New York food regulations and bans- thoughts? page

[Megatron]

Here in the big apple, we have a very health-conscious mayor, and not everyone agrees with him. All chain food places post their calorie info right on the menu, transfats are banned, and he has tons of legislation against soda-banning drinks larger than 16 ozs, pizza places from delivering 2 liter sodas and children's birthday parties from having pitchers of soda.

Ads in the subway warn about sugar in sodas, the amount of miles you'd have to walk to burn off the calories, and suggestions on how to get more exercise.

Smoking is banned in public parks, bars, and anti-smoking ads are everywhere. I can't say this is what caused me to quit- it was the $13-15.00 a pack that did it for me.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally, while I think warnings about sugar should be up there with warnings about smoking, I worry he might make fat in general another crusade. I also think making healthy food cheaper and easier to access would be more beneficial. He already asked bodega owners to stock their fresh produce up front, but fresh produce can still be very expensive here.

So...nanny state? Or good mayor?

[eKatherine]

I think the "stopping smoking in bars violates my freedom" complaint is weird. They stopped smoking in bars here years before, and there was hardly a complaint in the whole state.

Being able to purchase single-serving 64 ounce cups of soda is hardly an inalienable right. It's pretty hard for me to get worked up about this issue.

It's all well and good to say that something should done to bring more fresh meat and produce to neighborhoods without access, but you're only talking about that. It doesn't sound like you're actually doing anything on that front. Rather, you are actively working to help multinational corporations pack more unhealthy snack food in the diets of Americans who already eating too much crap, and you're claiming it has to do with "freedom".

And whose freedom is it we're talking about? Is it the "freedom" to buy a product that wouldn't even exist were it not for corporations trying to increase sales of their products to existing customers, who are already for the most part consuming too much of them? Or is it the "freedom" of such corporations to create such products and market them hard to consumers who are now being told that buying them is the American way by political groups funded by fast food and junk food corporations?

[paul119]

There was a discussion about this awhile back - around the time when the initial law was passed banning soda drinks larger than 16 oz.

As you can imagine, the overwhelming response from this community was negative due to the libertarian-leaning political stance of many Primal/Paleo followers.

My thoughts? The intentions are promising - eliminating food items that, without a shadow of a doubt, cause serious health issues - and the legislation might help to reduce childhood obesity, adult obesity, and a number of other health-related issues. And, in our current system, in which a high number of individuals are reliant on the government through Medicaid (the same individuals who consume tons of soda and processed junk food), some may deem it the responsibility of government to implement reforms that will save money, and possibly lives, in the future.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) in reality, this legislation likely won't make an impact on how much soda is consumed. Banning something (see the War on Drugs) never works, since human desires will always be followed through on, regardless of law.

The key to reducing soda consumption, and thus reducing health-related issues, is two-fold: improving the socio-economic status of the desperately poor, and improving the health knowledge of children in all socio-economic classes.

Basically, soda and processed food is a deadly poison brought on by impulsiveness and the need for convenience of our modern society. So, putting a small band-aid on a gushing wound won't do a damn thing.

[Megatron]

I think the "stopping smoking in bars violates my freedom" complaint is weird. They stopped smoking in bars here years before, and there was hardly a complaint in the whole state.

Being able to purchase single-serving 64 ounce cups of soda is hardly an inalienable right. It's pretty hard for me to get worked up about this issue.

It's all well and good to say that something should done to bring more fresh meat and produce to neighborhoods without access, but you're only talking about that. It doesn't sound like you're actually doing anything on that front. Rather, you are actively working to help multinational corporations pack more unhealthy snack food in the diets of Americans who already eating too much crap, and you're claiming it has to do with "freedom".

And whose freedom is it we're talking about? Is it the "freedom" to buy a product that wouldn't even exist were it not for corporations trying to increase sales of their products to existing customers, who are already for the most part consuming too much of them? Or is it the "freedom" of such corporations to create such products and market them hard to consumers who are now being told that buying them is the American way by political groups funded by fast food and junk food corporations?

.....who exactly are you arguing against here? Who said that smoking in bars violated their freedom, etc?

[itchy166]

There was a discussion about this awhile back - around the time when the initial law was passed banning soda drinks larger than 16 oz.

As you can imagine, the overwhelming response from this community was negative due to the libertarian-leaning political stance of many Primal/Paleo followers.

My thoughts? The intentions are promising - eliminating food items that, without a shadow of a doubt, cause serious health issues - and the legislation might help to reduce childhood obesity, adult obesity, and a number of other health-related issues. And, in our current system, in which a high number of individuals are reliant on the government through Medicaid (the same individuals who consume tons of soda and processed junk food), some may deem it the responsibility of government to implement reforms that will save money, and possibly lives, in the future.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) in reality, this legislation likely won't make an impact on how much soda is consumed. Banning something (see the War on Drugs) never works, since human desires will always be followed through on, regardless of law.

The key to reducing soda consumption, and thus reducing health-related issues, is two-fold: improving the socio-economic status of the desperately poor, and improving the health knowledge of children in all socio-economic classes.

Basically, soda and processed food is a deadly poison brought on by impulsiveness and the need for convenience of our modern society. So, putting a small band-aid on a gushing wound won't do a damn thing.

Why do legislatures think that they know what is best for us in the first place?

Next they will be banning cholesterol and saturated fat. Primal followers will need to go black-market. Rules like these are for idiots, and those amongst us who can think for ourselves pay the cost. Every time a new stupid law is passed, it cheapens ALL laws. Eventually people loose respect for the whole system of law.

Not to mention enforcement. Do you really want to welcome the police into your children's birthday parties to monitor whether they have pitchers of soda? Give me a break.

[Gorbag]

So...nanny state? Or good mayor?

It's a good thing because immature and ignorant citizens need a nanny to look after them sometimes!

Raise the taxes on sugar and refined flour and put warnings on the packets of processed foods, such as "overeating makes you fat!" or “a fat body can make you diabetic!” etc.

And keep healthy alternatives such as dietCoke easy available instead!

[bloodorchid]

I think hes overstepping his boundaries as a public official

[bloodorchid]

It's a good thing because immature and ignorant citizens need a nanny to look after them sometimes!

Raise the taxes on sugar and put warnings on the packets of processed foods, such as "overeating makes you fat!" or “a fat body can make you diabetic!” etc.

And keep healthy alternatives such as dietCoke easy available instead!

you lead a rich fantasy life

it wouldnt be like that because theyd be too busy banning red meat and saturated fat while promoting canola oil and wheat

[itchy166]

you lead a rich fantasy life

it wouldnt be like that because theyd be too busy banning red meat and saturated fat while promoting canola oil and wheat

Exactly!!!

When it really comes down to it, the rules are not designed to make you healthier, they are designed to keep you governed. You are allowing the state to dictate what you eat or drink - think about it. It will not stop with soda and trans-fat.

[JoanieL]

I'm all for laws that protect children, because after all, anyone can squirt a baby out and then the child is subject to that person's whims for 18 years. Children, imo, need protection from bad adults.

However, I have always been against the government telling me what substances I should put in my body. Labeling is fine, and I think we fall short on labeling in this country. But once a person is old enough to vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, etc., the govt should stay the hell out of telling us what we can/can't put into our bodies.

I feel very strongly that we should have access to healthy foods. I feel just as strongly that we should have access to heroin. (And by inference, anything in between.) And most of all, access to information so that we can make our own decisions.

Considering that politicians in general are some of the least ethical and moral people on the planet, I find it ludicrous that we should listen to them about any personal decision that helps or harms no one but ourselves.

If you want to smoke in bars, there are states that still allow it. Apparently, those states still leave it up to the business owners to decide which policy is best for their individual business.