E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Makely / msnbc.com
Judy Laurini, left, and Gem Sumner, right, laugh about their 24-ounce sweet teas that they bought from McDonald's on Sixth Avenue.
NEW YORK -- Mayor Mike Bloomberg wants to limit the size of New Yorkers' sugary drinks, but the initiative is not going down very well with people in the city, including visitors interviewed on Thursday.
The ban on the sale of any cup or bottle of a drink larger than 16 fluid ounces – a little bit bigger than the size of a soda can – would include a range of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants and food carts, according to the mayor’s office. The New York Times, which reported on the initiative, said the proposal could go into effect as early as next March.
The mayor noted that 58 percent of adults in the city (and nearly 40 percent of public school students in grades K-8) are overweight or obese. Obesity costs $4 billion a year in health care costs and kills thousands of New Yorkers, his office said.
But that rationale didn’t fly with many out for lunch or a stroll in the city’s midtown district.
“I don’t need the government on my meal plate or in my beverage,” said Travis Humphrey, a 30-year-old who works in tobacco prevention from Norman, Okla.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has touched off a nationwide controversy with his efforts to combat obesity. He joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the proposal.
He said he was “very reluctant” to have such regulations imposed on businesses and their products though he welcomed the effort to work on serious health issues. “This is something that I am not exactly sure if government regulation … is going to be the solution.”
A pair of friends in town drinking sweet teas in what appeared to be 24-ounce size cups also denounced the mayor’s effort.
“I wish the government would get out of it and stay out of our lives and allow us to make the choices,” said Judy Laurini, 68, of Rochester, N.Y., who advocated that he spend money on educating people about the health problem.
“I’m an adult, I can drink it if I need it,” chimed in her friend, Gem Sumner, 68, of Seattle, Wash. “But I would not let my children,” she added, laughing.
A man who didn’t want to identify himself derided the effort and the mayor’s earlier anti-smoking law, calling him, “Dr. Bloomberg,” and saying it felt like a “police state.”
“I think he’s a little bit out of line. I don’t think he’s got the right to sort of dictate what people can and cannot drink,” Carolyn Summers, a 46-year-old New Yorker who works in finance said as she held a large cup of unsweetened tea. “I can see that concern about obesity but I think that people need to be responsible for themselves.”
The mayor’s office said the ban would build on his previous health initiatives, such as banning smoking in public places and having calorie content posted at chain restaurants. It said those had improved life expectancy by nearly three years in the city famous for its pizza slices and hot dogs.
John Makely / msnbc.com
Bonita Troia, 35, a paramedic and her son Carlos Lopez, 17.
“We have an obligation to warn you when things aren't good for your health,” he told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “So here the idea is, if you have to take it in a smaller glass, you’ve got to make a conscious decision to have another cup of it. And, we think a lot of people won't and therefore that will reduce one of, and it’s only one of, the contributors to the obesity epidemic that’s going on in this country.”
Bonita Troia, a 35-year-old paramedic from Kingsville, Texas, said she agreed with the mayor, especially since in her work she sees 500-pound adults and children who weigh 200 or 300 pounds.
“When we grew up in the ‘80s the portions were smaller and people weren’t that big,” she said as she ate lunch with her teenage son. “The portion sizes have been getting bigger so people got bigger.”
“People just don’t discipline themselves,” she added. And, “us as taxpayers are paying for what people are putting on their plates.”
Leave a Comment:
Wake up, the government is actually trying to regulate what you can and cannot eat. Can you imagine getting you door broke down by the food police and arrested because you had a few large slurpees in the house? Or walking down the street and hearing, "I'm going to have to give you a ticket for that mam, that drink is too big and you know it."
This is completely absurd and will likely be struck down by the courts. This is the nanny state run amok. This is an intrusion on personal freedom trying to control how much someone can drink of a perfectly legal product. And some of the things being exempted make no sense and show the arbitrary nature of this proposed ordinance. I mean some milkshakes have just as many, if not more calories per ounce than soda as do a lot of sweetened fruit juices. What is he going to do next, outlaw the jumbo size popcorn at the movie theaters!?!? This will also going to end up costing people more money. When a couple goes to a movie they would not be able to buy a large soda and large popcorn to share and instead will have to buy two smaller ones of each which is more expensive. Thank you mayor for making taking a date to a movie even more expensive than it already is. What about starting to limit portion sizes and having maximum calorie counts for meals served in restaurants!?!? How far is Bloomberg going to take the nanny state!!! Is he going to say that ice cream cones can only have one scoop of ice cream!?!? People should have the right to decide how much they are going to eat or drink, it is not up to the state try and dictate to them!!
If passed this will without a doubt be challenged in the courts. Bloomberg will then no doubt spend millions of dollars in legal expenses and court costs, which the city can not afford, for his city attorney to defend this idiocy. Bloomberg needs to stop with this nanny state nonsense and start focusing on things that really are part of the mayor's responsibility like cleaning up the city, reducing crime, improving education, etc.
What a total and complete ignorant stooge! Stop this idiotic liberal nanny, trying to find something to regulate government! What complete fools are these who apparently have nothing else to do? Fire the lot of these worthless puppets feeding at the public trough!
Can we legalize cocaine, crack, heroin, angel dust, pot, and absinthe? I'd like to make my own decisions about those things if Fatty McFatterson gets to make the decision about a 50 oz coke, XXXL fries, and a 5000 calories deep fried cheeseburger.
Jack - Bloomberg started as a Democrat, switched to a Republican before running for office and then switched to an independent after disagreements with the Republican party. Labeling him a liberal is a mis-understanding of the term.
Labels are stupid anyway.
Of course this initiative is unreasonably intrusive on personal choice - so we agree on that aspect.
hungrymongoose,
Trust me, we're awake.
I'm no fan of smoking, or morbid obesity for that matter. But the individual decision to "get healthy" cannot and should not be controlled by eliminating the availability of legal consumables.
I can't help but wonder: how healthy is Mr. Bloomberg these days? Should we monitor--and control--his own habits?
Something tells me this headstrong, hard-driving multimillionaire would tell anyone who tried to "stick it".
And that's what New Yorkers should tell Bloomberg.
I didn't even know mayors had such power, it's creepy. Somebody needs to rein him in
HilsWorking,
I'm with you on pot and Absinthe, since both cannabis and wormwood have repeatedly been shown to be as safe--or safer than--alcohol and cigarettes.
But even my Libertarian blood turns cold at the idea of making drugs like cocaine and heroin legally available.
I think we can narrow the double-standard we currently have concerning controlled substances without making it a suicide pact.
But large sugary drinks? Me thinks Mr. Bloomberg has been imbibing in some of the more "choice" beverages lately...
Even if something like this were to actually be made a law, what is to stop anyone from buying TWO or MORE of these sugary drinks? Come on, Dr. Bloomberg, education is the key. The earlier in someone's life such education is started, the better. You cannot force someone to change if they don't want to.
I don't drink but one 12-ounce soda per week (and not every week). The older I get, the less refreshing I find them and I always crave water after I do drink one.
Hey Bloomberg - Keep your laws off of and out of my body!
For someone who supports Planned Parenthood, you sure want to be intrusive regarding nutrition. My body = None of your business!
Don't Be A Moron:
You're trying to mix apples and oranges. Not all liberals are Dems, just as not all conservatives are GOPers. I am a flaming conservative with no party affiliation; I have voted twice for our Democratic governor, who is so conservative most of his party hates him. But the people love him because our state is not in serious debt.....oh, and he'd never ban those Big Gulps!
This is totally ridiculous. This won't change anything. If anything it will benefit the restaurants.
'Buy a 16oz drink get one free!'
Mayor Bloomberg needs to realize that you can't legislate a healthy lifestyle. Period! I don't think the government should go beyond educating and recommending, and that's pushing it. Doctors and scientist are constantly contradicting themselves with new research, so the government really shouldn't take sides.
Idiotic Liberal Nanny. There's your band name.
HEY, NEW YORK!!!!!
How does it feel knowing you elected somebody who thinks you're too stupid to buy two cokes???
Calm down. It's not as exciting as 1984 or even close. What the [federal] government needs to do is pass a stiff tax on sugar - or any processed caloric sweetener - so that the expense of medical care for those who cannot control themselves can at least be partially recouped. It will filter through all the products that contain sugars and raise the prices. In an effort to be more competitive, the companies will either reduce the sugar content, remove it completely (in foods like hot dogs, chili, tomato sauce, dog treats, etc., where it doesn't belong to begin with) or replace it with an artifical non-caloric sweetener. We need to get the food industry to stop depending on this addiction to market their products. Maybe then we would see a move back to the days when people added their own sugar (or not) to their cereal and other foods. Now that would put the cost and the responsibility squarely where it belongs.
Shartorius - I like how you debate and put your opinion forth. you have obviously thought about your beliefs and I think a debate with you would be great fun and not of the personal-attack kind which is so prevalent today.
S. Williams-430936
What the federal government needs to do is implode.
What I need to do is buy and/or sell whatever I want to/from whoever I want for whatever price I want.
What you need to do is buy whatever you want (I RECOMMEND A COPY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION) sell whatever you want for whatever price you want... and stop looking at other people's shopping carts.
The most ironic quote in the entire article.
I'm not sure of that. Bonita , a grossly obese person, backing the mayo,r is truly ironic. And her son is well over 25lbs. overweight. Look at both of their legs.
Dr Bloomberg.....How about what would be best for the peoples' health is a not for profit healthcare plan that is similar to the one that you the Mayor enjoys. A raise in salaries and more job opportunities would help the health of the masses also. Just saying....
Well that is what I prescribe anyway.... But what do I know, after all I am just one of the smucks i.e. unaffiliated independent voting adults in the masses who some polititians seem to feel that they have a right to treat or talk to like as a fractious ignorant child.
What evvaa....
Peace.... blah blah blah... and blah blah blah....ok?
This is possibly the most ridiculous thing Ive heard from an educated person. You live in your ivory tower and think oh all obese people must drink too much soda. I am OBESE AND I DRINK WATER I HAVE NEVER BOUGHT A SODA LARGER THAN A MINI SIZE CUP SO WHERE WILL YOU BAN THE SUGAR FROM IN MY DIET.
Wake up to yourself youre a silly rich old fool making obese people the brunt of your sick joke. I agreed with you on the smoking but you must be a sandwich short of a picnic if this is what you have time to worry about. Go and spend more time helping the homeless and disadvantaged and worry about those who have far greater problems.
I have to agree with the majority of the comments seen here, and the concensus that this regulation would represent liberalism run amok.
If you are old enough to vote or drive, then you are old enough to know drinking a giant-size cola or rootbeer will be bad for your weight.
If you are too young to drive, then your parents should be limiting your intake of such drinks, not the !#$!#%^! government.
If your parents are not doing their job, then society is going to have bigger problems with you than your Body Mass Index reading.
...and that tells you what group is driving such initiatives, insurance carriers. They want to make society healthier so their costs will be less.
Mayor "Doomturd" is at it again. Why not go too the root of the problem? Which is these soda companies putting 10X the amount of sugar in their drinks, than they did back in the late 70's, early 80's. Why not go after the companies who put growth hormones into all our food supplies, and then wonder why cancer and obesity is up? Oh yea, because they pay his tab to be king.
Oh Please people!! What does it take for you to realize that SOMETHING has to be done to curve the trend on obesity? Look at the pictures of the people on this article. THEY ARE OBESE. I DO NOT GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF THEY WANT TO LOOK LIKE A BLIMP, BUT THE cost OF THE DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND HEARTH DISEASE IS COSTING THIS COUNTRY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Someone had to start somewhere. Stop complaining about the "Nanny State" If you do not want a nanny STOP BEHAVING LIKE BABIES
I think the government needs to install scales at all fast food restaurants. When you go up to order, you step on the scale. If your 20% over your bmi then you will be banned from the high calorie foods, Soft drinks and such, you'll only get diet soda. It'll also be programmed to offer a meal that is based on what you should eat and if you sway from the plan you get taxed 20% extra unless you stick to the meal offered to help you out. We cannot think for ourselves, were not smart enough. People in the government like governor christie could carry an exemption card cause hes smarter and his weight is just caused by bad genes. Thats just a start on how the government should save us, we need help. Just joking. Its funny how if youve got food stamps you can buy anything you want, besides alcohol and cigarettes, anything, soft drinks and candy included, what a crock. Taxpayers get laws passed on what they can eat and drink, however people living on food stamps can do what they want. Thats where the government should start regulating food purchases, However, It would be deemed unconstitutional if that ever happened. Ive seen people with nothing but twenty two liters of pop, and junk food filling the cart, then they pull out the link card or other free food from government card, pisses me off bad, when iv got four kids, work full time, cant barely afford to feed my kids healthy food, but i get by, just no vacations or cable tv, i live in the stone age to get by.
Well, Bloomburg would like to tell you how to have sex, to save you from your own bad health habits. As I said earlier, he is quite the Napolean.
"The mayor’s office said the ban would build on his previous health initiatives, such as banning smoking in public places and having calorie content posted at chain restaurants. It said those had improved life expectancy by nearly three years in the city famous for its pizza slices and hot dogs."
improved life expectancy... , haha , this guy is a dumbazz , I guess all the data is in , what do expect from the second greatest cesspool state in the union , right behind California
why do idiots like him keep being voted back in office ?he is typical of what is ruining the United States Of America.
@eek to the eek
did you read the entire article? he stated that he WANTED the concept of getting two drinks to sink into someones head as they will then make a choice to buy the second.
sorry folks, with reservation, I agree. If you want to make a law that drinks can only be 16oz, fine. But make it legal for people to buy more than one and at the same price it would be to have bought a large one. consumers can still have access to their product. I sure wouldnt want to juggle two drinks and my god, 16 ounces if enough to wash down your goddamn cheeseburger folks. If you are really thisrty you should be getting water.
I don't feel like I should have my tax dollars go towards these peoples health costs and clearly 50% of USA can't control themselves so I don't mind making steps to do it for them.
Hasn't Bloomberg enough to do running a city the size of New York? First it's GUN CONTROL in Arizona; Yes he interjected himself (his Eminence) into Arizona politics all the way from New York after Senator Gabby Giffords and several others were shot by a lunatic. Now his Eminence is taking on obesity and the cola companies and whom ever dumps untold amounts of sugar in their products!
COOL IT YOUR EMINENCE! Your friends (comrades) from mainland China haven't invaded YET! So until they do.....keep your cotton pick'n hands OFF my guns and my soda Chairman Mao!!! I know you want to control every aspect of every American's life, but why don't you wait until your Communist friends take total control here, and then they can give you a proper Coronation......Jeeeeesh!
It's become an epidemic, and the problem is growing larger!
Perhaps there should be surcharges for: health insurance; plane, train, bus, & taxi fares; buffet restaurants; any establishment that offers seating, including schools; any employment that services children. Someone else suggested a tax surcharge on sugar, high fructose corn sugar, etc., saturated fats, very high sodium content.
It's nice and easy to explain the differences between controlling where one can smoke and how much of a drink you can buy. Smoke doesn't stay in your lungs. When you exhale, you exhale it into the air someone else gets to breathe. Therefor, your actions have an immediate impact on those around you. Sometimes, you have the option to go elsewhere, unless you work in the place, and since we have laws concerning health in the workplace, it follows naturally that smoking could and/or should be banned INSIDE the work space.
Sugary drinks may have an impact on others through health care costs, but it is neither immediate nor necessarily realized. Someone who exercises a lot and has a 32 oz soda on occasion is likely not to be obese. Someone who doesn't exercise and drinks 2-3 16 oz drinks for lunch every day is likely to be obese. Restricting the amount in one go won't solve the issue, and limiting a single portion only means that those extra portions will soon be ignored (similar to terms in EULAs). Solving the problem can only be done through education and incentive. If he wants to do something, he should probably go down that route instead. Mayor or Government isn't synonymous with Parent.
Why do we still call these fascist control freaks "liberals"?
This is what soo many of you deserve! you have let them get away with banning smoking in so many "open" places, banning trans fat in foods, making restaurants pay more to list every ingredient as well as exact calorie counts, Many of you agreed with them banning things that YOU did not agree with, like smoking and them raising taxes 500% on them to help "cover" medical costs, you need to check how little of these taxes and lawsuit settlements go to what they said. Many of you agreed with them having to offer "healthy foods" salads, apple slices, etc.... when that was not part of THEIR business model. It is not what they chose to offer with the money THEY invested in THEIR company. any of you who wanted this could have opened a business but instead agreed with this being mandated by the government. and yet NOW that it affects what you like you want to rant. MAYBE a few of you will realize to stop letting the government mandate peoples personal behavior, WORRY ABOUT LIVING YOUR LIFE NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS. Unfortunately there are still tooo many of you that think you should have a RIGHT to make others decisions for them!!!!
Dan42day - Most likely because neither liberal nor fascist actually fit very well. Bloomberg is much more of a totalitarian tyrant. It is not the job of the government to keep people from making stupid decisions nor to protect us from ourselves. We can make the argument that because a large portion of healthcare expenditures are paid through taxes that the government should have the right to regulate people's healthcare decisions (and the food choices we make are healthcare decisions). I could also make the argument that we would be safer from terrorists if the government could jail people without warrant or probable cause and keep them jailed indefinitely. Oh, wait, we can already do that. Government was NEVER intented to be a micromanaging group of jackasses acting in loco parentis however that is exactly what we have. They (yes all of them) need to go and be replaced by people who respect the legitimate LIMITED role of government in the lives of the American people.
There's a reason you don't see beanpoles in these pictures. If you lardbuckets want to keep the government away from what you eat then please keep them away from my health insurance premiums too. Allow the market to compete for premium dollars from the people who have demonstrated personal health responsibility. For the simple minded - if I qualify for cheap insurance don't whine, "That's not fair" as you pay through the nose.
It is remarkable how little these Bloomberg critics understand how behavior change works. It is not through education - but through incentives to lower high risk behavior, including restrictions on where and when one could engage in such behaviors, and adjusting the cost through taxation (e.g., California's tobacco tax increases in the mid 1980s). The strategy of regulating the size of a specific quantity is also a proven public health approach (a standard drinks of an alcoholic beverage should not contain more than .4 - .5 ounces of alcohol by volume alcohol - a guide to help one not find themselves in jail, a hospital or a morgue). These are typical public health strategies - the same kinds of strategies that keeps problems like drinking and driving reduced (less than half the rate than 20 years ago), lung cancers caused by smoking (California reduced its lung cancer rate 14% in the ten year period of 1988 - 1997, compared to 2% for the rest of the states). The mayor's proposal was an attempt to put in place within his jurisdiction, some measure to limit the consumption of high caloric drinks. Actually a relatvely modest proposal - given the grim statistics included in the articles. If you anti-regulations people love America so much, perhaps you would stop criticizing the intent of those who seek to keep Americans healthy but acknowledge their good intent, yet disagree - then come up with better ideas to address the problem of obesity.
DMAN.... how is what Bloomberg trying to legislate regarding limiting the size of soda supposed to be a liberal idea or liberalism?
Wouldn't liberals be more apt to say 'do what ever.... your life man'? Isn't what Bloomberg trying to do more of a conservative thing i.e. trying to put controls on, constricting, uptight, or restricting the lives of others whether they like it or not?
I am getting all confused about this liberal label thing in posts, because wouldn't to be liberal would actual suggest ....freedom, liberation, free from, less constricting or not constricting, broad minded, open to, etc sort of thing....?
I don't know whether Bloomberg is a conservative or a liberal and don't really care. But when one starts restricting the choice and freedom of others even if it is supposedly for their own good and worse you have to get drastic enough to try to pass a law to do it, especially as it pertains to soda size, then this sets up a slippery slope of the sort that tends to snowball into other areas and things in peoples lives.
Where will it end, what next to go on the restriction blocks? What you read or whether it is paper back/ hard cover versus an Ipad?
Amazing that polititians want to regulate soda size etc yet want to do away with rules, regulations and oversight of things that are far more important like the air, water, sea etc...?. Is this one of those "So what if fracking lights up your water at home.... that is ok because it is not soda in a big big cup" moment? LOL
The Bloomberg mandate on soda size is an outrage. It is governmental interference in individual life and decisions, and represents a very dangerous, slippery slope. Why is everyone so concerned about how to label him? Shouldn't we be think for ourselves, and stop following some faceless "leader" wearing a republican or democratic team captain shirt as they tell us how to think, and who to attack because they are wearing another team's color or label? WE the people have abdicated our thought to career politicians, and they are only interested in stealing everything they can get their hands on. Let's not worry about what label he is or is not wearing, and focus on the action and its consequences!
You are so right, Irespond, something must be done. I think banning large, sugary drinks is too mild a remedy. We need stronger action. Let's round up anybody whose BMI is over 25 and place them in a fat camp, where they'll be indoctrinated in the concepts of proper nutrition, forced to exercise, and not allowed to resume normal life until they can fit in normal sized clothes.
Those who cannot amend their ways will be eliminated for the public good.
Good idea, huh?
A person's weight is their own, personal responsibility, not that of his city, state of country. If you don't want to be fat, vote with your wallet, and don't buy fattening foods.
This proposed regulation in New York is for the birds.
Here's an idea. If obesity leads to health problems down the road, then those that choose to abuse their bodies with unhealthy foods should pay a higher percentage of their healthcare bill when it comes due.
"Government should not be making my decisions" should be synonymous with "I take responsibility for my decisions".
We chastise the government for not taking responsibility (spending more than it takes in) but we going crying to them to pay for our medical bills when we're older, after we've made a lifetime of bad choices, thinking they owe it to us because we think we're entitled to handouts.
Bloomberg said "We have an obligation to warn you when things aren't good for your health," and on that point I agree. Make a few warning videos about highly sweetened drinks to be aired as commercials, like NYC already does for smoking. But banning the sale of certain sizes of drinks? Talk about an extreme overreach of city government powers. Bloomy seems to think he can legislate the citizens of NYC into good health, with his ban on trans fats, his sticking bike lanes up everybody's backsides, and now his proposed ban on large soft drinks. But good health relies on two things, and both things are controlled by the individual, not the government: common sense and a willingness to want to be healthy. I believe everyone intuitively knows what is "good" and "bad" for you to ingest into your bodies. But if you lack common sense and choose to over-indulge in highly-sugared food and drink, and don't have the willingness to at least try to eat healthier, no amount of rules or regulations are going to change you. Again, I'm fine with running ads about the unhealthiness of sugary drinks, and I'm OK with posting the calorie count of foods served at restaurants and fast food joints. Provide that info to people and let them choose their fate. Anything more than that is nothing more than the furtherance of a nanny state, which the very vast majority of us don't want.
Oh, by the way, I'm perfectly fine with NYC's ban on smoking in public places. Smoking affects those around you immediately, and that is the big difference between that ban and the ban on sugary drinks.
@BZe1
NO liberals would NOT!!! liberatarians would! Liberals will keep believing they should decide how other live there lives and trying to keep taking from those that work and do to give to those that dont!
@dan42day
"Why do we still call these fascist control freaks "liberals"?"
...you do have a point , interesting
I like the idea; won't have to move to Beijing or Myanmar to experience govt. intrusion first hand
Another Repub trying to control your life. People live your own life and let me live mine. Noone has the right to judge anyone else.
Bloomberg is not a Republican, he's an independent.
he is not a republican he is a politician, first he was democrat and then he switched to republican when he knew it would get him elected then he switched to independent when he knew it would get him elected. I am sure he will switch again when he knows it will get him elected.
Sounds like a Repub.
Republicans are for smaller government kategus. Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are the most vocal about limiting our choices when it comes to food and beverages. Do they seem Republican to you?
I don't drink anything but unsweet tea or diet sodas. That's a personal choice I made on my own. I also used to only treat myself to some nice fattening donuts once a year on my birthday as a personal choice. Banning trans-fats was a low blow to my annual self indulgence. This is completely rediculous and setting a precedence for any party to start banning things they feel shouldn't be around. Whether that's coming from the far right or the far left, I don't like it. Just don't make me pay for whatever it is like Family Planning does.
Whenever I think of "Emperor" Bloomberg, I always think of the word "Schmuck" Not That I'm calling him one, it would violate the code. But I do think he's a bit arrogant. Maybe he'll send undercover agents to adjoining states to ensure they don't violate his rules?
Allen, the Republicans have been demonstrating all over this nation that they are not for smaller government, by introducing laws at a breakneck pace to limit personal choices that women make with their bodies, interfering with peoples right to receive services from their insurance companies that they have paid for, and limiting the rights of people to move about freely without fear of being accosted and having their 'papers' demanded. so try to tell the truth please. and Mrs. O and Ms. Clinton encouraging people to eat a healthier diet with less processed foods and more veggies does not in any way equate with being all about legislating your rights to be a big fat pig away, now does it? they want people to check themselves and respect their own bodies- Republicans want to pass laws about it. why oh why is it so difficult for Republicans to tell the truth?
Allen: "Republicans are for smaller government"
Yea right! Except when it comes to your bedroom, or your body, or who can you marry, or wars you don't want to fight or fund, etc. etc. etc. Smaller gov't my *@*zz!!!!
These type of laws are coming up in California a lot and the state is controlled by Democrats so it just isn't the Republicans that are writing up these laws. Obama and other Democrats want to heavily fund the health care plan by heavily taxing people that eat, drink, smoke and other activities to fund the health care plan. San Francisco has passed many of these types of ordinances banning how or what a restaurant can serve at the restaurant. Not long back it was on the ballot in California where it would be illegal to circumcise a child and if it passed they were planning on taking the initiative and having it made illegal in the US.
Bloomberg is a flaming lib and always has been. Was a democrat all his life until he realized that he couldn't win the NYC mayoral primary as a dem. He changed his party affiliation to republican in 2001 so he could be elected mayor. Having accomplished that, he dropped the republican in 2007 so he could run for another term as an independent. He's as slimy a politician as ever existed.
Sugar if perfectly fine in moderation, However, youll never see me drinking or eating anything with artificial sweetener in it, Yeah lets switch out natural sugar cane with a chemical, now that to me sounds like a bad decision, lately there are reports on younger people having heart attacks and other harm done by drinking diet sodas, not to sure about all that, however, thats what the studies are showing, that younger people that drink diet sodas are the ones having issues, dont take my word on it, just research it. Il stick with natural sugar, also, im not a big fan of corn syrup. i look at the facts that since around 1985 the rate of obesity has climbed. Happens to be the same time all the companies started changing to corn syrup to save money, Also the same time the government changed rules on sugar making the price skyrocket.
Bloomberg your an IDIOT. If you want to combat obesity, look to monsantos GMO's or processed foods. Eat real food like beef, veggies from a garden, not from a lab and see the difference. Maybe even some real raw milk.
I think the pee factor is involved in some way, as well.
they need the sugary drink to dull the pain from having to live in a police state.
People just don’t discipline themselves
so the big mama government must discipline us fat, stupid, lazy children. bad children, obey your big mama government or you will be sent to your room
Actually the problem is that the multitude of undisciplined people who drink the stuff are wreaking the healthcare system with their obesity. Soft Drink companies create these drink in the lab and know that people will want more. The bad part is that people just get bigger and bigger. So is it really a "choice" you're making to drink soft drinks or is it the sugar addiction that's created the habit. I think the latter is the culprit. I'm all for Mayor Bloomberg's approach and on top of that tax the heck out of sugary drinks similar to tobacco products. They provide zero nutrition.
Meteorite
The things you say have some merit.
The problem is, it isn't for you or the mayor to judge.
What about all those sugar treats from specialty stores? The new cupcakes with piles of sugar and candy on top? Or the thousands of doughnut shops everywhere? Or the cake shops, 31 flavor ice cream cakes? Or cake supply stores selling tons of hard frosting to roll out and make a dress for a doll cake? ETC. ETC.
Everything is bigger in Texas!! The ironic part is if youlook at the picture of Ms. Troia you she should not be casting stones.
I also disagree with her theory that larger portions is what caused the increase in weight. I have noticed that my portions I once got at restaurants and the supermarket have gone down (not up), while I pay more. The reason for this epidemic is the rise in technology. Since the 80's, technology has made our lives easier and easier, but at a cost. This is the cost.
That's because you're obviously wealthy and eating at higher-end restaurants. Take a look at the portion size at TGIFridays, McDonald's, Applebees.
Portion sizes have gotten smaller so you will SUPERSIZE!
Most restaurants serve meals that in actuality the portion size is larger than what we should be eating. Plus the ways that most restaurants cook it add to the calorie intake that we should be using. Also, I really don't know if technology has made our lives easier but in actuality it has made us bigger coach potatoes as we watch more television and play more video games.
Yeah, I looked at her picture and thought the same thing. She's no light-weight herself.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. Don't we, as a society, have much more important things to focus on?
They want to get a handle on obesity, they should ban TV's, video games, notebooks and thyroid problems.
Don't forget Prednisone.
I just went to Jack in the Box yesterday and ordered a medium drink. They offered me a large for only $1.00. Not "$1.00 extra" but JUST ONE DOLLAR. WTF? Jack in the Box is encouraging obesity.
Since fries are fattening , I suppose he will next want to regulate that as well....only a dozen per meal and no ketchup of course.
no, no. ketchup is fine. it's a vegetable, remember? ;-)
I do think cola drinks should have the same taxes as alchoholic beverages, cigarettes and anything that can be labeled Sin Taxes then anyone drinking colas will be sinners. I partake in all.
Wouldn't that be racist to all the minorities who like Skittles and a big ol iced tea? Just sayin....
I don't know if this would be racist unless you are being sarcastic just because of the Zimmerman case. A little over a year ago I worked for a school district and I really couldn't believe how many young students would bring into the classroom these huge drinks that they had bought from the convenience stores down the street from the schools. My neighbor that couldn't afford paying his rent nor his utilities could go and buy a case of beer for him to drink during the day along with the numerous soda fountain drinks that his kids and wife bought during the day. My neighbor and most of these kids at the schools buying the sodas are white.
People would be able to afford to eat better if these conservative lawmakers paid their fair share of taxes and paid people better wages. We also need to stop Conservatives from handing out corporate welfare for things that kill people like Corn Sugar, Pinks Slime, and genetically modified Whole Wheat instead of subsidizing fresh fruits and vegetables. This constant shrouding of Conservative Big Government laws only forces people to unwillingly spend more money to be able to feed their families healthier foods. We have done things the conservative way for over 50 years; why aren't we changing things to benefit everyone in America instead of ensuring that the rich keep profits high at the expense of our health and prosperity?
working for america - I would have to disagree with you about your statement that people would be able to eat better if conservative lawmakers paid their fair share bit...look at the wealthiest lawmakers and most are Democrats. People elect to eat out at McDonalds instead of staying home to cook a nutritious meal that would cost them less than the meal they just ate at McDonalds. People elect not to eat the nutritious meals at home. Not long back some high end chefs were given the chance to nutritious cook meals for a week using only the money that they would get from food stamps. One of them came up with three meals a day for a whole week just using the amount of money they would get from food stamps. The other three or so came close to the amount but spent a few more cents and dollars. Go to the stores and you will see people buying ready made food/meal products that are high calories with lots of preservatives and other junk that we shouldn't be eating and the costs are not cheap dollar-wise.
So, while I agree withyou that people need to prepare nutritious meals at home, several factors come into play here. Primarily, the increase over the past several years of both dad and mom working outside of the home. Tired people fall prey to easy prepared foods. And the food industry helps them along with more choices - and often of poorer nutritional value than what they would get from fresh home made foods. Also, interesting stat about the wealthiest members of Congress. While of the top ten, only three are Republican, they have more wealth among them than the seven Democrats. Also, none of them, Dem or Rep, appear to be overweight.
It would be interesting to see how many fat people are against the ban and how many skinny. I'm just about the right weight and love the idea of the ban. I'm sick of paying the same for healthcare as someone who refuses to try and improve their health. I watch a 350 pound woman in our office put half a stick of butter in her sugary instant oatmeal every morning while I'm stirring berries and honey into my no sugar added yogurt and tipping the scale at 130 (5'8")
Not your business. Your taxes are going to much worse than that.
I'm sick of holier-than-thou people deciding that we have to live like them.
Well I'm sick of obese people deciding how much I pay in healthcare.
Welcome to nationalized health care. Every decision involving your body now has to be unilaterally decided as a one-size-fits-all and funded by everyone whether they agree or not. Just wait til a Republican supermajority comes in and starts making their amendments to this pandoras box.
YOU DON'T PAY FOR THEM! Your health insurance is based on risk. If you are obese you pay more. If you smoke you pay more. If you don't, you pay less. Unless we get a single payer system where we all pay exactly the same whether we are young or old, healthy or not, we pay based on our individual risk.
Currently at my very large, global company, everyone pays the same. Next year I will get a small discount because I don't smoke. But, for the past 10 years, I've been paying the same. Other companies might be different.
Hils - you need to get a clue. Being obese and having diabetes/cardiac problems is now accepted. They are only hurting themselves, right??? (not really)
Then you must be really upset at those women having babies and those damn people getting expensive cancer. They are all driving up costs on poor perfect you.
News flash HilsWorking: your premium wouldn't change even if people were less obese. The Health Insurance industry is interested in making as much money as they can so they can line the pockets of their CEOs. They're not going to tell you "Oh, the nation's obesity is down, so we're going to give you some savings!" Obesity could go down 50% in the next 2 years, and your premiums would not go down a dime.
That's the first I have heard of that. Why were left leaning media sources saying exactly the opposite then? http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501563_162-5197447.html
If this was one of those things Obama just stated in some speech, well that means nothing since he said he would sign an executive order banning the funding of abortions if some Republican swing voters would vote for the bill. Now he's fighting against blocking taxpayer funding to family planning abortions. He also said we would get to keep our current plans and then starts dictating plans like the Catholic church have start funding abortions and birth control. I trust nothing he says.
Cancer is different (unless you're a smoker) I'm all for the group supporting people with cancer, broken legs, ALS, things that are less controllable. Smoking and overeating have no good outcomes.
A big portion of the healthcare expense is from how many people that do have insurance that go to the doctor just because they have insurance. My wife use to work for the state and the people that were going to the doctor the most were the skinny individuals as they had health insurance. They would go to the doctor the day they started to get the sniffles. All of these visits get reported and billed to the insurance company and to cover the expenses the insurance companies have to raise the rates. I read an article where a number of doctors hated the tv shows like House as they were seeing a rise in healthy patients coming in to see them with ailments that they had watched from the tv show and they were demanding that the doctor run the same tests that were done from the tv show. Doctors are running the tests as they are afraid of being sued and what if the patient did have what they thought. There are so many reasons why healthcare is expensive and it just isn't because of obesity.
HilsWorking
That's called Obamacare. Which Democrats voted for.
Hm. Obamacare. Is that why the cost of my last mammogram went from $150 (2011) to $426 (2012)?
Obama promised us that healthcare would go down because of the plan but it hasn't. Right after the plan was passed a few individuals that are advisers for him made a fortune of of medical stocks that they owned as they went up in value right after the plan was passed.
I just wish the judgmental health nuts would STFU.
Pause, breath in, and think logically:
Your health insurance is costing a couple of thousand a year, and obese people may add $10-20 to that. BUT, they will die sooner! That will save tons in Medicare and Social Security, leaving you so much more secure and better off in your old age.
So be smart, and offer a large soda to your obese friends. And remember, it is longevity that kills budgets!
Ignorance on the internet, body habitus is only one factor in longevity. The food companies put sugar in everything, why just pick the drinks? If the government is going to get involved stop adding sugar to foods and for god's sake make color additives illegal. Pause, breathe in think and know your time on this Earth is not regulated by body fat, also realize our government spends billions on the implements of war, there's your true financial sinkhole but hey you go back to blaming people for living, that seems to be your deal.
There is a natural inclination of leftists (and, yes, Bloomberg has proven to be a leftist) to control people's lives. Right leaning people may too often drift into areas that they shouldn't (such as sexual mores) but Leftists go after much more. They want to control the foods you eat, the lighting you prefer, the kind of toilet you can buy, whether you choose to use your seat belts in your car or wear a helmet on a motorcycle or if you can smoke in your own house. These are all nice issues to suggest and, indeed, they may have merit, but they are issues that people should be able to decide for themselves rather than have it dictated by the political class.
Rightest also want to tell you what to do also.
I think I admitted that. But the list of leftist control issues is pretty large.
So, rightests want to tell you what to do in the privacy of your bedroom and the leftists want to tell you want to do to improve health, society, and the environment. How do the leftists live with themselves?
nobody wants to control what people eat. they want to control the out of control health care costs we are facing because of all of the extremely unhealthy habits, a large one being eating.
no one cares about lighting or toilets, they do care about the limited resources our planet has.
seat belts and helmets save lives, but again if you want to lose yours fine, but not at the expense of our health care system trying to save it because you dont want to wear a seat belt or helmet.
i dont know of any limit on smoking in your own house, but again our health care system.
ultimate freedom would be nice. but the bottom line is people are selfish and dont want to open their eyes to the reality that we live in a community and your selfish and wasteful behavior puts an unnecessary strain on the community.
until people can be responsible and make intelligent decisions we have to ban things that are abused. unfortunately the society we live in rewards stupidity so i don't see things changing any time soon.
leftists want to tell you what to do in the privacy of your bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. Oh, but its for your own good - right?
Yes the do try to tell people what to do in the bedroom and telling people they need to use birth control unless they're planning for a baby is so invasive! Because not only do I love paying high healthcare costs for obese people, I love paying for teenagers to be on welfare with their 4 illegitimate kids.
Rightist have a problem with abortion - not contraception. Rightists have a problem with forcing religions to provide free contraception against their faith. Rightists are not thrilled with forcing all insurors to provide free contraception. They are not opposed to contraception.
Jebjoe - Perfect!
Q22 - The rightests want to tell two gay people in love and committed to each other, who treat each other with love and respect, that they can't marry and go behind closed doors together because they don't agree with how they make love. And as for the going against their faith comment..."religious" people get divorced, have affairs, and commit murders - isn't that against their religion? the Catholic church being against contraception but allowing their "celibate" priests to RAPE little boys is absurdity at it's finest or rather most disgusting.
Seat belt and helmet laws aren't comparable to this. If you are driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you have to abide by safety regulations. A driver or passenger ejected from their vehicle can compound an accident and put others at risk.
HilsWorking -
"...because they don't agree with how they make love."
And you do? Fisting appeals to you, does it? You fond of gerbils? Their so-called love making is beyond disgusting. It makes a decent person want to vomit.
Here I sit, waiting for my truthful comment to be stricken for being hateful and intolerant.........
Hence the reason why we need more independent moderates in government. People who recognize the good points that the right make and the good points the left make while discarding the insanity that both provide.
What a BS comment, the right doesn't seek control? Oh just vaginas and child birth, STFU idiot.
Pugface - Straight people can be just as filthy and disgusting as gay people, if not more. I have been asked to do things (and turned them down straight away) that I would NEVER have even thought would be possible by "straight" church-going "upstanding" men. They were beyond perverted. So, your argument is just silly and shows that you don't educate yourself before you disagree with someone.
I for one am sick of paying for obese people's health care costs. If you want to be fat and eat yourself to death, that's fine...but do it on your own dime. Since we are such a fat nation...and getting fatter by the day....if the government doesn't do something,who will?
I'm sick of watching the results of bed hopping (abused and neglected kids, abortion, etc), so let's not go there.
A fat person who keels over of a heart attack at 50 costs us nothing and we get to keep their social security contributions. I don't like the idea of anyone deciding what kind of lifestyle I am allowed to have or if I can occasionally indulge in something. Wait until something you enjoy from time to time gets banned because some other busybody thinks it is no good.
That's interesting considering you're not paying for anyone's health care but your own, genius. Typical liberal, oblivious to the world around them. If your messiah implemented a single payer system, then you'd be on to something. Liberals are always either trying to take away freedom from someone else or they're willingly giving up their own. Sad little parasites. I wonder why a net 3.5 million people left NY, just kidding, it's no mystery.
@Q22: thats not what happens. fat people dont just keel over. they have myriads of health problems requiring extensive medical treatment and medication. two of the biggest taxes on medicare and the health system are treating diabeetus and cardiovascular disease, ie fatty diseases.
You see buster, that conversation is already on a very thin line, in today's world. I for one think that strict laws need to be passed prohibiting the refusal to hire "obese" people. Who's standards would everybody be going off of anyway, the governments? (Wow, the government really is trying to ease the "usefulness to society" and "no usefulness to society" labels onto peoples minds for thinking (thanks to Obama's healthcare law [which by the way, should very shortly be shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court]). There are already businesses in the U.S. creeping in on regulating the weight of their employees.
Where you are losing site of the ball is that being overweight has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of job performance you will give at work. Seriously, I mean think about that.
Remember people, they view us as weak. They feel like they can just throw anything on us, and it will stick. So far, they have a pretty good track record. Just look at how they threw us all those TARP funds and made us believe that if they didn't spend the money, all ^&#%^&# %$&^ would break loose. And what about all those auto industries that got bailed out, because if they didn't, we would all be going down the toilet? (I remember something about Ford not needing any money, well nevermind) Today all they can tell us is that the rich need to pay more ---- and they are taking this country's economy in the wrong direction by doing that.
Look at the President's main line today, which all he can do is repeat over and over again, because he's got nothing to stand on, "People, if we hadn't done what we did, then we all would have been a lot worse off."
How can you vote for this man again, I mean really?
The average life expectancy of a smoker is about 65, The average life expectancy of an obese person is about 68. That means that more than half of smokers and half of the obese never reach retirement, never collect social security and never tax the medicare system. We might be in worse shape if more people lived into their 80s. If you want to look at the economics of the issue you have to look at this aspect too.
Nobody is paying for anybody else's health care costs!
Besides, there are people who get lung cancer who never smoked a cigarette and people with juvenile diabetes and people who are obese because of the drugs they have to take. And there are people who get heart disease because it runs in their family.
How are you planning to differentiate between them?
Go back to being pissed at prison costs and leave the obese alone. Skinny people do all kinds of stupid things to ruin their health too, you're just creating a subdivision out of your own ass. Oh and fisheads, wanting others to go without healthcare sounds more like your clubhouse, then again human decency should dwell in both camps, we are all Americans. The melting pot does not mean melt the desires of others to promote and maintain your own idioms.
Seems like Bloomberg is always telling people how to live (or trying to force them to do what he wants). Pity he seems to be wrong so often .......
Well, I can avoid NYC just as easy as I can avoid San Francisco. If these cities want to have micro-dictatorships perhaps they will figure out how to make up for the loss of tourism. It's not that I really want the big drink, it's the idea of someone telling me I can't have it, as though I were a child.
I haven't had any sort of sugared soda in eight years and maybe drink a Coke Zero about once a month. This gives me an urge to go get a 64 oz Big Gulp. Just because I can.
(actually, it doesn't. I'm shaky just at the idea of that much sugar!!)
to everyone against limiting/banning foods proven to be unhealthy: are you also against the ban on cocaine, marijuana, pcp, heroine, etc.? if you aren't you are a hypocrite.
just like the crack head cant stop doing crack and destroying his body, you fatties cant stop shoving bad food in your face as you ride down the path to diabeetus, cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. you cannot control yourselves, so the government will, for the benefit of all of society.
People are going to do what they do regardless of what you think so just give it up.
i guess you are right. lets just repeal all laws and regulations on everything. think of the money we will save by not having to jail people or employee law enforcement agencies. im sure whatever downsides there will be are minor in comparison, i mean they are already doing whatever they want regardless.
jebjoe
People get those diseases from other causes also, not just because they are obese.
Quit trying to justify this invasive law just because you don't like fat people.
Perhaps if we ate on a European schedule; an hour for lunch, two hours for dinner... we'd be able to eat full satisfying meals instead of grabbing low density, high calorie food???
soooooo.....banning anything over 16 ozs (in sugary drinks) will happen....and then what? people can buy TWO 16 oz drinks. No big deal.
What a waste of time/money trying to get this through! lol
you suppose they'll limit refills? Can you buy an 8 oz cup and fill it up more than 2 times? Will there be a patrolman in the lobby to taze people trying to get more than 16 oz of soda? This really could be a way to create meaningful jobs in NYC.
LOL! The cup will simply disentagrate after the second refill.
"No really, this second 16 ounce drink is for my friend in the car."
They'll start making people be escorted to their vehicles and their homes! bhahaha
Wow! Why dont we ban driving, it kills thousands every year. Why dont we ban walking that way we cannot get hit by a car or trip on a curb. Why dont we ban steak, it could get lodged in our throat. etc.......
I see common sense has already been banned.
I don't know if you can make your own decisions. We have speedlimits and driving rules to govern how people should drive. We have sidewalks and crosswalks to govern how they cross the street. People get hurt driving when they break the law or behave stupidly. The same goes with eating complete crap all of the time... You get diabetes and have cardiac arrest, which then increase healthcare costs for everyone
This is a silly proposal.
...But I really would like the option to buy a small drink that is actually small. That option has pretty much disappeared. When I was in elementry school, a "small" drink was about 8 ounces. By the time I was in college, smalls had grown to about 12 oz. Now, it can be hard to find a small that is less than 20 ounces. When I'm ready for the boneyard, people will likely be lugging around 2-litre "small" drinks!
If the food police catch someone with a supersize sugary drink, will the punishment be 20 minutes on the treadmill at police headquarters?
Remember who started all this "food police" crap. Her name is Mooch-elle Zero. So while she chows down on $100 a Pound Steak and $200 Champagne in Our While House, she tells you not to eat french fries or drink soda. Blooming Idiot-Berg is just marching to the beat of Hussein Zero's not so petite wife.
Alan, your post is disgusting.
Alan, I salute your post.
JD in SD and anyone else who sit in the same saddle,
Really?,
How many of these folks will depend on OUR governments SYSTEM to cove ANY portion of their healthcare?
Every situation in the world today revolves around accountability in some way shape or form so take that argument somewhere else. Time for us all to be accountable and think about what we say and do or very soon mute wil be the only argument!!! Tired of all this uneducated me, me, me crap! Freedom is not FREE!
peace
Steve
So you limit the size of sodas and people will buy a second drink, get bigger and New York will get richer, and land fills will fill up quicker. Way to go Mayor Bloomberg. Smart thinking.????????????????