News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsLarge sodas soon illegal in New York?
May 31 2012 by Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD![Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD]()
in Sugar/fructose
in Sugar/fructose 
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.
106 comments
I don't agree with the government restricting food choices. However, people will not necessarily drink two smaller beverages instead of one large one. As everyone who has been dieting forever knows, you're much less likely to overindulge in, for example, cookies, if you put two or three cookies on a plate and take them to the table, than if you take the whole bag with you. I'd guess that the last 20 ounces of almost any (non-alcoholic) beverage are consumed simply because they're there.
Are all of you US people really so gullible that you swallow the fat hatred from yeasteryears without hesitation?
After all, it was your own Ancel Keys, with his badly performed so called survey, that started all of this fat hatred. This completely normal fat consumption that we, Homo Erectus, have been genetically designed to use as our primary food supply.
Ah well, I just hope that you'll eventually see the light, and revert to a proper diet -- not the disgusting chemical soup that the media industry will have you keep eating.
But why? No one in the USA has proposed such a ban - In 2009 Bloomberg instituted a ban of trans fats in restaurant fare only. Searching Google I don't see any proposals in the USA have ever been offered to ban sat fat across the board. So your concern seems unnecessary.
Even the Danes didn't ban it, they offered a tiny tax of about 2%. And it so far is a total bust, failing to generate adequate revenue. So I doubt anyone would repeat the effort of taxing sat fat for so little revenue gain.
And don't forget that public attitudes are shifting away from fear of fat to an understanding that sugar is the problem: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/On-your-radar/Trans-and-saturated-fa...
Dr Lustig talks of regulating sugar NOT banning it -- cigarettes are still freely available to those of an age deemed appropriate, as is alcohol.
Do you wear a seat-belt when driving? How much of that is because of a conscious choice to be safer every time you get in the car and how much because you risk a penalty if you don't? Either way you are safer for wearing it.
It amazes me this attitude that "government" is some kind of disconnected "thing" over which we have no control. So much for the "greatest democracy in the world!" If you don't like/trust/etc... your government then DO something about it instead of whining.
" At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue.
Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”
Education is the only way. I will not support useless legislation like this!
Foreigners, loving their leashes and scared of taking it off.
Look, Eenfeldt if you were the mayor, then I'd say great...you know something about nutrition...a lot, actually. Coming from Chicago, you bet I'd vote twice for you! But you're not the mayor, Bloomberg is, and he is a a megamaniacal tyrant who knows zilch about nutrition. He is the one who called Atkins fat, and basically discredited him. Nice.
Like I said, the blind squirrel can, once in a while, get a nut.
Cut the grain subsidies.
Hold the soda companies accountable, by being accountable for yourself. Don't buy the stuff. Otherwise you will have others 'helping' you...like good old Bloomberg...I would be very interested in seeing his stock portfolio and see if he has any shares in any cola companies...
Where? I've never seen two people sharing a soda whether it was 16 oz, 24 oz, or 32 oz. People will share a giant bucket of popcorn, but most people won't share a straw with somebody else.*
*Exception: "This drink is so incredible you just have to taste it!"
You said it, Doctor Feinman! Good point.
(Though I still think people are squeamish about sharing a straw.)
So because smokers were treated badly by the nanny state you think we should spread the misery? How about instead of that we simply don't treat anyone badly because of their bad decisions in life unless it directly affects you....and before anyone winds up their "raises" the cost of health care bugaboo how about the state getting out of that business too.
Is anybody aware that there is a large group who, with support of the federal government, are recommending that kids, starting from birth, drink a beverage that is 40 % sugar. And the sugar is a disaccharide, like sucrose, with not just glucose but also a chemical modified form of glucose, the 4-epimer of glucose, that must be metabolically converted before it can be used for energy. In addition, when kids withdraw from this drink they are likely to go into ketosis. Is nobody concerned about this?
32oz drinks are a very easy target, as such its carefully used to test public acceptibility of legislation of what they can buy to eat.
We do not have to even speculate that this is a slipper slope, because we all know from history and repitition that as soon as government regulates it never stops and continues to pile on more.
To say this is not a slipperly slope is to display total niavity of just how government has always worked.
In the US we are *supposed* to have the freedom to make our own choices and (along with that) accept the consequences. Everyone is their own "nanny."
If we do not object when the government erodes our freedom to make bad choices that we agree are bad, then we give the government the power to take away choices that we don't agree with.
It is a VERY slippery slope.
Today it is sugar, which most on this site would agree is "bad." Tomorrow it will be too much fat per serving that is made illegal, which most on this site would agree is "good."
We must preserve the freedom to make bad choices or we grant the power for government for force bad choices upon us.
who are you going to blame when the "Land of the Free" becomes nothing moore than an obese laughing stock for the rest of the world?
As a sweede Im surpriced that you make a differens between the people and the governement. Your governement is ellected by YOU - the people - in democratic ellections - the governement reprecents the people, it is not the enemy.
I´m afraid that the" freedom" you hold so dearly is going to cost you moore than you bargaind for.
Yes you obviosly have the freedom to eat and drink yourself to death - but whats next?
What is wrong with a governement hwo wants its people to be healthy? If they dont care, and the people (obviously) dont care. Than you are REALLY on the "Slippery slope"!
Very sorry but when the time comes it will be good bye USA and hello China as quck as it takes to order an XXXL coke.
The tax is specifically targeting sugar, that is type of carbohydrate so here's the question:
For general health, should you change the type of carbohydrate or replace the carbohydrate with fat (any natural fat, no trans-fat)?
It's a thought experiment (not real world situation with subtleties). You only get three choices: For general health (no change in calories):
A. Change type of carbohydrate
B. Replace carbohydrate with fat
C. It doesn't matter
A., B. or C. ?
We are very secure with our place in the world. The idea that China is anything other than a big bloated oppressive totalitarian government is laughable....that they could be a threat to a nation that has led the way in nearly every single major advancement in modern society is hilarious. Just like the Soviet Union they are paper tigers that will blow away with the first strong wind.
About our obesity...before Europe starts laughing too hard remember that we can still afford food, unlike most of Europe. Furthermore, we are in shape enough to take care of business.
Finally, yes our government is of the people by the people but and this is a big ass but...we have a constitution that is entirely devoted to holding back the excesses of the people. Our constitution is meant to protect the minority who may not agree with the majority. That is a huge difference from Europe.
Read again what I wrote. I said THE WORLD is laughing - and to specifie it I meant the enemies of the USA and the western world in general. Sorry that I was unclear about that.
Europe is not laughing - we are like your little brothers and sisters walking in your footsteps and what you have today we will have tomorrow. No reason to laugh..
B. Replace carbohydrate with fat
But I want to add; not replacing ALL the carbs. Only the worst ones. You know; Sugar, grains (bread and pasta) potatoes and rice.
You can do that in a real case but the question is about first-order strategies. You only get 3 choices.
B. Replace carbohydrate with fat
I use the same 52 oz cup everyday. I refill with unsweetened tea which is non carbonated and has antioxidant's.
We don't want a nanny state but we also have to have some responsibility for the health of our society. If we are not responsible for ourselves then big brother will have to be for us. I used to drink about 12 soda's a day and now I don't drink any.
very interesting - please tell the rest of the world who are "they" and hwo are "we"?
Oh no, i dont drink it my self, it's for family and guests.
I wonder if they sell bigger bottle, like a gallon...