Page 48 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jul 04, 2012 - 8:59PM #471
rabello
Posts: 20,955

You seem to like making things more complicated than they are, TRUECHRISTIAN, by cluttering up the discussion with a bunch of off-topic but manufactured condundrums.


It something is "not illogical" then what is it?


However, "not increasing" is not the same thing as "decreasing."  And the scientists with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) say the obesity rates have levelled off but are not decreasing.  They estimate that health care costs to society will top $500 Billion dollars by the year 2030.


So, the question is why has the obesity rate levelled off (not decreased)?   Charikleia SPECULATES that it's because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve.  That is eminently logical reasoning.   I added the speculation that the obesity rate among school aged children has leveled off because schools have cleaned up their acts when it comes to selling junk food to kids in the cafeteria, in snack bars and in vending machines.  


Either one of these speculations are more likely to be true than the assumption that people suddenly started paying attention to nutritional advice and are ignoring what is put right in front of their faces when they're eating out, dumping half the food they paid for into the trash because they suddenly know it's not good for them.  


What remains speculation is the idea that the obesity rate is "decreasing" instead of "leveling off" and won't spike once the recession is over.


I have to assume that since you and I made it through childhood and young adulthood without jugs of sugar drink, today's young people are no different and don't need it, either, and will make it without, too.  42 ounces is more that a fourth of a gallon by the way.  Does anybody need to drink a fourth of a gallon at one sitting?  Well, the merchants think so.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 12:58AM #472
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:49PM, Ebon wrote:


Can't help much with undoing the Reagan "Revolution" (which was really just a return to the oldest philosophy of all) but here's an idea: Levy an additional tax on fast food companies. Why not? We tax other things society frowns upon, like cigarettes and booze, why not fast food? Sure, it's radical and I'm not even sure it would work (I'm just spitballing ideas here) but maybe we need something radical. We need to move fast food from an everyday staple to a once-in-a-while food. While we're at it, let's get rid of the subsidy on growing corn, most of which gets turned into HFCS. And you guys so need proper labelling. I need to be able to look at the side of my cup and know exactly how much sugar it has in it, I need to be able to pick up a bag of chips, look at the back and know exactly how much fat it has in it.


As I see it, there would be two main groups opposed: The fast food lobby would hate it for obvious reasons and the kneejerk anti-government types would hate it because they'd hate almost anything the government did. The problem with doing something about public health in the States is that you don't have an overarching body responsible for overseeing the public health. Here, the NHS has loads of information on losing weight. I could walk into my doctor's office tomorrow and get all kinds of advice including a personalised diet and excercise plan if I wanted one. But because you don't have such a unified structure, getting good information to people is much more difficult.


Do your schools teach home economics? That's what cooking decent meals would come under. Here, it's been rolled into PSE (Personal & Social Education, essentially what's needed to be a decent member of society and isn't covered by the other subjects). Educating the public needs to start young so let's start it in schools. I think learning how to cook decent healthy meals is something that could be done in schools. If schools don't have the facilities to do it, they could partner with a local culinary college. Maybe we'll discover a few great chefs of the future that way.


Maybe the state could subsidise community gyms and swimming pools. Encourage people to excercise by making it cheaper. While we're at it, pick out specific groups that could be catered for like a couple of hours especially for swimming with your kids or a couple of hours that are women only.


I'm just trying to think outside the box here (and I just know someone is going to claim that leaving consumers to do what they like is really outside the box), just throwing ideas out.





You have some great ideas, Ebon.  They would be difficult to get passed though.   We do have labelling on packaged foods; how much people read those labels, and understand them, is the great unknown.  There is no such information on the foods we get at restaurants, although some do publish the data.  Again, who knows how many people look any of it up, or understand what they read.   I am not aware of any such labelling on drinks we get at any restaurant, although the contents are provided on bottled drinks.  That's where you find stuff like dyes, sodium, citric acid, HFC.


I would support taxing the fast food restaurants, even if they do pass that increase to their bottom line onto the consumer.   Perhaps a more expensive Whopper with Cheese and accompanying quarter gallon of pop would succeed at converting such foods from everyday to once in awhile.   There are a lot of family restaurants and things like sports bars and bakery restaurants that serve giant-sized glasses of supersugary drink and provide the free "bottomless" refills, so these would have to be taxed, too, in order to have any effect for ordinary people.


We do have the CDC and the NIH from which those who are interested can get nutritional and dietary information; not sure if it's comparable to your NHS.  And no, we don't have anything like PSE in schools; I don't even know if PE (phys ed) is required anymore, so many schools have cut back on extracurriculars, esp with the No Child Left Behind cannard.  I certainly agree with you that nutrition and cooking and competent shopping and sensible eating-out SHOULD be taught in schools, and that there should be community-based programs that sponsor sports for kids. 


You saw the angst the very idea of providing health care coverage to more Americans (the Affordable Care Act isn't even close to providing "universal" health care, not by a long shot) caused to Americans worried about "Big Gubmint" but "leave my social security and medicare alone!!"   I don't think any of these ideas could ever get passed in today's political climate, which is why people like Bloomberg (interestingly enough, a Republican) come up with other ideas to try to avoid disaster for his almost-bankrupt city.


Thank you, btw, for the good ideas you've shared here.  There are no easy answers.  But once a person carries those fat cells, they are there forever, unless they liposuction them out.  The cells just get smaller when one loses weight.  That's why it's better not to gain the fat to begin with -- something, I think, young people aren't going to take too seriously.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 8:50AM #473
arielg
Posts: 9,116

In Brazil ( I think it is an idea that comes from Korea) there is a  very popular cafeteria style restaurant system that charges food by weight.  You choose from a wide variety of foods and at the end of the line they weight what you got.  Much better than the "all you can eat" or fixed price type of thing which encourages waste cand overconsumption.


 Drinks don't have to be  an exception. Big sizes encourage overconsumption because one doesn't pay for the difference. (It is subsidized by those who drink less) People would be more judicious if they had to pay for it. I would much prefer something like this  than outright ban on  large sizes.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 9:25AM #474
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,125

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:58AM, rabello wrote:


Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:49PM, Ebon wrote:


Can't help much with undoing the Reagan "Revolution" (which was really just a return to the oldest philosophy of all) but here's an idea: Levy an additional tax on fast food companies. Why not? We tax other things society frowns upon, like cigarettes and booze, why not fast food? Sure, it's radical and I'm not even sure it would work (I'm just spitballing ideas here) but maybe we need something radical. We need to move fast food from an everyday staple to a once-in-a-while food. While we're at it, let's get rid of the subsidy on growing corn, most of which gets turned into HFCS. And you guys so need proper labelling. I need to be able to look at the side of my cup and know exactly how much sugar it has in it, I need to be able to pick up a bag of chips, look at the back and know exactly how much fat it has in it.


As I see it, there would be two main groups opposed: The fast food lobby would hate it for obvious reasons and the kneejerk anti-government types would hate it because they'd hate almost anything the government did. The problem with doing something about public health in the States is that you don't have an overarching body responsible for overseeing the public health. Here, the NHS has loads of information on losing weight. I could walk into my doctor's office tomorrow and get all kinds of advice including a personalised diet and excercise plan if I wanted one. But because you don't have such a unified structure, getting good information to people is much more difficult.


Do your schools teach home economics? That's what cooking decent meals would come under. Here, it's been rolled into PSE (Personal & Social Education, essentially what's needed to be a decent member of society and isn't covered by the other subjects). Educating the public needs to start young so let's start it in schools. I think learning how to cook decent healthy meals is something that could be done in schools. If schools don't have the facilities to do it, they could partner with a local culinary college. Maybe we'll discover a few great chefs of the future that way.


Maybe the state could subsidise community gyms and swimming pools. Encourage people to excercise by making it cheaper. While we're at it, pick out specific groups that could be catered for like a couple of hours especially for swimming with your kids or a couple of hours that are women only.


I'm just trying to think outside the box here (and I just know someone is going to claim that leaving consumers to do what they like is really outside the box), just throwing ideas out.





You have some great ideas, Ebon.  They would be difficult to get passed though.   We do have labelling on packaged foods; how much people read those labels, and understand them, is the great unknown.  There is no such information on the foods we get at restaurants, although some do publish the data.  Again, who knows how many people look any of it up, or understand what they read.   I am not aware of any such labelling on drinks we get at any restaurant, although the contents are provided on bottled drinks.  That's where you find stuff like dyes, sodium, citric acid, HFC.


If a person chooses to ignore labels and eat whatever they want then that is their right and you, frankly, can't do anything about that. If more people wanted nutritional information at restaurants and demanded it, then it would happen. Outside of demand from the customer, the easiest way to get restaurants to put out nutritional information would be to incentivize them to do so (tax credit, etc...) rather than punish them for not doing so.


I would support taxing the fast food restaurants, even if they do pass that increase to their bottom line onto the consumer.   Perhaps a more expensive Whopper with Cheese and accompanying quarter gallon of pop would succeed at converting such foods from everyday to once in awhile.   There are a lot of family restaurants and things like sports bars and bakery restaurants that serve giant-sized glasses of supersugary drink and provide the free "bottomless" refills, so these would have to be taxed, too, in order to have any effect for ordinary people.


Why wouldn't we tax the consumer just as we do with cigarrettes and alcohol? What makes food/drink so special that we tax the seller rather than the consumer? If someone wants to eat at BK, why is it that you don't expect them to pay the higher tax, but if someone wants to smoke cigarrettes you do?


We do have the CDC and the NIH from which those who are interested can get nutritional and dietary information; not sure if it's comparable to your NHS.  And no, we don't have anything like PSE in schools; I don't even know if PE (phys ed) is required anymore, so many schools have cut back on extracurriculars, esp with the No Child Left Behind cannard.  I certainly agree with you that nutrition and cooking and competent shopping and sensible eating-out SHOULD be taught in schools, and that there should be community-based programs that sponsor sports for kids. 


Here is one article that states that most schools don't require PE, healthland.time.com/2011/12/07/childhood...; however, reading other articles it looks like many of them stopped requiring it prior to NCLB.


When I was in school PE was required in the lower grades, but not in high school (which is when kids start buying more of their own food) and Home Economics was required to graduate high school, but that was many many years ago.


I agree that PE should be required from K-12 and so should home economics, but the problem then comes in paying for it. IMO, taxing fast food and 'junk' food (although that needs to be defined better), the idea stated in the article, would work. In my state, the tax money from cigarrette smokers goes to fund low cost health care. It's feasible that the tax money from fast food and 'junk' food could go to the schools to offer PE and HE.


You saw the angst the very idea of providing health care coverage to more Americans (the Affordable Care Act isn't even close to providing "universal" health care, not by a long shot) caused to Americans worried about "Big Gubmint" but "leave my social security and medicare alone!!"   I don't think any of these ideas could ever get passed in today's political climate, which is why people like Bloomberg (interestingly enough, a Republican) come up with other ideas to try to avoid disaster for his almost-bankrupt city.


Sometimes to get an idea passed, it's how one presents it.


Thank you, btw, for the good ideas you've shared here.  There are no easy answers.  But once a person carries those fat cells, they are there forever, unless they liposuction them out.  The cells just get smaller when one loses weight.  That's why it's better not to gain the fat to begin with -- something, I think, young people aren't going to take too seriously.


Unfortunately, it's part of being young to not take that stuff seriously. One of the good and bad things about the young is that they think they're invinsible and tend not to listen to authority.




IMO, the best way to fix the issue IS education along with a tax on consumers that purchase fast food and 'junk' food...similar to how we've been able to decrease the number of smokers.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 1:28PM #475
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Jul 5, 2012 -- 8:50AM, arielg wrote:


In Brazil ( I think it is an idea that comes from Korea) there is a  very popular cafeteria style restaurant system that charges food by weight.  You choose from a wide variety of foods and at the end of the line they weight what you got.  Much better than the "all you can eat" or fixed price type of thing which encourages waste cand overconsumption.


 Drinks don't have to be  an exception. Big sizes encourage overconsumption because one doesn't pay for the difference. (It is subsidized by those who drink less) People would be more judicious if they had to pay for it. I would much prefer something like this  than outright ban on  large sizes.


 



Yes, that has already been suggested on this thread and completely ignored.  Those who WANT the 42 ounce glass of sugary drink and/or free "bottomless" refills DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY for what they consume.   They believe in the complete opposite of "supply and demand."   Meanwhile, those who only want an 8 ounce glass of coke (those don't exist anymore unless you're asking for orange juice), have to get an 18 or 24 ounce cup that is called "small" and pay more for it than they would 8 ounces, and then either drink it all because they paid for it, or dump it down the sink even though they paid for it, and help contribute to the pollution of the nation's waterways and ultimately the oceans, themselves.  All this so a seller doesn't have to carry any additional responsibilities over and above profiteering.


When you think about it, what you are suggesting would be the practical effect of what Bloomberg is proposing.   Nothing is actually being banned, but if a person wants more than 16 ounces, they pay for the additional ounces.  Sounds completely fair to me, especially when the addtional ounces aren't good for people.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 1:45PM #476
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,075

 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


You seem to like making things more complicated than they are, TRUECHRISTIAN, by cluttering up the discussion with a bunch of off-topic but manufactured condundrums.



I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.    


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


It something is "not illogical" then what is it?



If something is not illogical then it is logical.  


However that does not mean it is "true".  


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


However, "not increasing" is not the same thing as "decreasing." 



That sounds logical.Wink


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


 And the scientists with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) say the obesity rates have levelled off but are not decreasing.  They estimate that health care costs to society will top $500 Billion dollars by the year 2030.



So let's use the CDC as a source of information about obesity


If the rate of obesity stays at the current rate they speculate that by the year 2030 the cost to society will top $500  billion a year if the rate of obesity continues to rise to a rate of 42% by 2030 .  It says the rate of increase, is decreasing.  


"The big  headlines you see in this paper are that we predicted by 2030, obesity rates  will increase 42%, which is significantly less than the 50 plus percent.  It's greater than a zero percentage  increase.  For severe obesity, people  roughly 80 pounds or more overweight, we are predicting an increase of double from  roughly 5% today to 11% in the future.   Basically, one of the things we say in the story is because of the  rising prevalence estimates and growing population, there's going to be roughly  32 million obese adults in the U.S. by 2030.   That would mean an increase of $550 billion in total between now and  2030 due to rising cost of obesity.   Another way to think about that number is if we could keep obesity rates  flat or if they were flattening, we would save $550 billion.  So, those are the main take–home points in  the paper.  Now, what I would like to do  is stop and entertain as many questions as you have and try to clarify  questions or differences between these or other implications of the study."


 


 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


So, the question is why has the obesity rate levelled off (not decreased)?   Charikleia SPECULATES that it's because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve.  That is eminently logical reasoning. 



Did the CDC "SPECULATE" as to why the rate of increase has decreased? 


Did the CDC "SPECULATE" that the decreased rate of increase was " because with the recession, people are eating out less, and are therefore, not eating as much fatty foods and drinking super sugary drinks in the mega-sized portions that restaurants serve. ".


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:

 


That is eminently logical reasoning.



So is


"All cups are green.Socrates is a cup.Therefore, Socrates is green."


I would be willing to bet more than a dollar either premises are not true. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


  I added the speculation that the obesity rate among school aged children has leveled off because schools have cleaned up their acts when it comes to selling junk food to kids in the cafeteria, in snack bars and in vending machines.  



That sounds "eminently logical" but is it "true"?


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


Either one of these speculations are more likely to be true than the assumption that people suddenly started paying attention to nutritional advice and are ignoring what is put right in front of their faces when they're eating out, dumping half the food they paid for into the trash because they suddenly know it's not good for them.  



I speculate that it is more likely to assume that there was a combination of things that have led to a decrease in the increasing rate of obesity. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


What remains speculation is the idea that the obesity rate is "decreasing" instead of "leveling off" and won't spike once the recession is over.



I agree that it is speculation that the rate of obesity has anything at all to do with the recession. 


However it is "eminently logical" that it will. 


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


I have to assume that since you and I made it through childhood and young adulthood without jugs of sugar drink, today's young people are no different and don't need it, either, and will make it without, too.



Yes you and I did make through our childhood and through young adulthood without drinking a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks.  We also made it through our childhood and young adulthood by not drinking large sized jugs of sugary drinks and small sized jugs or super-sugary drinks.


I will agree that not onl todays young children, and young adults don't "need"(?)" to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants but neither do older adults. After all, when I was a child-young adult older adults didn't "need"(?)" to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants.


But does it follow that since no human being "needs(?)"   to buy a super-sized jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants that it should be a crime to sell one?  


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?


It is "eminently logical" that it takes both buyer and seller to commit this crime.  And the buyer does inititate the crime.  


Jul 4, 2012 -- 8:59PM, rabello wrote:


  42 ounces is more that a fourth of a gallon by the way.  Does anybody need to drink a fourth of a gallon at one sitting?  Well, the merchants think so.




By the way 16 ounces is 1/8th of an gallon.   


 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




 

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 1:54PM #477
rabello
Posts: 20,955

Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


If a person chooses to ignore labels and eat whatever they want then that is their right and you, frankly, can't do anything about that. If more people wanted nutritional information at restaurants and demanded it, then it would happen. Outside of demand from the customer, the easiest way to get restaurants to put out nutritional information would be to incentivize them to do so (tax credit, etc...) rather than punish them for not doing so.




I have to wonder why you believe that.  Do you really think young people are going to stop long enough to "demand" that nutritional information be published and then make decisions based on that information?    You must also be unaware that it took more than 20 years of the kind of activism that you apparently reject just to get the food labelling that we do have mandated, over and above the objections and megabucks of the lobbies that control local, state and federal governments.  


So much for "demand."   Your prescription ultimate leads to doing nothing and your prescription punishes people.   Ebon's (and cesmom's) idea doesn't "punish" anybody.


If it were up to Republicans, businesses would get so many tax credits just for doing the right thing, they (businesses) wouldn't be paying ANY tax, at all, and therefore wouldn't be contributing to the upkeep of the nation that benefits them.



Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:



Why wouldn't we tax the consumer just as we do with cigarrettes and alcohol? What makes food/drink so special that we tax the seller rather than the consumer? If someone wants to eat at BK, why is it that you don't expect them to pay the higher tax, but if someone wants to smoke cigarrettes you do?




Where did I say that I only "expect" smokers to pay higher tax.   I said a long time ago, and more than once, that I agree with Charikleia, there should be a consumption tax on sugar.  I am not a Republican; therefore I am not "anti-tax".   The comparison to social policies that helped reduced smoking to social policies that could help reduce obesity was rejected, out of hand, early on this thread, and not by me (or Charikleia).


Ebon can correct me, here, but I think he suggested taxing the business and not the patron in order to make the idea more acceptable to anti-tax conservatives.   I already said, the businesses would just pass their increased cost to their customers, meaning that it would be the customers' who ultimately are paying for the tax FOR the business that serves them junk food and drink.


I can never understand why people's arguments, here, get so twisted, so quickly, all the time.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Here is one article that states that most schools don't require PE, healthland.time.com/2011/12/07/childhood...; however, reading other articles it looks like many of them stopped requiring it prior to NCLB.


When I was in school PE was required in the lower grades, but not in high school (which is when kids start buying more of their own food) and Home Economics was required to graduate high school, but that was many many years ago.


I agree that PE should be required from K-12 and so should home economics, but the problem then comes in paying for it. IMO, taxing fast food and 'junk' food (although that needs to be defined better), the idea stated in the article, would work. In my state, the tax money from cigarrette smokers goes to fund low cost health care. It's feasible that the tax money from fast food and 'junk' food could go to the schools to offer PE and HE.




Yes, none other than the American Medical Association agrees with you, that there should be a consumption tax on sugar, and that funds derived from such tax should be used for educational programs for minor-aged children, programs which would include PE. 


That suggestion was dismissed, outright, early on in this discussion, here.



Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:



Sometimes to get an idea passed, it's how one presents it.




There is no way that you can credibly argue that it was Democrats who presented heatlh care for more (if not all) Americans who presented it badly.   The true colors of the anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-social safety net, anti-universal health care, tea-partying Republicans (who claim to be "libertarians") were clearly "presented" by the Town Howls they held, complete with props like racist signs, nooses, monkey dolls and real semi-automatic weapons. 


Their "presentation" made both Republicans and Liberatarians look really bad.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Unfortunately, it's part of being young to not take that stuff seriously. One of the good and bad things about the young is that they think they're invinsible and tend not to listen to authority.




Which is just one more reason for society, at large, to take up the mantle, so to speak, just like teilhard tried to argue early in this thread -- to deaf ears, of course -- instead of standing by, doing nothing, muttering bromides all the time, based on an ideology that solves nothing.  At least Bloomberg is making an effort, which is surprising to me since he of the Republican ideology.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Girlchristian wrote:


IMO, the best way to fix the issue IS education along with a tax on consumers that purchase fast food and 'junk' food...similar to how we've been able to decrease the number of smokers.




Well, that's what I've been saying pretty much all along.  I never said "no" education, just that education, which we already have, isn't the only solution.  I also said that people who want more should just pay for more, by tax and purchase price of a second drink, or third drink, and why that causes just spitting rage is really unbelieveable.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 05, 2012 - 2:48PM #478
rabello
Posts: 20,955

I will need more time to address your entire post than I have now, TRUECHRISTIAN, but for now I'll say this in response to that:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.   





All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green."
 

is a manufactured conundrum that isn't based on reality. 


This is more realistic:



-- Eating out where restaurants started routinely serving oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink has been linked to a significant increase in obesity in America, helping to create a veritiable "obesity epidemic".


-- Since the recession hit, people are eating out less frequently than they did prior to the recession


-- Therefore the recession is linked to a leveling off of the obesity rates, but this may only be a temporary trend that will be reversed once the recession is over, if restaurants continue to serve oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink.




In this respect, Charikleia's initial observation, that the plateau in obesity rates currently being reported is most likely due to a modification in people's behavior more than anything else is reasonable and logical.  And of course, she can correct me if I am misrepresenting what she meant when she made that noncontroversial observation way-back-when.


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  




Nothing is being "banned."  People who want more will pay for more, which is eminently fair.  This will ultimately have the effect of making people actually think a little bit about what they are buying and what they are consuming.  Plus, it will help businesses meet their obligations to "do no harm" to their patrons, altho I realize businesses are not required to take a businessman's version of the Hippocratic Oath -- maybe they should be required since their track record doesn't inspire confidence or trust.


Jumping to:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?




This isn't about criminal behavior,  It is merely about violating an ordinance which would involve a warning and/or a fine, if the business is even caught, which would depend on the business being reported.


But the seller is the one at "risk" because it is the seller who is selling something harmful to the population, at large, in volumes that cause harm, to the general public, without regard to whom he, the seller, is selling to, which would, of course, include the most vulnerable segments of that general public, when he doesn't even need to be selling something harmful in volumes that cause harm.


For a seller to say "not my concern or my problem if that fat kid buying my 42 ounce coke has diabetes" is a total cop-out on the part of the profit-seeker



Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:



 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




No, it was the profit-seekers running businesses that decided to start selling unhealthy-sized portions of fatty and sugary foods to their patrons, which is a practice long decried by public health officials, and was the brainchild of some employee of a movie theatre who figured out he could get movie patrons to buy more in a single supersized serving in one transaction....quite cyncial of restauranteers to pick up that strategy which makes sense in a movie theatre but makes no sense in a restaurant where one has a personal waiter/waitress at his/her command.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 5:27PM #479
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,075

 


I will need more time to address your entire post than I have now, TRUECHRISTIAN, but for now I'll say this in response to that:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


I disagree.  


What I have been attempting to do is try and prevent manufactured condundrums.   





All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
 

Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:

 

is a manufactured conundrum that isn't based on reality. 



But it is based on logic.  It is a logically valid statement that isn't based on reality. 


I was discussing logic with Chak.   I confused "truth in reality"  with "logical valid" statements. 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


This is more realistic:


 


-- Eating out where restaurants started routinely serving oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink has been linked to a significant increase in obesity in America, helping to create a veritiable "obesity epidemic".


-- Since the recession hit, people are eating out less frequently than they did prior to the recession


-- Therefore the recession is linked to a leveling off of the obesity rates, but this may only be a temporary trend that will be reversed once the recession is over, if restaurants continue to serve oversized portions of fatty and sugary food and drink.




I would agree that it is more "realistic", more likely to be true, more likely to be a fact, more plausible, more probable, than Socrates being factually-really true either Socrates was either  green or a cup. 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


 


In this respect, Charikleia's initial observation, that the plateau in obesity rates currently being reported is most likely due to a modification in people's behavior more than anything else is reasonable and logical.  And of course, she can correct me if I am misrepresenting what she meant when she made that noncontroversial observation way-back-when.



Assuming that you have interpretated Chak's intial speculation correctly, why is it most likely that the cause is due to the recession?  


There could be reasons for the change that are "most" likely to be the reason for the change of haibits.  What she oberserved was a drop in the rate of increase.   What led her to conclude that the "most likely" reason was the recession? 


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


This thread is about the law proposed by Mayor Bloomberg to ban movies theaters and resturants only from selling a jug of drinks that contain sugar and  is larger than 1/8th of a gallon-16 ounces  to both adults and children.  




 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


Nothing is being "banned."  People who want more will pay for more, which is eminently fair.



What IS being "banned" is the sale of drinks containing sugar that are larger than 16 oz. 


It might be "eminently fair" if there was evidence that the sale of such drinks was the cause of the increase in obesity.  But from what I have seen, so far there is no such evidence or recommendations by the CDC to do what this law is intended to do. 


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


  This will ultimately have the effect of making people actually think a little bit about what they are buying and what they are consuming.



That is speculation without evidence.  


 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


  Plus, it will help businesses meet their obligations to "do no harm" to their patrons, altho I realize businesses are not required to take a businessman's version of the Hippocratic Oath -- maybe they should be required since their track record doesn't inspire confidence or trust.



What about the responibilty of the patrons to DO NO HARM TO THEMSELVES? 


I do not know what the sizes or the cost of drinks containing sugar are nowadays in theaters and resturants. 


However I am willing to bet more than a dollar that the smallest size is not 42 ounces.  


It is the responsiblity of the patron to NOT HARM THEMSELVES by buying a 42 ounce sugar drink.


Jumping to:


Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


By the way, if this becomes a law why is it that only the "seller" is a criminal?




 


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


This isn't about criminal behavior,  It is merely about violating an ordinance which would involve a warning and/or a fine, if the business is even caught, which would depend on the business being reported.



Breaking an ordinace is a crime.  It isn't a felony, a seller won't be sent to jail, but it is a criminal misdeamor. 


The distinction between ordinace and law is one without much of a difference. 


Help me understand why the "seller" should be the "only" one to be fined for breaking the "ordinance" ?


Since both broke the oridinance both should be fined! 


It would seem "eminently fair"  that the buyer should be fined more than the seller because it was the buyer who intiated the breaking of the ordinance. 


 


 


 

Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


But the seller is the one at "risk" because it is the seller who is selling something harmful to the population, at large, in volumes that cause harm, to the general public, without regard to whom he, the seller, is selling to, which would, of course, include the most vulnerable segments of that general public, when he doesn't even need to be selling something harmful in volumes that cause harm.



They buyer is the one who is putting themselves at risk.   The buyer is buying without regard to the harmful effects.   The buyer doesn't need to buy the drink.  


Jul 5, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


For a seller to say "not my concern or my problem if that fat kid buying my 42 ounce coke has diabetes" is a total cop-out on the part of the profit-seeker



For a buyer to say "I want a coke  that is larger than 16 ounces, that I do not "need" but want to buy anyway and to put the responisblity on the seller is a total cop out.  To say that it is not the responibility the "buyer" to make intelligent choice is a cop out!  


 



Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:45PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:



 Who     established the standard that people "needs" to buy only one large  jug of super-sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants at a time?


Was it the CDC?  




No, it was the profit-seekers running businesses that decided to start selling unhealthy-sized portions of fatty and sugary foods to their patrons, which is a practice long decried by public health officials, and was the brainchild of some employee of a movie theatre who figured out he could get movie patrons to buy more in a single supersized serving in one transaction....quite cyncial of restauranteers to pick up that strategy which makes sense in a movie theatre but makes no sense in a restaurant where one has a personal waiter/waitress at his/her command.



So if it makes since in a movies theater and not in a resturant, then the sales should by banned only in resturants. 

If there was only one size of sugar drink being sold at movie theaters and or resturants and that size was 42 ounces then I would agree that there is a problem.  


I agree that at a resturant it is the buyer who "commands" the waiter/waitress.  The waiter/wairess "obeys" the command of the "buyer".  


The buyer has the opition to command the "waiter/waitress" to bring him/her what he-she "wants". If the "buyer" commands the waiter/waitress to bring a sugar drink then the waitress/waiter does not have the option to decide that the fat buyer doesn't "need" a sugar drink.  


The fat buyer also as the option not to buy a sugar at all, of any size.   The fat buyer could buy orange juice or water or something to drink that does not bring them harm.  


I find it difficultan cynbical to believe that the fat buyer has no idea that he can consume as much sugar drinks as he commands and that it is not contributing at least in part to his being fat. 


 

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2012 - 6:43PM #480
Ebon
Posts: 10,145

Jul 5, 2012 -- 1:54PM, rabello wrote:

Ebon can correct me, here, but I think he suggested taxing the business and not the patron in order to make the idea more acceptable to anti-tax conservatives. 



That was part of it. The other part was that it amounts to the same thing either way since the company would just pass the taxes along to the consumer. Even teh tax on smokes isn't direct. You buy a pack of smokes, the taxes are included in the money you hand over to the retailer and the taxes are taken from the merchant. Taxing fast-food/drinks would work much the same way. The idea is just that, if your Whopper costs an extra dollar (for example, I have no idea how much a Whopper costs in the States), then you might think twice about it or save it for another day.


I'm not anti-fast food. I have no interest in shutting down Burger King (although maybe McDonalds) but eating this stuff every day is the problem. I love fast-food but I know it's bad for me so I only eat it once a month, my little treat to myself.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 48 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook