Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: New York food regulations and bans- thoughts?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    66

    New York food regulations and bans- thoughts?

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,426
    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?
    Last edited by eKatherine; 03-09-2013 at 07:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    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?
    It is neither of those. It is freedom from government intervention in private life. It is the freedom from having a government that forces you to pay taxes and then uses the tax money it has extorted from you to do something as inane and pointless as banning 32 oz soft drinks. It is freedom from being treated like a child who cannot make his own decisions about what to consume. It is freedom from government regulation.

    I am not interested in helping multinational corporations do anything, but you have to realize that the U.S. government has done more to promote unhealthy dietary choices than any other entity. Wonder why high-fructose corn syrup is only used in the U.S.? Sugar quotas and corn subsidies. Wonder why CAFO meats are cheaper than meats produced by smaller farms that pasture their animals? Again, government subsidies. See, for example, this: Frankenfoods, the Fraudulent Food Pyramid and Other Folderol by Ilana Mercer

    This is just another example of government intervention screwing things up, which then leads to more (ineffective) government intervention to fix the problem that the government created in the first place. The end result is that the problem remains, nothing changes, except for another incremental expansion in the role of government. (Okay, before you yell at me, I admit that the government did not single-handedly "create" the obesity epidemic or whatever. Obviously, industrial farmers, corporations, and other interest groups, such as the powerful corn lobby, also played a role. There are other factors as well, such as the fact that evolutionary pressures no longer function properly in modern society. But my point is that the government definitely played a significant contributory role in causing the problem it is now attempting to solve with completely ineffective means.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Izmir, Turkey
    Posts
    103
    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.
    Travel, eat well, and learn about life - three things I love to do

    Curious about what YOU should pack next time you're on the road? Check out my Definitive Guide to Backpacking Nutrition

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by paul119 View Post
    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.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    Why do legislatures think that they know what is best for us in the first place?
    Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Violette_R View Post
    Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.
    NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!

    Are you telling me that voting for a city council gives them the right to dictate your food choices? Absolutely not!!! All governments are getting out of control, and this is a perfect example of it.

    When we vote for a city government we expect them to provide city services, and write laws relevant to the managing of a CITY, not telling people what they can and can't eat!!!

    Every time they overstep their boundaries, and we accept it, we become a little less free. Like I said, are you prepared to have the soda police at your childrens birthday party?

    Its misguided, unenforecable, and repulsive. It cheapens ALL laws, and eventually leads people to lose respect for the rule of law in general.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post

    Are you telling me that voting for a city council gives them the right to dictate your food choices?
    No. I'm telling the person who asked why legislatures think they know what's best for us why legislatures think they know what's best for us. When I have opinions on city councils, I will state them. E.g. Christine Quinn is a waste of space.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Violette_R View Post
    Well, actually that's kind of the point of our form of government. We vote for the people we choose to represent our interests in the lawmaking bodies. Obviously, its practice is far from flawless but it's not insane that legislatures would legislate our actions. That's kind of the reason for their existence.
    I was not consulted on this.... how do we change this silly setup then?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •