Banning Sugary Drinks

The house is burning down around us and we're worried about the bathroom faucet dripping.

Good gosh our government is ridiculous. We should be embarrassed.

19 moms found this helpful

Frankly I think we should all be insulted by this. Of course our government should INFORM us...but to be IN CHARGE of our choices, hmmm.

Of course, a person could just buy TWO 16oz drinks, right? Or would it be a law that you can only buy one at a time?

Ridiculous that THIS is what lawmakers are spending time on.

The Chief Medical Editor on the Today Show, just this moment said, "Sugar is toxic.....it should be regulated like tobacco....I have no problem with this ban."

Astonishing. Possibly even dangerous. Geez.

:(

12 moms found this helpful

so friggin' stupid it makes my head hurt. YES the government should provide information on healthy eating (not likely since monsanto and other Big Farm Industry giants have a stranglehold on the lobbyist business) but they should stay the hell out of our kitchens, our bedrooms and our child-raising philosophies.
asshats.
khairete
S.

11 moms found this helpful

I am so tired of the government telling us how to live and the American people supporting it (not everyone of course).

At what point will the people stand together and say ENOUGH!!!

11 moms found this helpful

I think like every other ban they have come up with it is stupid. Okay so you are Timmy chubby and you want your big gulp. You buy two or three smaller ones and pour them into your thermal big gulp mug. All it does it makes it more expensive.

People have to want to make better choices, you can't govern them into doing that.

10 moms found this helpful

It's just another step in the direction of our Government trying to control every aspect of our lives. I swear if they took tator tots off of the lunch menu at our school that I would send them in myself.

It's not the Governments job to control what people eat or drink - and why they think they posess that power is beyond me.

9 moms found this helpful

Actually they try to regluate our lives to protect us all the time and we have let them do it... they are just continuing to do what we let them. So I would say we are about half way now that slippery slope already.

Their justification is that the obesity epidemic is costing $$, when uninsured folks have to go to the hospital with diabetes rlated issues we wind up paying for it...

That being said, I hate the intrusion of government into our lives. I think it is over the top, seat belts were the 1st major step, and banning transfats, how we discipline and care for our kids,... it is nuts...

If I wanted to live in a socialist country where the gov't says what we can and can't do for the good of the country I would move from the US, I hate the fact that our politicians are trying to bring that here...

9 moms found this helpful

A flawed way of thinking and it won't stop obesity. People will just be forced to by multiple items. When I had six little kids all the time when we went out I would buy two supersized drink and separate it into their personal cups. I wouldn't be able to do that under his plan and probably end up paying more.

The second thing that comes to mind is for businesses that actually store the cups or containered larger drinks they will need much more space to accommodate the equivalent cups and containers in their small versions.

Frankly the proposal is ridiculous and doesn't really even begin to combat the root of the problem of obesity.

8 moms found this helpful

Ah, we have such a love-hate relationship with our government. We want our government to provide health care but we don't want them telling us how much soda to drink.

We believe everything else the government feeds us about our health and even use government research and websites to back it up, but as soon as they put the brakes on our self indulgent, oversized eating tendencies we want the government OUT. Just an observation.

8 moms found this helpful

With everything else going on in this country, sugary drinks should be the least of our concerns. IMO, it's just another shiny object being flashed around to distract us all from the real issues at hand.

8 moms found this helpful

I just read this in the news this morning. One ironic part of this legislation is that it has no effect on free refills, just the size cup the store/vendor can sell, so does it really accomplish their goal of limiting people's intake? Maybe they're counting it as "increased exercise" if people have to get up more frequently to refill their cups??

6 moms found this helpful

Wait, does that mean you couldn't buy a 2-liter bottle of soda at the grocery store, also? While the whole idea kind of bugs me, that would REALLY bother me. I don't drink soda every day & neither do my kids, but when I buy it, it's a 2-liter size for the whole family for a weekend or whatever.

6 moms found this helpful

They mean well but this isn't something you can legislate.
There are too many ways around it.
They might as well tax soda and junk food like they do tobacco products (gluttony tax?).
Many people think the government should 'do something' about the obesity epidemic but what exactly that should be is a problem.
You can't treat people like horses and put them out of the food barn into a pasture and regulate what and how often they eat.
People can and do and will eat themselves to death - it's a cherished freedom.
Guess it's better just to let them rather than pass laws that are impossible to enforce.

6 moms found this helpful

A lot of people thought the government shouldn't regulate or prohibit tobacco smoking, too. Sugar/high-fructose corn syrup is killing us!

If the government would stop subsidizing corn syrup, they wouldn't have to regulate sales of corn syrup laden fattening drinks.

I really think the size of drinks has gotten absolutely outrageous. I buy one "small" drink and share it with my daughter at a movie and it is still too big for the two of us. Restaurants - same thing. It has gotten completely out of hand.

If this makes a few people stop and think about what they are consuming, then it's fine by me.

6 moms found this helpful

It's a ridiculous notion. People will just order two drinks...

I do think that sodas should be out-of-bounds for schools (specifically elementary schools.) Corporations give kickbacks to the schools for allowing the soda machines to be there. The school systems need to "just say no" to that. However, the federal government doesn't need to be the ones making that decision.

R., one thing I'll mention here is that sometimes it's not a bad thing for people to talk about implementing a law like this. It gets people to talk about the problem, that's for sure. But more than that, sometimes it's the impetus for change. Companies have started paying attention to making food more healthy. Less trans fats, less total fat grams, etc. Using vegetable oil to make french fries instead of oil from animals. That's actually a big deal. And it wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a lot of squawking about it.

I do roll my eyes at some of the laws that people bring up. Some are stupid, some are discriminatory, some are biased as all get out, and some make sense but shouldn't be enacted by the government anyway. However, sometimes we get a benefit out of just having the discussion.

D.

5 moms found this helpful

I've read about how angry people are about the soft drinks ban and how government should stay out of our lives, but corporate interests in agribusiness is also a huge problem when it comes to High Fructose Corn Syrup. High Fructose Corn Syrup became overused in the 1970s when it was recommended that we eat a low fat diet. HFCS became a substitute for flavor when the fat was removed. It has now been determined that it wasn't the fat that was making us fat, but the carbohydrate load on our systems. HFCS acts the same way that alcohol does in our livers. It makes them fat and causes enormous health problems.It is also highly addictive. Regular sugar is still bad, but it doesn't act the same way in our bodies chemically. Obesity is epidemic. Agribusiness is now very dependent on the corn industry to produce more and more HFCS. It's much cheaper than sugar and it is a billions of dollars a year business. Giving people sweet soda drinks in 20, 40 and 60 ounce doses and calling it a 'serving' is outrageous and consumers should also be outraged. They market this stuff to children. I think Mayor Bloomberg did a brave thing. Watch Dr Robert Lustig's Sugar: The Bitter Truth on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&ob=av3e

5 moms found this helpful

Well, I don't think that it is such a bad idea. Soda causes people to have health issues. It is a public health concern therefore the government should regulate it. They are not saying you cannot drink soda, they are just discouraging the large quantities that people drink in hopes of helping to decrease the obesity epidemic in this country.

Alcholol is a drink that poses a public health risk and it is regulated.

cigarrettes are a public health risk and they are regulated.

under cooked meat is a public health risk so restaurants have to cook to a certain temperature or add a disclaimer to their menu.

Why not put a caution label on soda containers maintaining that the high fructose corn syrup that is added poses a risk of diabetes and the high sugar content poses a risk of diabetes and obesity amoung other health issues.

5 moms found this helpful

No, I do not agree with it. Soft drinks have been around for over 100 years, and it isn't until the last two decades when we've faced an obesity epedemic. Soft drinks being sweetened with HFCS pre-dates to obesity issue. What doesn't predate the obesity issue?
- Most of the technological gadgets that our kids (and adults) sit on their butts to use vs. going bike riding, playing outside, or otherwise being active.
- VIRTUAL Reality everything vs going out and doing those activities
- Tivo so that we can watch our shows 24/7
- Supersized everything
- Motorized scooters for kids vs foot powered scooters
It's not just about food; it's about activity level. And, it's not just about any one food (or drink), either. Overconsumption of ANYone food or caloried beverage is not good for kids or adults. Soft drink bans are not going to solve the issue; they're merely going to limit parent's and individual's rights and start a slippery slope to banning (or taxing) other items. The truth is that people know sugared drinks contain empty calories, and they either fit it into their balanced meal plan or they overconsume by their own choice.

We won't even get into the business economics for the venues where they'd be regulated, as soft drinks are one of the most profitable items sold in a restaurant, movie theater or sporting concessions. They would have to take very significant price increases to make up for the lost revenue. Finally, in TX, sugared drinks are banned in certain daycare situations (such as playcare) and allowed only for special parties in others. The definition isn't merely about soft drinks...it means no lemonade, fruit juice, chocolate milk or cocoa. "Sugared drinks" is not necessarily a synonym for just sugared soft drinks.

4 moms found this helpful

I don't need the government to tell what I can and cannot drink. Get out of my pantry, bedroom and house!

3 moms found this helpful

Completely and utterly ridiculous and just one more step down the slippery slope of the government controlling our lives.

And I will stake my life on the fact that this will not stop one single person from being fat. The only effect it will have is to hurt the people who need to buy a bigger size to economize.

3 moms found this helpful

The more laws, the less justice.

3 moms found this helpful

I don't think it will work they way they hope it will work. People that want to drink lots of soda will still do it.

I stopped drinking soda and juice over a year ago. It was a choice that I had to make for myself. There was sugar withdrawal too, which is very unpleasant. It was worth it.

If someone doesn't want that for themselves, no law or regulation is going to make them do it.

3 moms found this helpful

Oh my gosh - is this for real? This is ridiculous!!!

While, yes, I totally agree obesity is a problem in this nation, it should be blamed on the hand that's shoving the food/drink in the mouth!!! Not the government!!! When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves???

While my kids and I occasionally enjoy a sugary drink, you won't find us drinking them all the time! Same with fatty foods! I think just about anything is fine in moderation!!! My kids and I are very thin because we see what happens when people are out of control.

If I could "ban" anything it would be all the drive-thrus!!! I've always felt they're just for lazy people! And what about smoking - why hasn't the govenment just done away with that totally? Doesn't make sense!!

But yes, good question ...where does it stop? Who knows!!!

2 moms found this helpful

I believe that the limit would be 'out of the house'. Not grocery stores.

Think about it. Movie theaters, McDs, etc. don't have a true 'small' size drink. Their small is the old medium and in some cases the old large! Their default offering when they ask if you want a drink is the medium, which at Burger King is the old large.

When you go out to eat, most of us go through one 20oz drink just waiting for our foods, then one or two more during the meal, and sometimes one for the road, cuz, well, its free! That 64+ oz of drink in 1 hour.

While I think that the companies this rule will affect should be policing themselves, and offering these smaller size options themselves, there are some consumers out there that just have no control or live in the 'its the better deal for my money so that's what I must choose' mentality (speaking about family members here), whether or not they really NEED that much. How many empty 32oz + drink containers fill the movie trash cans after the movie? yes some are shared, most are not.

Honestly, you could put this restriction on the size of desserts at restaurants and such and I would be fine with it. The best thing Olive Garden did was introduce the dolcini desserts! I love those things. Just the right size to satisfy the craving without all the calories.

1 mom found this helpful

I support the ban. Given our nation's high rates of obesity, diabetes and other related health issues, clearly many people can't regulate themselves (whether it's a lack of will power or knowledge) and it's a concern for all of us. One clear example of people simply being too ignorant to stop killing themselves with high fructose corn syrup and other such additives is one New Yorker I heard being interviewed on NPR today about the ban. His response was that the ban would hurt people in poor communities because the big, sugary drinks are cheap; so if there is a ban on them, then what would people in those communities have to drink. Really? Drinking water apparently never crossed his mind. If you don't have sense enough to drink water on your own, then yes, your soda consumption needs to be monitored by someone who does have sense.

1 mom found this helpful

I'll eat and drink what I damn well please.

1 mom found this helpful

So, people will just double up.

I don't think it's right, nor do I think it will help the overall health of our country's citizens. If someone is too lazy to eat right & exercise, then something like this won't benefit them.

1 mom found this helpful

I haven't had soda in many years and I think it's a horrible thing to drink on a regular basis, but I do not support a tax or penalty. I think our government would be better serving the public by doing something about genetically modified foods and all the other toxins/pesticides/antibiotics/etc. in our food supply that affect those of us who are trying to make healthy eating choices for ourselves and our families. Most people don't know what all is in our meat, dairy, eggs, packaged foods, and produce. Labels are insufficient to let us make informed decisions about whether or not to consume products containing GMOs. Educate people about the risks of too much sugary soda or too much of anything else, but do not punish people for deciding that is the way they want to live. Perhaps have some sort of incentive for people who adopt healthy lifestyles instead although that would be difficult to manage/monitor. Someone said we want the government to pay for our healthcare, but don't want people telling us how to eat. I don't want government healthcare and I want to have the information I need to decide on what to eat/buy, but I don't want someone telling me how to eat!

1 mom found this helpful

Personally, I would be more focused on making sure soda pop machines and other sugared-up drinks weren't in schools, and stop there.

People are going to make stupid choices for themselves. We see it every day, in myriad ways. I don't think banning soda pop/sweetened drinks is going to impact child obesity in the ways they would hope. How about using the money it will take to legislate and enforce this to pay for teachers for recess/PE for all kids K-8? How about revamping the USDA food programs at daycares and schools so that ketchup and juice aren't considered servings of real food? We get them hooked institutionally while they're young on sweets simply by cutting corners and making it easy to NOT serve whole fruits and veggies.

You know what does work? Don't buy it if you don't want your kid to have it. We don't buy soda (except the occasional root beer for Kiddo) because we don't want Kiddo to have it regularly. This seems to work just fine. When he gets older, he can figure out if he wants to spend his allowance on soda-pop or other items. We won't fund it. Simple. Are they now going to stop selling video games, processed foods and televisions and computers, because they compete with exercising and can negatively impact health? The whole thing takes the responsibility for the child and hands it over the government instead of expecting parents to parent.

Dollars to donuts, though, the soda pop companies do stand to profit on this. (Or they would be throwing out millions to block it.) While a ban like this wouldn't bother me personally, I'm unsure as to how effective it will be over the long term. Families practicing poor health and nutrition habits need more help than just taking away the Big Gulp....it's a bit like putting a band-aid on a big, gaping wound. It's a social/economic problem that goes much deeper than access to soda.

Oh, and what Suz T said: *asshats*. That's going to be my muttered-under-my-breath word for the day. Lovely, Suz!:)

1 mom found this helpful

I disagree that the government should be proscribing what businesses sell to their customers. Besides, anyone could just buy 2 drinks, right?

The bigger issue I see (regarding the sugary drinks) is that most establishments (fast food and not-so-fast alike) have continued to increase the size drinks they offer (at considerable price increase also) and have stopped offering a "normal" sized drink to those who want it. Been thru ANY drive-thru lately? There is no such thing as a small drink anymore. The kids' meal? THAT is what used to be a "small". Now it is called "kid's size" and you can only buy it if you buy a kids meal.
Want a "regular" drink? That would now get you what was at one time either a large or an XL drink. And it costs that as well. But if you don't WANT a 20 oz beverage--- tough. That's what you get.

I have no problem with them selling humongo beverages. None. But they should not discontinue "normal" size beverages...which is what they have done. Now you HAVE to pay for the excess of beverage that you either will end up consuming (because it is "there") or that you know when you get it it will go to waste or be poured out. (I realize you don't HAVE to buy a soda. I just mean if you WANT a soda, you have to buy an over-sized one.. there is no 12 oz drink anymore). And they are able to increase their prices 20-30 cents or more per beverage--even though it doesn't cost them that much more for the added ounces that are going to be wasted. So we not only get more than what we want, we get the "pleasure" of over-paying for the privilege. :(

ETA:
And why do "they" think they can regulate what we consume? Because they expect to be responsible for providing our health care and its accompanying costs. It's only logical, right? "WE" want 'government' to take care of us, so, well, we shouldn't be surprised when they start doing just exactly that. It's the "nanny state" that you hear discussed in political conversations. Everybody loves it when they are GETTING something, not so much when they are being told "no" about something that somebody in government somewhere has predetermined you shouldn't have.

The government is not our mommy. It's insane that anybody would think this is a good idea. One more freedom.... lost. They're chipping away at them.

I don't know, If some people think they can sue McDonald's for being sick and obese eating the fast food perhaps some day someone will have a bright idea to sue the US Government for "allowing"" people to eat/drink too much and get sick and fat. At least, the government can say - hey, we tried! in their defense.

I think they need to stop. This is turning into Helath Police as you call it. And it would affect you if you drink anything larger than 16 ounces since a 20 ounce juice would have more than 25 calories and juice is a sugary drink--hence the recommendation to water down. Next they will require purchase of greens every store trip. No butter on popcorn at the movies.

How many of us, to save money, order a large or extra large soda or other drink at the movies so you can share? I order a large for my husband and myself and a large or extra large for my kids to share-each with their own straw.

I don't agree with banning these things, but I do believe they should be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes since they are known to cause health issues.