budget where a person is barely feeding themselves things high in calories and cheap are desireable and logical, but most fat people are not in that situation I am guessing. I think our eating habits have more to do with habits than economics the majority of the time. Someone truly barely able to feed themselves it is completely understandable they buy tuna in a can for a meal or mac and cheese for 50¢. But that person is probably thin.

@JLeslie: True, obesity is often due to a combination of factors (culture, economics, more sugar in the diet, etc.) and so really getting to the bottom of the problem is a tough call for anybody, whether on a personal level or thru policy changes.

@JLeslie: I live in NYC. The problem with obesity is makes the body have a starvation response to food. The apple doesn’t become sufficient to satisfy anymore. Also, people seek food out because they – perhaps irrationally – don’t know when they will eat again.

@bolwerk I realize that the body once overweight fights to stay at that weight, and then dieting begins a viscious cycle, that is why it is so important to never pig out on a consistent basis. My grandma always told me never get fat, because it is so hard to lose weight and keep it off, and damned if she wasn’t wise for sayingit, even before all the research and studies we have now. That is why all these huge portiins and calorie packed meals are so harmful. I would guess 95%+ of the population is born with a functioning capacity to only eat when they are hungry, and then we screw it up with forced overeating, emotions, boredom, etc. I learned to consume more when I dated my high school boyfriend, I remember it clearly. Being almost teased I had so little food on my plate. I also was told I was very pale, and now am paying with wrinkles and spots on my skin from trying to have a dark tan.

If the sizes are controlled we are less likely to consume the super size and become accustomed to it. Unless of course you are still having the huge amounts at home, then your screwed.

Many poor people are fat because they get hundreds of dollars more in food stamps than they need.

@Dutchess_III Do you really think that? Or, know it to be true?

In my experience, I know this to be true. I received food stamps for about three years. They gave us, easily, 3 times more than we really needed. I ate better on food stamps than at any other time in my life. I ate crab legs, choice cuts of steak, expensive items that I certainly can’t afford now. I used them to buy food presents for the kids at Easter and Christmas (because I had almost no free cash for non-essentials.)

My daughter receives food stamps. She is trying to loose some weight. She doesn’t blame food stamps for her weight gain but she once told me they don’t help because she gets so much dollar wise. When she gets them she calls and asks if there is anything anyone wants or needs. You use them or lose them too, which doesn’t help. It makes you feel like hording in case something changes.

Everyone I’ve known on food stamps tries to find some way to parlay them into cash, or trade for gas or something, because they have such an over abundance of them.

Unbelievable. I wonder if it varies a lot by state.

I don’t know. I kind of doubt it because it started out originally as some sort of subsidy for farmers. That was in the early 60’s I think.

I have heard people in the County I work in say that they take the “stamps” as they call them (it’s actually a card but still called slang name “stamps”) to certain stores and get 50 cents on the dollar. So if they have $50 worth of stamps they get $25 for them, cash. Store benefits and person gets cash to buy drugs or whatever.

Right. If you’re starving, really starving, and you’re not on drugs, and you love your children, you wouldn’t trade the precious food stamps—IF they were precious—up for cash for BS reasons. They aren’t precious. They are overflowingly abundant to those who receive them….the “poor.”

(They call them stamps because prior to 2000 or so they came in coupon books. You pulled out dollar size coupons. I’m betting prior to THAT, like in the 60’s or something, they were actual stamps of some kind.)

@jca Isn’t that against the law?

Sure @JLeslie. But how can they possibly catch them?!

@JLeslie: Yes, for both the recipient and the store. As @Dutchess_III said, how can they catch them? What proof is there that the recipient didn’t purchase food with them? The recipient can also get meals at the Salvation Army or other soup kitchens, and get food at food pantries.

I had a client ask me to sign a form she was filling out for a food pantry once, and she put extra people on the form! I was like “I can’t sign this knowing that those people don’t live in your household!” So not only did I sign the form, I put her household size in writing next to my signature. I had another client, a domestic violence victim, who got so many turkeys one Thanksgiving (one from the DV shelter, one from the food pantry, one from social services, one from her son’s school) that she had to give them away because they wouldn’t fit in her refrigerator. (I guess turning them down didn’t occur to her – I say that sarcastically because of course she wasn’t stupid enough to turn them down).

Exactly @jca. Americans, especially poor Americans, are the most overfed but actually underhelped people. I wish there was some way to divert all that wasted “food stamp” money into an emergency fund that poor people could tap in to occasionally.

@JLeslie Works like this: “You give me $25 in cash and go buy $50 in groceries.” There is no sales tax on food stamps, either. Nice.

I can’t believe a store takes a risk like that. Really bad.

It’s not the stores. It’s the individual employees, or perhaps the owners of very small corner grocery store. It’s the friends, family, etc. It’s as impossible to monitor as Bloombergs proposed soda-oz ban. Are they going to go into restaurants and convenience stores examine people’s receipts to see if they’ve ordered more than one soda?

@Dutchess_III Theft plain and simple. The soda is very different.

They already inspect restaurants frequently. They don’t need to catch every single large serving of soda to have the impact they want. They can simply smack a high enough fine on restaurants that are caught to make it very disadvantageous to bother, and probably spend no more money than they already are on inspections. In fact, when it comes to fining people, you can bet enforcement costs are almost always the least of the problem. The whole reason fines are made in the first place, instead of other punishments, is fines are profitable for the State.

Also, these rumors of food stamp fraud are borderline anecdotes. It’s impossible to have no fraud, and the actual fraud rate is probably minuscule. And Dutchess_III’s claim about food stamps being skyhigh are also poo. A full benefit is $400—$600 (I forgot the exact figure) for a family of four – just say it’s $600, that’s about $20/day for for four people. Not very much. Raise it and the poor, at least in places like NYC, probably would eat better – and maybe even save the healthcare system some money down the road.

It wasn’t meant to be a comparison to the drinks…I posted a comment in response to some one (I thought it was you @JLeslie) who said “Poor people used to be thin, but now they’re fat.” I just commented that that was because of the food stamps.

Yep @bolwerk. About $600 a month for a family of four…TWICE as much as anyone needs, especially when you are talking about a household of only one adult and three children. If what I’m saying is ridiculous, then why is such a huge majority of poor people so overweight?

I think it was me who said it, I have said that before. But, it doesn’t mean they get too much money, it can mean they eat a lot of fatty food. If they were spending the money on healthy food they would probably be thinner.

That could be countered by limiting the validity of food stamps to healthy food and mandating that the information whether a certain product applies be marked on the packaging and encoded as part of the product’s barcode. If you are going the food stamp route, whose point is to limit a part of the benefits to food, you can go that step as well.

But they’re poor, @JLeslie. Where are they getting the resources to eat “a lot?” It all costs money…but they aren’t spending money on food because they have food stamps. If they were spending actual money, they’d be thin, for the same reason poor people used to be thin. They didn’t have enough money to eat all they wanted, fatty food or not, so they were thin.

That’s a thought @ragingloli. It always kind of bugs me to see some overweight person with a cart overflowing with chips and snacks and cakes and pop and juice and candy, and paying for all of it with food stamps.

@Dutchess_III Yeah, there is some logic in that. I think the problem is they have more money for food and did not change the type of food they are consuming. Although, they also are plagued with the same problem the fat middle class has, bad food choices to begin with that is more processed. Back in the day everyone, all income levels ate more from scratch. Now people eat faster foods both restaurant and from the market. There is a huge lifestyle change that took place. The changes are probably less applicable in cities like NYC, except in the last 10–15 years. A lot of chains are now there, but the infultration was behind more rural areas and suburbs. And, as I mentioned above the family structure has changed, more divorce, single parenting, and double income families, making meal prep and consumption often done in the fastest easiest way possible.

$5/day per person? That’s a very nutritious diet of mac ‘n cheese. Great for kids!

@bolwerk From experienced Moms: Here ya go. Narry a mention of mac and cheese. Not even Ramen noodles! (Although, putting some Velveeta cheese, milk in butter in Ramen makes a REALLY tasty Mac and Cheese!)

If we really DID feed our kids nothing but Mac and cheese, you’d be looking at more like $1.00 a day, anyway, if even that.

@JLeslie Agreed. Plus we’re a lot more sedentary than we used to be. An overweight kid in school used to be a rarity. Now it’s the norm. :(

@Dutchess_III
It is spelt “Ramen”, silly Gaijin!

@ragingloli (Spell check doesn’t like it either way! :)

@Dutchess_III: even that paltry cruft looks like it exceeds $5/day/kid.

What paltry cruft? What the hell is a “cruft” anyway! Oh! Thanks! I have a new word!

What you linked to.

I see. Well, you didn’t look very closely then. Plus, that $600 a month was what I received in the 90’s. I’m sure they get closer to $800 now.

Do you have kids? What would you feed them? T-bone Steak and crab legs every meal?