Big Gulp, Meet Big Brother

[bunnys]

Outrage? Every day in the news there are hundreds of stories that (should) generate more outrage than Bloomberg's latest anti-obesity posturing. We live in the land of Citizens United, NDAA, Super/Spooky PACs, enormous subsidies to petroleum companies and tax writeoffs for businesses moving jobs offshore.....the planet is going to roast, and one in seven of us here are already starving. We live in an asylum; I don't have the brainspace to worry too much about the slippery constitutional slope of banning gigantic sugary drinks. Of course it's a ridiculous thing to focus on. But to expect that New Yorkers should storm city hall with torches and pitchforks might be expecting a lot. Most of them are probably just thinking, "Well, I've been meaning to cut back on that sh*t anyway." If they care at all.

+1000
Come back to me when you have a real idea to do something really significant.

[Gregg]

Part of my objection to this approach to obesity is that it assumes weight management is all about food choices. If the government really cares about a healthier population, how about spending on parks, or sports facillities, or public transit (which encourages walking), or walkable neighborhoods? That's where the power of government could really accomplish something private citizens can't. (I can choose my own menu items, thank you.) I live in one of those cities which is always on the "most obese" lists. Do we have a local food culture that features unhealthy foods? Sure. But we also have weather that keeps people indoors at least five months a year, and terrible transit, and infrastructure that makes it very difficult to walk anywhere, and way too few options for exercise, especially for our poorer residents.

Spot on AmeliaJane. I'd go farther than that. Why don't we pay people to workout/lose weight? $XX for every pound someone loses and keeps off for 6 months. $XX at they end of every month they maintain a healthy weight. $XX for every hour they spend in the gym. $XX every time you bike to work. Etc. Yea, yea it sounds kind of silly at first, but if you look at what obesity supposedly costs there is plenty of money available to divert to fund it. Let the government figure out that the result would be higher productivity and longevity on the earning (tax paying) side of retirement and they will figure out a way to get it done. Plus there wouldn't be any griping about infringing on individual choices since it could be voluntary. Incentives sometimes work, prohibition doesn't.

[CathyA]

Seems like if we continue to have an ever enlarging number of low-socio-economic/poorly educated people, the Big Gulp is going to be wanted/craved. Maybe we're focusing on the wrong aspect of who actually buys these sugary drinks all the time..........
But that's what America seems to be about these days. Its all so complex and convoluted.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't want to subsidize gym visits or losing weight, I don't even particularly want to ban big gulps. I would like very much if the government actually set some limits on the endless adulteration of the food supply (no chocolate cake containing sugar is not an adulteration, it's a recipe, though not particularly healthy of course. Adulterations are the sneaky stuff: pink slime sneaking into meat, GMO's sneaking into the food supply, BST fed to cows, etc. etc.). Stuff is allowed to be done to food here than is allowed in almost no other countries.

[Gregg]

Outrage?

Well, yes! I am personally outraged that politicians at any level would even consider wasting time trying to make personal choices for me. If Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, either of my Senators, our County Judge or the head of my HOA can't find anything more important than that to do I will happily kick their sorry ass right out the door. Not only is it none of their business whatsoever if I want to get fat drinking gallons of Pepsi every day, there are far bigger issues facing this country than my potential diabetes (and you named off but a few good ones puglogic).

[CathyA]

Calm down Gregg, and finish your Big Gulp.
(just kidding......)

[winterberry]

I would like to have the option of buying a "small gulp" at the minimart on my way home from work. Often when I'm looking for something to drink the only options are ridiculously large bottles of whatever. So it's fine with me if the government wants to intervene on my behalf by not allowing big business to exploit my thirst by forcing me to buy more than I need or want.

[catherine]

So, what is your opinion of the law requiring calorie counts on menu items? I'm in California on business and they have it, and I think NY has it, too.

I love it. I've always wondered why I didn't lose weight on the road despite being MORE active and eating LESS when on the road. So I was doing research in CA a few months back and my colleague and I stopped in a restaurant for lunch. I wanted a salad (healthy, right?) and all of them on the menu were over 1000 calories!!!! I wound up picking a random thing off the "healthy" section... for 550 calories.

That's the kind of hidden truth I referred to earlier... At least if we KNOW what the calorie count is, we can make informed choice. But without this information, we are just victims of ignorance.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I make use of those calorie counts (to order lower calorie items) and really they are quite useful. Not because I count daily calories - I don't, and I don't particularly want to become weight obsessed etc., but I mean yea 1000 calories or more for a meal, that's JUST *OBVIOUSLY* too many calories to consume in a single meal for most females! And when I consume those big meals I feel uncomfortably stuffed afterward! And that many calories is something you'd be unlikely to get from a homemade meal. Ideally of course I try to bring my lunch, it's far far better nutritionally, but I guess I'm slipping up about 1 day a week now and end up eating lunch out (well slipping up includes the days I end up eating the lunch I brought for breakfast and then go out for lunch :\ ).

[CathyA]

The problem is, is that there are too many people who have no common sense, no control, no knowledge (or interest in) health issues, etc., etc. Should the government try to intervene to force people to be healthier, or just continue to have the masses pay ridiculous healthcare costs, because so many people are obese, diabetic, unhealthy?? Should there not have been a seatbelt law? Was this interfering too much?