Jump to content

Say Goodbye to Large Sodas New York


Go Skins

Recommended Posts

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1338595035' post='1133554']
This might be helpful

[url="http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/msm.asp"]http://www.snopes.co...prepare/msm.asp[/url]

...or it might not

:shrug:
[/quote]

Ah, mechanically separated meat, the first ingredient on canned potted meat...you had me at hello...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get this economy moving again, let people keep more of the money they earn. Back to the orginal topic: It is none of the governments buisness what-so-ever to tell people what they can or cannot eat, or what size of a soda they can drink. When the government thinks its justified in passing that kind of legislation, we have a big problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338606948' post='1133574']
To get this economy moving again, let people keep more of the money they earn. Back to the orginal topic: It is none of the governments buisness what-so-ever to tell people what they can or cannot eat, or what size of a soda they can drink. When the government thinks its justified in passing that kind of legislation, we have a big problem.
[/quote]
Well...yeah, duh. It matters not that it's NYC and not the rest of the country. This liberalization of our country (in the nanny state sense) is fucking scary and an unfortunate reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mongo' timestamp='1338568165' post='1133478']
I can appreciate you viewpoint, but me doing research to figure out the validity of your stance on pink slime is not how it works. If you say it's harmful, that ammonia hydroxide is the problem, and something about cognitive ability effects, it's your job to present the information that backs up your statements.
[/quote]


My beef with the pink slime (pun kinda intended) was and is the lack of disclosure. Certain beef industry folks were foisting this shit upon the public as a way to save and make money by hiding highly questionable content.

You may have no issue feeding your family or yourself Grade D dog scraps bathed in floor cleaner, but it damn well better be disclosed.

And yes, I also have issues with the methods of procuring meat products in the first place which is why I have started leaning vegetarian the last few years. At least the tree hugging tofu humpers do a good job disclosing what you're eating.

Not the best post in this thread to quote, but I've been drinking and didn't feel like digging through the whole thread for the appropriate one I noticed earlier.

And really. We're $16 Trillion in debt and this is the best thing on which we can focus our efforts?

Fuuuuck...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1338613014' post='1133579']


My beef with the pink slime (pun kinda intended) was and is the lack of disclosure. Certain beef industry folks were foisting this shit upon the public as a way to save and make money by hiding highly questionable content.

You may have no issue feeding your family or yourself Grade D dog scraps bathed in floor cleaner, but it damn well better be disclosed.

And yes, I also have issues with the methods of procuring meat products in the first place which is why I have started leaning vegetarian the last few years. At least the tree hugging tofu humpers do a good job disclosing what you're eating.

Not the best post in this thread to quote, but I've been drinking and didn't feel like digging through the whole thread for the appropriate one I noticed earlier.

And really. We're $16 Trillion in debt and this is the best thing on which we can focus our efforts?

Fuuuuck...
[/quote]

I've moved to grass fed beef and free rage chicken myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1338642558' post='1133595']
Putting more money in peoples pockets means wages have to increase, and don't try the lower taxes argument, [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-7326720.html"]they are at a 60 year low[/url].
[/quote]

And who determines what wages should be? Big Brother? And the 1st line of the 4th paragraph tells you why taxes are at a 60 year low.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338644716' post='1133602']
And who determines what wages should be? Big Brother? And the 1st line of the 4th paragraph tells you why taxes are at a 60 year low.
[/quote]


Those "job creators" who arent so short sighted to see that if people dont have extra money in their pockets, there wont be anyone to buy their products, which is exactly why corporate profits are "down" and unemployment up, in fact that's what the more evil of the corporatisits have figured out, they dont need to worry about the wages of folks to keep them buying their products, when profits are down we just get a bailout to put profits back up (at that point they dont actually need you to buy anything to take your money), it's all a corporatist version of 3 card monte.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1338645424' post='1133605']
Those "job creators" who arent so short sighted to see that if people dont have extra money in their pockets, there wont be anyone to buy their products, which is exactly why corporate profits are "down" and unemployment up, in fact that's what the more evil of the corporatisits have figured out, they dont need to worry about the wages of folks to keep them buying their products, when profits are down we just get a bailout to put profits back up (at that point they dont actually need you to buy anything to take your money), it's all a corporatist version of 3 card monte.
[/quote]

You make a valid point when it comes to the bailout. But I think we have to be careful when it comes to demonizing profit. None of us work for free and we all (well most) try to maximize our earning potential. Demonizing profit and success would just discourage innovation and risk taking IMO. In a free society, who would determine how much profit is too much and how much isn't? Is that really any of the governments business?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338662366' post='1133620']
You make a valid point when it comes to the bailout. But I think we have to be careful when it comes to demonizing profit. None of us work for free and we all (well most) try to maximize our earning potential. Demonizing profit and success would just discourage innovation and risk taking IMO. In a free society, who would determine how much profit is too much and how much isn't? Is that really any of the governments business?
[/quote]

Keep in mind that there is a difference between profit and greed. I love profit. Profit pays my salary, my benefits, and allows me to live like a baron compared to 99% of the rest of the world. (If you want to know where you rank go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356)

However, this mindset that any regulation that could possibly impinge on corporate profits in any way as being evil is laughable. If you look back over the 60+ years that Glass-Steagll was in place, are you saying that banks weren't making money? That it was counter-productive to our employment rate, salaries, innovation, and that no companies were making money? I'm pretty sure if you go back and look at the balance sheets, the banks were making money, and lots of it. Pure, unadulterated greed is what pushed the banks and insurance companies to pull the strings on their wholly owned politicians to repeal protections that had been put into place for the greater good of our society and economy as a whole and once again allow the banks to recklessly gamble with your money.

How did that work out?

Not all corporations are evil, but on the other hand, neither are all regulations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338662366' post='1133620']
You make a valid point when it comes to the bailout. But I think we have to be careful when it comes to demonizing profit. None of us work for free and we all (well most) try to maximize our earning potential. Demonizing profit and success would just discourage innovation and risk taking IMO. In a free society, who would determine how much profit is too much and how much isn't? Is that really any of the governments business?
[/quote]

There is profit and then there is record profits that happen because they ship jobs to countries that do the work at rates that not one person could live on in this country. Then there is the F.I.R.E. industry, and the outright buying of our politicians and fraud they have committed.

Spend an hour and 48 minutes with this, it's well worth it and very eye opening.

[url="http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/inside_job_2010/"]http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/inside_job_2010/[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338684574' post='1133639']
So if you were against the bailout for the banks, where do you stand on the government take-over of GM?
[/quote]

Didnt like that either, but it was better done than the bank bailout.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda off topic but anyone who eats beef and chicken from your local grocer should really investigate what the FDA allows to be "mixed in" with the meat.

Also, what we find, as far as meat in those stores is from a "farm". Cows/chickens are couped up in a large room, unable to move freely so they get sick. They're injected with anti-biotics and growth hormone to maximize profit for the companies selling the meat and then, it's ingested by John Q Public. I will NEVER again eat meat from a supermarket or grocer. It's absolutely disgusting what is actually in that "meat".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1338917807' post='1133963']
Kinda off topic but anyone who eats beef and chicken from your local grocer should really investigate what the FDA allows to be "mixed in" with the meat.

Also, what we find, as far as meat in those stores is from a "farm". Cows/chickens are couped up in a large room, unable to move freely so they get sick. They're injected with anti-biotics and growth hormone to maximize profit for the companies selling the meat and then, it's ingested by John Q Public. I will NEVER again eat meat from a supermarket or grocer. It's absolutely disgusting what is actually in that "meat".
[/quote]

My wife and I swore off "FrankenChicken" and the feted dog scraps they try to pass off as beef years ago...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1338921419' post='1133970']
My wife and I swore off "FrankenChicken" and the feted dog scraps they try to pass off as beef years ago...
[/quote]

Good for you guys...you're definitely doing your bodies (and mind) a favor. Have you felt a change in the way you feel, energy, thinking etc... by eliminating that from your respective diets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/new-york-soda-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t3"]http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3[/url]

[b]New York (CNN)[/b] -- New York City's Board of Health voted Thursday to ban the sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces in restaurants and other venues, in a move meant to combat obesity and encourage residents to live healthier lifestyles.

The board voted eight in favor, with one abstention.

"It's time to face the facts: obesity is one of America's most deadly problems, and sugary beverages are a leading cause of it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement earlier this month. "As the size of sugary drinks has grown, so have our waistlines -- and so have diabetes and heart disease."

But the move is expected to draw further protest from the soda industry and those concerned about government involvement in their personal choices.

"What we need in New York are sensible solutions to the obesity issue that focus on a comprehensive approach to tackle an extremely complex problem," said Eliot Hoff, a spokesman for a beverage industry-sponsored group called New Yorkers for Beverage Choices. "New Yorkers are smart enough to decide for themselves what to eat and drink."
Critics, including McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have assailed the ban as "misguided" and "arbitrary," though Bloomberg has billed it as both a health and fiscal initiative.
New York City spends an estimated $4 billion each year on medical care for overweight people, the mayor said in an earlier statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="https://twitter.com/SteveMartinToGo"][b]Steve Martin[/b] ‏[s]@[/s][b]SteveMartinToGo[/b][/url]
Don’t know where to go now to buy my giant soda drinks. Back alleys? Mexico?


[url="https://twitter.com/SteveMartinToGo"][b]Steve Martin[/b]‏[s]@[/s][b]SteveMartinToGo[/b][/url]
Drank 32 oz. soda and now moving on to heroin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

http://news.msn.com/us/court-upholds-ruling-striking-down-nycs-large-soda-ban?ocid=ansnews11

 

A plan to ban large, sugary drinks in New York City has been deemed an "illegal overreach of executive power" an appeals court rules.

 

Benjamin Lesczynski sips a "Big Gulp" while protesting the "soda-ban," New York City Mayor Bloomberg suggested.

 

NEW YORK — New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries was an illegal overreach of executive power, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday, upholding a lower court decision in March that struck down the law.

 

The law, which would have prohibited those businesses from selling sodas and other sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces, "violated the state principle of separation of powers," the First Department of the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division said in a unanimous decision.

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg had advanced the regulation as a way to combat obesity among city residents. Beverage makers and business groups, however, challenged it in court, calling it an attack on consumers' personal freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I know Britain is mentioned in this and not NY, but no sense in starting a new thread.

 

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23850453/hefty-tax-on-soda-would-reduce-obesity-study-shows#axzz2jPRJyf8L

 

Slapping a 20 percent tax on soda in Britain could cut the number of obese adults by about 180,000, according to a new study.

Though the number works out to a modest drop of 1.3 percent in obesity, scientists say that reduction would still be worthwhile in the U.K., which has a population of about 63 million and is the fattest country in Western Europe. About one in four Britons is obese.

 

Researchers at Oxford Universityicon1.png and the University of Reading estimated a 20 percent tax on soft drinks would reduce sales by 15 percent and that people would buy beverages like orange juice, milk and diet drinks instead. They said the tax would have the biggest impact on people under 30, who drink more sugary drinks than anyone else. No funding was provided for the study, published online Thursday in the journal, BMJ.

 

"Every possible alternative that people would buy is going to be a better than a sugary drink," said Mike Rayner of Oxford, one of the study authors. "(The tax) is not a panacea, but it's part of the solution."

 

Rayner acknowledged the government might shy away from introducing such a hefty tax at a time when the economy is still shaky. Last year, Britain's Conservative-led coalition had to backtrack on a sales tax it planned to levy on fat-laden meat pies after a public outcry.

 

Such soft drink taxes have been used or considered elsewhere, including France, Mexico, Norway and some U.S. states, but previous analysis of them have found mixed results on people's drinking habits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...