(no subject)

[owlectomy]

So, Bloomberg has proposed a ban on high-calorie sodas over 16 oz. at restaurants, movie theaters, and street carts.

I'm really a bit amazed at how people will go along with increased regulation as long as they can rationalize that the thing they're regulating is bad and the people who do it are bad people. (And I've seen a LOT of discussion online about how this is a good thing because people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and OBESITY EPIDEMIC OH NOES.)

I'm generally the farthest thing from a libertarian in terms of what I think of government regulation (and I think it would be great if we could end corn subsidies and I acknowledge that Coca-Cola and Pepsico are, as corporate entities, Not Good People) but I just don't think that a soda is in the same class of things as asbestos toothpaste and heroin cough syrup.

I acknowledge, too, that it's not a great choice if I'm underslept or migrainey and get a breakfast Coke for the caffeine-and-sugar rush. (I am so not a coffee person. Tea, yes, but tea made with hot water from the water cooler is not optimal tea.) But I think generally we should err on the side of letting people make their own bad choices.

And everything I've read has done nothing but convince me that this isn't really about concern for other people's health, but about being judgmental about other people's choices.

Comments

[pinesandmaples]

And everything I've read has done nothing but convince me that this isn't really about concern for other people's health, but about being judgmental about other people's choices.

A-fucking-men. I liked that sentence so much (and agree so hard) that I had to c/p it into the comment just so I could read it again.

[meaghansketch]

Yeah, I think you know how I feel about the ban. I just can't get my mind around the fact that buying a 20-oz soda at a movie theater (do they even sell that small a size? What would this mean in practice?) would be more illegal than me buying a pack of cigarettes or a case of beer, and more illegal than me buying the giant size of gummy worms, which are certainly equally as damaging.

Last Saturday it was 80 degrees at 8 am. I started my long run with my group as I often do. By 10 I had been running for 2 hours and felt terrible. I had run over 10 miles by that point. I told my group to go on without me and ran into a deli (which would also be included in the ban) and bought a 32-oz gatorade. Should that really be illegal? REALLY? When I left the house I told myself that it would be tough because of the heat but I brought money so I could buy a drink if I felt bad. Water wouldn't have replenished my electrolytes (what I really needed) and I wouldn't have wanted to buy anything with artificial sweeteners. Making that 32-oz gatorade illegal would actually disincentivize me from running long distances in warm weather-- not I think what Bloomberg is trying to accomplish.

One of many problems I have with these laws is that even if their goal is, on balance, 'good', there is no way to precisely target them (or politicians just haven't chosen to do it yet). If you're targeting sugar, why not include fruit juice? Why not include candy? Why not include sugary coffee drinks like frappuccinos?

Leaving aside the 'is obesity a problem' question entirely--Obesity's not just correlated with sugar water consumption. It's also quite closely correlated with poverty. But I don't see Bloomberg doing nearly as much about ending poverty as he's doing about trying to get people to drink less sugar water.

Also consider everything you said seconded.

Also what's up with delis (mostly run by individuals/families) being included but drug stores (run by huge chains) being excluded? It's not going to stop people from buying large sodas, it's just going to force them to buy them from the chains that are taking over NY.

[owlectomy]

When you realize that a grande strawberry frappuccino (with whole milk and whipped cream) has more calories and more sugar than a 20-oz. Coke -- it really does make it look like it's about class far more than health. (Or, well, I guess the Dunkin Donuts lobby is pretty powerful here?)

That's a good point about delis being included but not drug stores. I want to be able to go to the drug store and buy a 2-liter soda for a teen program, so I'm somewhat relieved that drug stores are not included, but it does seem like it's going to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses.

[meaghansketch]

Yeah, I'm kind of ridiculously angry about this proposed law...

I was talking with my coworker yesterday about how drinks that are 51% dairy would be excluded. He said, 'oh, is that so chocolate milk would still be OK?' I said, 'no, that is so _REGULAR_ milk would still be OK. Lactose is a sugar. Milk (2%) has (I looked this up, I don't just know this) 12g of sugar per 8 oz. Gatorade (which is sugary enough to be affected by the ban) has 13g. (the cutoff in the law is in calories per 8oz, not sugar per 8oz, so it's hard to compare apples to apples partly because THE LAW MAKES NO SENSE). Is a 17oz sugar coffee suddenly healthy because I add 17.1 oz of milk? OK, it has a ton more calcium-- but it is still sugar coffee.

Anger item number 2- Sorry, back to the gatorade. It's hard to run for a couple hours without replenishing your electrolytes! 20 oz of gatorade: 130 calories. 12 oz of coke: 140 calories. Which one is banned? The 20oz gatorade. Not that calories are everything, but in both cases they're all coming from sugar, so they're pretty equal nutritionally except that the gatorade also has sodium and potassium.

Anger item number 3- the important one. From my reading of the law it seems the main line between a 'convenience store' which would not be affected by the ban and a 'delicatessen' which would be affected by the ban is that the delicatessen sells fresh foods. In my experience, in many low-income neighborhoods, delis provide some of the healthiest food options. I worry this law would just encourage them to take out their sandwich counters if it means they could keep selling all sizes of drinks. They probably make more profit on the drinks than on the sandwiches. I don't think this would actually be helpful to those NYers who eat there on a regular basis-- I think it would just push them to the McDonalds and the Burger Kings and the fried chicken places where, yeah, they're not going to be able to get a huge soda, but they are probably going to be getting a substantially less healthy lunch.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

If they really wanted to solve the problem, they'd make healthy beverages (juice, water, milk, etc.) cheaper and more readily available than unhealthy ones. Ban HFCS. Create jobs that foster a healthy active lifestyle instead of sitting near-motionless all day.

But that would be, y'know, work and would cost money. Shaming is cheaper and more fun.

[grrlpup]

Totally agree with your last sentence. Also, no more sharing a soda at the movies to lessen the ridiculous price hit? Boo.