Soon to be illegal?
This is a brave move: New York mayor Bloomberg plans to outlaw sales of sodas larger than 16 oz. (about 50 cl). This in an effort to actually do something against the obesity epidemic.
New York Times: New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
While some complain about the “nanny state” my take is this: Anyone who regularly drinks sodas larger than 16 oz. could probably use a nanny.
Good job, Bloomberg.
122
105 Comments
Having the government tell people what to eat has been a miserable failure so far. We need them to stop, period.
Education is the only answer and then the choices will follow!!
You can applaud the banning of large sugary drinks all you want -- then you'll have a cow when butter is banned (or taxed, as in Denmark).
Government bureaucrats know LESS THAN NOTHING about nutrition or diet, so when they actually get something right, it is pure random chance at work, nothing more.
I would offer though that if mayor Bloomberg really wanted to do something about obesity then outright banning the sale of soda would be a better move.
I would also speculate that perhaps the mayor an ulterior motive. Wouldn't banning the sale of larger portions of soda simply induce people to purchase even more of the smaller ones if they are addicted. More individual sales would lead to more sales tax revenues.
What will happen if passing laws like this take on elsewhere. What next, charging sin taxes, or banning sale of certain sized portions of fatty red meat? Bacon? Full fat cheese? Butter? (all the things dietitians villainize here)
Nobody bullied me into eating healthy, I stumbled on it by accident. I felt great, so I wanted to keep it up. I hope nobody thinks I'm a bully when it comes to talking about LC.
This was how I got my fiancee interested. (one, he thought I was cute, so asking about LC was a great excuse to chat me up). Shortly after we met, he said something about not wanting to gain weight, and I mentioned LC. I didn't lecture him about the can of HFCS soda he was drinking at that moment, simply mentioned in passing that LC was at least something to check into, because at least with it you can "eat your fill" and not "go to bed hungry". He told me later (after finding out what LC was all about, and seeing for himself how terrible that soda habit was) that if I had chosen to talk about how horrid his choices were instead, he would have never looked up LC, and most likely distanced himself.
Made sense to me. I knew a pushy vegan. She'd regularly badger me about how "terrible" animal products are. I ate a 3lb beef burger smothered in bacon and cheese out of spite after one incident. The very last last thing her attitude made me want to do was to check out her vegan diet.
Sorry to sound so angry! But passing bills like this is the reason US and Canada swapped out lard for trans fats in deep fryers, I'm scared of what other damage they'll do if we let our governments make these choices for us.
The diseases driven by processed carbs are wildly skewing our economy, mostly in medical costs.
We need to stop our magic thinking that we have a "Free Market" and make it a reality by taxing sugar, or anything that's driving our diseases of civilization, into obscurity.
New York is taking a different approach, but it's better than nothing.
You cannot legislate morality or good choice, you have to educate.
You're a smart guy Mr.DietDoctor, but you missed the boat on this one by a long shot!
Personally, taking away the political power of food corporations by banning monetary contributions to politicians and encouraging education would go much further and be the correct approach. Unfortunately, we have a growing anti-intellectual movement in this country.
Who gets to be arbiter of 'anything that's driving our diseases of civilization' and what if he/she/they happen to believe the common wisdom that fat is high on that list?
@C.Buck
I love it when people label others who disagree with them as anti-intelectual, it shows a certain lack of, oh, I don't know, intelligence.
A tour of the store would shock most of us.
Hot dog buns, pasta sauce, crackers, yogurt, canned soup, hamburger helper, salad dressing, ketchup, frozen pizza, whole wheat bread, canned pasta.
All with added sugar for no apparent reason.
But many of them carry a large flash claiming Low Fat.
Who gets to be arbiter of 'anything that's driving our diseases of civilization'
answer:
science
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120531/LIVEWELL02/705319933/1161
This "takes the cake" if you will excuse my pun.
I posted a scathing comment, but they probably won't publish it. I would love to have as many people as possible flood their comment section with critiques - maybe you should be less confrontational than I was!
If they don't publish my comment, I'll try again and not be so accusatory (I suggested the article bordered on criminal conduct!)
Same list of foods as you posted Chris, same problems in Canada. Loaded with added sugar, Some contain half a dozen different kinds of sugar! This is not including all the added starches to act as thickeners. All this while happily displaying "low in fat", or, worse featuring the heart and stroke foundation "health check" on the front of the package.
So, as far as paying the health costs are concerned, Many overweight or T2 diabetic people here don't drink soda, and don't eat fast food. Because it's "bad for you". Unknown to them, they get pounds of added sugar and starch from their "heart healthy choices" at the grocery store.
Granted. But taxing or prohibiting foods with added sugar is not the right approach. It is a misuse of governmental power.
I would be ok with the total elimination of the subsidies that make the above statement true, however.
Steve, I don't think C. Buck was labeling anybody here. He's talking about the fact that there is a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America. We tend to distrust "pointy-headed" experts. People who are interested in deep understanding of a subject are called "geeks," or "nerds," or "wonks." We had a presidential candidate recently (Santorum) who announced that thinking people should go to college is snooty!
Ironically, the medical establishment's failure to recognize the usefulness (and healthiness) of LCHF diets has probably resulted in more distrust than ever, and more people will rely on anecdotal evidence to make health decisions.
From Gary Taubes' blog:
"This, too, should be interesting, as I’ll be presenting my Why We Get Fat lecture an hour after Robert Eckel speaks. Eckel is a former president of the American Heart Association who is on record saying that he doesn’t even think low-carb-high-fat diets should ever be tested, that it’s unethical, because they’re so dangerous."
I've noticed at the supermarket this week that a lot of the "low-fat" advertising has been replaced by "gluten free." I suppose that could work, but not for the right reasons.
"he doesn’t even think low-carb-high-fat diets should ever be tested, that it’s unethical, because they’re so dangerous."
What luck for the rest of the world that the Sweedes, Finns and Norweigans are voluntary as guinea pigs
This reminds me very much of a Canadian law I stumbled on in a Toronto brewery. They were allowed to give out free beer samples as long as it was less than 8 ounces. I believe I had about 10 of them.
By limiting each serving to 8 ounces, this forces the beer servers to assess continually whether a patron is inebriated. Serving a drunk patron can result in liability should the patron go driving and kill or maim someone.
Bying marihuana in the coffeeshops are since a few months only possible for people with a Netherlands passport. The worldfamous liberal Amsterdam where (almost) anything goes is not so liberal anymore...
Embrace yourself world - this is just the beginning
* Banning indoor smoking
* Raising the cigarette tax substantially, so that a pack is now US$11 there
* This new soda ban
New York City has a strong public health program, and a local program (called EIP) whereby tax monies offer insurance support and medical access to poor children. This is a supplement to the New York State Child Health Plus program.
To curtail the childhood obesity epidemic and save taxpayer dollars, he is acting in a responsible and forward-thinking manner. The new taxes and soda restrictions will go to fund important child health initiatives for the poor.
A problem here is that there's no way to measure the effectiveness of this measure. It seems to me that this is an empty gesture for the appearance of doing something.
Besides the obvious threat of the same nannies telling us we cannot eat saturated fat is the much bigger issue that this is our freedom we are allowing politicians to steal. Pitiful.
I have no desire to get a big gulp at all and would never drink all that sugar. I must admit though I like the idea that if I wanted to do that I could. It is a freedom thing and it is an important part of our culture. I know that isn't true in Sweden. Sure we may pay a price for that freedom but you also pay a heavy price for the lack of it in Sweden.
I much prefer to focus on what we have in common though and not where we differ. I have great respect for you and your blog and all your wonderful talks and videos. We disagree on this one but thank you for being here Doctor.
question:
Who gets to be arbiter of 'anything that's driving our diseases of civilization'
answer:
science
Current 'science' is telling the US public that saturated fat is bad. I take it you will be fine when they begin charging sin taxes on beef or limiting the amount a restaurant is allowed to serve in a meal? There is simply never a good enough reason for the public to accept any curtailing of freedom no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time. NEVER!
But this is the proper role of government - level the playing field when things get unbalanced, and in the case of a Western diet things are dangerously unbalanced, and all the evidence from the past 30 years necessitates a government intervention. There's no way we can afford our current future. In the United States the cost of medical insurance goes up in price as much as 30% every year. No sign of that slowing down. Soon it will be more expensive than housing for a family per month. Governments curtail freedom all the time when it's for the greater good. I can't drive drunk. And that's good. I have to stop when the light is red. Seems insignificant, but it certainly limits my freedom - but it's really for the best. This is a "government by the people for the people."
It's not "every man for himself, if you don't like it, then lump it."
Your last sentence makes no sense, and the Founding Fathers of the United States would find it ludicrous.
The very same argument can be made by folks who would like to ban saturated fats...but that is besides the point. It is none of the government's business what I eat or drink.
Then they came for the cheesecake; I did not car because I am lo-carb.
Then they came for the bacon.
The science has been done and we know that sugar is toxic yet the corporations still spread cheap death.
If they come after my bacon then I would object loudly and they'd never shut me up.
I'm happy that at least the argument has been raised that sugar is a major problem.
You're all dirtying your diapers over what-ifs. Come back to the fight at hand.
Corporations are pushing crap because they got on board with the dietary goals for the United States, and its been all down since. This has been an absolute disaster for us, on that we have at least one thing we can likely agree upon. But bottom line, had McGovern not stuck the governments nose were it didn't belong, and where its lack of knowledge was immense we would not be where we are today. You are okay with giving the guilty party an opportunity to right their wrong, and they aren't doing that, they are trying to right a symptom of whats wrong and nothing will be gained so long as we are focused on symptoms.
If we didn't have Uncle Sam's fingers through the USDA knee deep in every aspect of nutrition, from the scientific study, through production, all the way to our forks we would be able to let science do its job. The reality is because of government intervention in nutrition those who wish to study LCHF as a possible solution cannot even get funded, while we continue to fund one failed fat is bad study after another.
Please keep government out of this, nothing good happens when they are involved.
I think you prove my point.
We tried a similar experiment long ago. Organized crime took off, and thousands died from alcohol that the government poisoned in an effort to scare people away from the stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
The science to back the McGovern committee was non-existent at the start. It took 35 years before we had randomized, controlled trials that countered the low fat idea. Mission accomplished? No. But it's better than 1977.
If the government was not issuing dietary guidelines, then who would be? ADM? Coca Cola? Kraft? Monsanto?
They will readily fill any gap that emerges. They would chew your food for you if they found it profitable. Corporations get what they want in America, until we push back.
Seriously? You are really puzzled by the answer to that question? The individual of course...my goodness do you have such an overblown opinion of yourself that you believe ONLY you can be allowed to make decisions for yourself?
For those against Government interventions -- and I share many of your concerns -- are you suggesting that leaving things as they are is better than change?
If nothing else, this suggested legislation has opened up a flood of discussion on the subject; which I see as a vital part of the education process.
Contact your representatives, make your views as a voter known, vote with your feet at the checkout. Ultimately we are not powerless to drive changes.
Yes drop or reassign the corn subsides (maybe encourage farmers to grow real whole food again) and level the playing field, yes recognise the true unbiased science rather than accepting the authority of so-called "experts", yes use social assistance to help those who may not have the where-with-all to afford access to real whole food at its true market value, and yes free and open discussion + education so that going forward everyone has the opportunity to make up their own minds as to what they choose to eat.
In my world the Government is made up of elected representatives of us -- the people. If they are self-serving and/or answer only to monied lobby groups then they do not have my permission to speak or act on my behalf.
The problem is that people thinks that fat is bad, and low fat is good. And low fat with sugar is acceptable. And when you count calories sugar has less then fat so even from that perspective its better to drink sodas.
No revolution in peoples minds are the key.
It's a start and, for the reason I outlined above, I think it is better than doing nothing. Are Mayor Bloomberg motives purely political or is he genuinely trying to make a difference? Probably a bit of both
Here we go again...more utopian fascism.
This will absolutely change NOTHING.
I drink X amount of coffee everyday - give or take a small percentage of X. It doesn't matter if I drink it all at one time in a venti mug, or several times during the day in a small cup, I get my coffee fix. Sugary liquid drinkers will do the same - they will just get a little more exercise.
John, without the backing of the government, dietary guidelines would not carry the weight they otherwise do. If Coca Cola came out with guidelines 90% of the population would simply roll their eyes. On the other hand if Coca Cola through their lobbying were able to get government support of their guidelines, now we have a problem. For all intents and purposes that is where we are at now, our government guidelines are in large part written by lobbyists.
Look, my issue with these things goes well beyond one simple item. Look at the NC blogger who was censored by the NC dietetics board, in NC it is illegal to give dietary advice not only for hire, but in the course of normal everyday conversation if you aren't licensed. In order to get licensed you have to learn and teach the government backed ideology, not LCHF if that is what you believe. While not often enforced it provides for silencing those not walking the fine line provided for by Uncle Sam.
When government takes sides and gets it wrong we all pay a high price. You talked earlier of letting science be the arbiter, fine, get politicians out of the game!