| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2012 12:40:54 AM · #1426 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
So are they going to stand over your shoulder and make sure you don't buy two or three soft drinks at a time? |
That was my first reaction. The law's targeted at restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, etc. Bottom line; if you go to the movies with your kids you're gonna spend a whole LOT more on sodas since you can't just share out one big one anymore...
I mean, I'm reasonably supportive of efforts to try to get kids, especially, out of the habit of drinking sugar solution in 48-oz doses. But, c'mon... This is a grandstand play, it's not going to have any substantive effect, but it's one more serious step along the road towards Big Brother, isn't it?
R. |
I've always thought a good starting point might be a requirement that the number of calories be printed in big bold numbers somewhere where you couldn't miss it (on the container, on the menu, etc.). If you knew that that 32-ounce soda contained 2,000 calories, it might make you think twice. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 12:58:31 AM · #1427 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
So are they going to stand over your shoulder and make sure you don't buy two or three soft drinks at a time? |
That was my first reaction. The law's targeted at restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, etc. Bottom line; if you go to the movies with your kids you're gonna spend a whole LOT more on sodas since you can't just share out one big one anymore...
I mean, I'm reasonably supportive of efforts to try to get kids, especially, out of the habit of drinking sugar solution in 48-oz doses. But, c'mon... This is a grandstand play, it's not going to have any substantive effect, but it's one more serious step along the road towards Big Brother, isn't it?
R. |
I've always thought a good starting point might be a requirement that the number of calories be printed in big bold numbers somewhere where you couldn't miss it (on the container, on the menu, etc.). If you knew that that 32-ounce soda contained 2,000 calories, it might make you think twice. |
No. Health conscious people will already know. The people that are being 'targeted' by this either don't care, or don't WANT to care. You could put "THIS WILL MAKE YOU FAT" in huge bold letters that give you an electric shock if you touch it, and people that choose these kinds of choices on such a regular basis that it will cause obesity will simply learn to live with the electric shock. Bottom line is that it isn't up to the people OFFERING the food, it is up to the people CHOOSING the food, and until we get away from this victim culture that we've long purveyed, it'll never change. We have to stop always making it someone else's fault.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 01:05:06 AM · #1428 |
| This is quite off-topic, but obesity has two components, and I suspect the massive change in activity levels introduced by computers and video games since the late 1970's has played a larger role than drinks that have been around for much longer. You don't see overweight people on bicycles regardless of what they drink. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 01:19:02 AM · #1429 |
1. High-fructose corn syrup is processed differently by the body than sucrose or more complex carbohydrates (complex sugars, starches, and alcohols).
2. Research shows that the portion size offered has an influence over the amount ultimately consumed.
3. Most of the cost of soft drinks is in the packaging, shipping, and advertising, so a "large" for $2 (costing the restaurant maybe 40 cents) is way more profitable than a "small" for $1 (costing 35 cents).
4. The proposed law does not limit anyone from ordering more than one beverage, so people are free to abuse their health if they want, but it should be a deliberate, conscious choice, not the "default" setting.
5. The average 12 oz. can of soda has the equivalent of 8-10 teaspoons of sugar -- think about making a glass of iced tea, and whether you'd need to (or even could) put that much sugar in it, or whether you could even taste the difference once it gets beyond 2-3 teaspoons ... |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 01:30:17 AM · #1430 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
1. High-fructose corn syrup is processed differently by the body than sucrose or more complex carbohydrates (complex sugars, starches, and alcohols).
2. Research shows that the portion size offered has an influence over the amount ultimately consumed.
3. Most of the cost of soft drinks is in the packaging, shipping, and advertising, so a "large" for $2 (costing the restaurant maybe 40 cents) is way more profitable than a "small" for $1 (costing 35 cents).
4. The proposed law does not limit anyone from ordering more than one beverage, so people are free to abuse their health if they want, but it should be a deliberate, conscious choice, not the "default" setting.
5. The average 12 oz. can of soda has the equivalent of 8-10 teaspoons of sugar -- think about making a glass of iced tea, and whether you'd need to (or even could) put that much sugar in it, or whether you could even taste the difference once it gets beyond 2-3 teaspoons ... |
1. So make a law banning high-fructose corn syrup instead?
2. and?
3. Companies are always going to want to profit. It's up to US to decide if we want to let them.
4. So, basically, rendering the proposed law useless to begin with. Getting a large is not a 'default' setting. They still offer different sizes. There is still a personal choice at play here.
5. What does this have to do with anything? If you're suggesting that we need laws to protect ourselves from marketing, we've already lost. |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 11:38:59 AM · #1431 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You don't see overweight people on bicycles regardless of what they drink. |
Sure you do... visit any gym and there are lots of them... particularly at the beginning of the New Year. :O)
Ray
|
|
|
|
06/02/2012 11:45:58 AM · #1432 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've always thought a good starting point might be a requirement that the number of calories be printed in big bold numbers somewhere where you couldn't miss it (on the container, on the menu, etc.). If you knew that that 32-ounce soda contained 2,000 calories, it might make you think twice. |
Don't know about the USA (albeit I should I guess), but in Canada they have had the most graphic of images on cigarette packages for several years now, taxed them to the hilt, and even required merchants to hide them from view and guess what... people still smoke.
In addition, one can no longer smoke in the workplace, restaurants, outdoor patios, some parks and golf courses and some still persist.
The numbers however are going down.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-06-02 11:46:41. |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 12:02:21 PM · #1433 |
Over here they put a 1.5% tax on the advertising budgets of companies that do not encourage healthy eating, they also banned soda and snack machines in schools and banned all misleading food advertising everywhere. This has been in place six years and has lowered the already low rate of obesity by 6%. At its worst the obesity level was that of America in 1970, food here is a really important part of the way of life, people eat a lot and meals seem to last forever. We can eat much better and much heathier, what it costs the government to start the ball rolling would be made up ten fold in the long run, it's obvious.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2012 12:16:32 PM · #1434 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
So are they going to stand over your shoulder and make sure you don't buy two or three soft drinks at a time? |
That was my first reaction. The law's targeted at restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, etc. Bottom line; if you go to the movies with your kids you're gonna spend a whole LOT more on sodas since you can't just share out one big one anymore...
I mean, I'm reasonably supportive of efforts to try to get kids, especially, out of the habit of drinking sugar solution in 48-oz doses. But, c'mon... This is a grandstand play, it's not going to have any substantive effect, but it's one more serious step along the road towards Big Brother, isn't it?
R. |
I've always thought a good starting point might be a requirement that the number of calories be printed in big bold numbers somewhere where you couldn't miss it (on the container, on the menu, etc.). If you knew that that 32-ounce soda contained 2,000 calories, it might make you think twice. |
And this will be another law that's about money. For instance, if I take my son to the movies we buy one large soda and split it because the price difference of buying 2 smalls vs. 1 large is well over $3.25. Unbelievable. Multiply that by the number of people at the movies each night and I think it adds up to quite a bit of money.
No. Health conscious people will already know. The people that are being 'targeted' by this either don't care, or don't WANT to care. You could put "THIS WILL MAKE YOU FAT" in huge bold letters that give you an electric shock if you touch it, and people that choose these kinds of choices on such a regular basis that it will cause obesity will simply learn to live with the electric shock. Bottom line is that it isn't up to the people OFFERING the food, it is up to the people CHOOSING the food, and until we get away from this victim culture that we've long purveyed, it'll never change. We have to stop always making it someone else's fault. |
And this will be another law that's about money and taking away personal choice. For instance, if I take my son to the movies we buy one large soda and split it because the price difference of buying 2 smalls vs. 1 large is well over $3.25. Unbelievable. Multiply that by the number of people at the movies each night and I think it adds up to quite a bit of money. A small is $3.25 (16 oz), a medium is $3.50 (32 oz) and a large is $3.75 (64 oz). Now we never actually finish it, but it nice to have it when you're eating popcorn. I often see larger family's buy 1 large drink and 1 large popcorn to share. I guess they'll be priced out of even going if they have to buy 6 or 7 small sodas. But hey, I guess it's healthier for them to not go in the first place, right? They should just stay home and read a book.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2012 03:23:54 PM · #1435 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
... I guess it's healthier for them to not go in the first place, right? They should just stay home and read a book. |
Actually No, but walking, jogging, riding a bike might help.
I was in real good shape till my mid fifties and played competitive hockey till mid forties. I never owned a car when I lived in large cities and walked everywhere until I moved to the country. Bit hard to do now since work is some 40 miles away and the nearest store is at least 5 miles away.
Were it not for my physical handicap, I do believe I would bike into the village, but I can't.
I am trying not to generalize here, but I do see people taking their cars to pick up the mail at the end of the street and to be honest, there are some whom I believe only get exercise when they jump to conclusions. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 04:38:47 PM · #1436 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
A small is $3.25 (16 oz), a medium is $3.50 (32 oz) and a large is $3.75 (64 oz). |
Perhaps your outrage should be directed at the fact that they are charging you $3.25 for $0.17 worth (retail value) of soda in the first place ... and this is the marketing ploy which is leading to obesity -- of course you'll buy (and consume) the bigger one with that kind of price differential ... if (with proportional pricing) the 64oz cost $13.00 (4 times the cost of the 16 oz) you'd almost certainly buy the smaller one, and be less likely to end up with Type II diabetes by age 12 ... |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 04:41:23 PM · #1437 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... to be honest, there are some whom I believe only get exercise when they jump to conclusions. :O)
Ray |
There are also those who abandon personal responsibility and take a leap of faith ... and the rare soul who rises to the occasion. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 04:49:49 PM · #1438 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kelli:
A small is $3.25 (16 oz), a medium is $3.50 (32 oz) and a large is $3.75 (64 oz). |
Perhaps your outrage should be directed at the fact that they are charging you $3.25 for $0.17 worth (retail value) of soda in the first place ... and this is the marketing ploy which is leading to obesity -- of course you'll buy (and consume) the bigger one with that kind of price differential ... if (with proportional pricing) the 64oz cost $13.00 (4 times the cost of the 16 oz) you'd almost certainly buy the smaller one, and be less likely to end up with Type II diabetes by age 12 ... |
But that's the thing. I'm 48, and while I do have other health issues, diabetes isn't one of them. My children have always been active, and never overweight. I control what they eat (well, my daughter is an adult now). But they were always served healthy snacks, fruits & vegetables, instead of sweets. Water with fruit juice instead of soda or juice. Except for the rare occasions like when we went to the movies or an amusement park. Then we would always get the largest servings and share. It's cheaper. It's always been cheaper, and probably always will be. Yes, I realize the movie theater is price gouging, but I can't control that. If your children are fat it's your fault. Period. |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 04:51:08 PM · #1439 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've always thought a good starting point might be a requirement that the number of calories be printed in big bold numbers somewhere where you couldn't miss it (on the container, on the menu, etc.). If you knew that that 32-ounce soda contained 2,000 calories, it might make you think twice. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
No. Health conscious people will already know. The people that are being 'targeted' by this either don't care, or don't WANT to care. You could put "THIS WILL MAKE YOU FAT" in huge bold letters that give you an electric shock if you touch it, and people that choose these kinds of choices on such a regular basis that it will cause obesity will simply learn to live with the electric shock. Bottom line is that it isn't up to the people OFFERING the food, it is up to the people CHOOSING the food, and until we get away from this victim culture that we've long purveyed, it'll never change. We have to stop always making it someone else's fault. |
I didn't intend to point fingers or make it someone else's fault. Of course, one has to take personal responsibility for one's personal habits. But I think you have to take the long view in terms of how and when people change. I've personally changed a lot over the last 20 years. I've gone from being a smoker to being a non-smoker. I've gone from being a meat eater to being a vegetarian, back to eating meat every now and then when I met my husband, who is unable to give up meat, but at least I've convinced him to buy locally grown, free-range meat that isn't injected with all variety of hormones and antibiotics and god knows what else (and where the animals aren't being routinely tortured). And I've become an obsessive label reader, avoiding the high-fructose corn syrup, high fat and high sodium whenever possible. Information never hurt anyone. And just because someone isn't willing or able to change their behavior today doesn't mean they won't change tomorrow.
Message edited by author 2012-06-02 16:52:00. |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 04:57:04 PM · #1440 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Over here they put a 1.5% tax on the advertising budgets of companies that do not encourage healthy eating, they also banned soda and snack machines in schools and banned all misleading food advertising everywhere. This has been in place six years and has lowered the already low rate of obesity by 6%. At its worst the obesity level was that of America in 1970, food here is a really important part of the way of life, people eat a lot and meals seem to last forever. We can eat much better and much heathier, what it costs the government to start the ball rolling would be made up ten fold in the long run, it's obvious. |
I agree, it's obvious. |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 05:55:22 PM · #1441 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... to be honest, there are some whom I believe only get exercise when they jump to conclusions. :O)
Ray |
There are also those who abandon personal responsibility and take a leap of faith ... and the rare soul who rises to the occasion. ;-) |
...and as I tell the young folks at work, people tend to notice the arse holes a lot more when working their way UP the ladder. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
06/02/2012 07:23:24 PM · #1442 |
| Where is the outrage on this war on fat people? It was bad enough when the Biggest Loser show hit the tv but now this? Where's the pro-choice people when you need them? :P |
|
|
|
06/03/2012 05:07:45 PM · #1443 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Where is the outrage on this war on fat people? :P |
This is not WAR...it's a love in.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-06-03 17:24:56. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:39:39 PM · #1444 |
This is what you get when individual or collective faith is allowed to dictate 'appropriate' medical care:
//thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-for-going-against-gods-will-catholic-hospital-denies-gay-man-hiv-meds/legal-issues/2012/06/03/40477
In this case it's not contraception that has been denied by a doctor and her Catholic institution, but HIV medications, and family visitations. The patient allegedly missed five treatments, which can lead to long-term drug resistance, and a significantly degraded prognosis. You know, because the doctor believed he was already getting what he deserved. And said as much. Allegedly.
I think this is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, which seems to be centered around religious people demanding they should be able to avoid performing their job responsibilities if they don't feel like it, but still claim the job title and a paycheck.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:49:40 PM · #1445 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
This is what you get when individual or collective faith is allowed to dictate 'appropriate' medical care:
//thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-for-going-against-gods-will-catholic-hospital-denies-gay-man-hiv-meds/legal-issues/2012/06/03/40477
In this case it's not contraception that has been denied by a doctor and her Catholic institution, but HIV medications, and family visitations. The patient allegedly missed five treatments, which can lead to long-term drug resistance, and a significantly degraded prognosis. You know, because the doctor believed he was already getting what he deserved. And said as much. Allegedly.
I think this is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, which seems to be centered around religious people demanding they should be able to avoid performing their job responsibilities if they don't feel like it, but still claim the job title and a paycheck. |
Seems like Dr Susan Borga should have her license revoked. What she did was horrible and shouldn't be treating anyone anymore. |
|
|
|
06/27/2012 08:50:16 PM · #1446 |
| A fun video: HANDS OFF MY CLAM, by Lisa Koch. |
|
|
|
07/19/2012 10:11:38 AM · #1447 |
|
|
|
07/19/2012 04:47:08 PM · #1448 |
You have to admire this sort of backdoor attack. The implication seems to be that if birth control pills are not provided to the women of Africa, that some how a culture of empowerment for women will spring into being, that better roads and better hospitals will be the result. This is a classic false dichotomy attack where the notion that if you accept one thing, it must come at the cost of another totally unrelated thing.
To have a liturgical group talk about third world women being "forced" to take birth control pills and raise fears of this "class one drug" as a carcinogen, or the fact that it does not prevent ADIS is about the purest hypocrisy I have seen in a while. It is nice to see the Roman Catholic Church has the money to spend fighting another charity, and to see that they care so much about the health of women after trying to crush the Order of Women Religious ( basically he told American catholic nuns to shut up and fall in line with his thinking and stop pushing " radical feminism.) The Pope seems to be embracing 21st century methods of selling a 12th century ideology.
Message edited by author 2012-07-19 16:48:53. |
|
|
|
07/19/2012 06:06:37 PM · #1449 |
When one considers the Pope's stance on the use of condoms, the contents of this link are laughable at best.
It was only recently (2010 I believe) that the Pope indicated that the use of condoms was OK, but only to prevent AIDS.
In light of the views expressed by the church regarding premarital sex, this would seem to suggest that the use of condoms is limited to married couples only... now there's a sure fire way to reduce the spread of AIDS.
The analogy used in this instance is akin to suggesting that since fish have no legs they should not be provided with bicycles.... bit of a stretch huh? :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-07-19 18:09:25. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 05:38:09 PM · #1450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys are either as blind as an ostrich with its head in the ground or as stubborn as a mule. Take your pick. I won't dither about what the scientific studies obviously show (and you guys are usually such fans of science).
S |
I could be wrong, but I do believe that an ostrich is neither blind (well most of them anyways), nor do they bury their heads in the ground... and I do believe that the latter has been the subject of some scientific study.
Ray |
|
