New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:23 pm

Controversial, as you'd expect. Also, if it's ever imposed, it couldn't be easier to get around - just buy two of the smaller-sized sugary drinks. But Mark Bittman is for it - the ban, I mean, not the supersized sodas. And you know, if you buy one and drink it, you might not feel the need to buy the second one. The ban won't stop us from having our Cokes and ginger ales, but it might down our guzzling, and surely that's a good thing.


June 5, 2012, 9:00 pm
What Is Food?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you believe government has no role in helping people — including encouraging us to act in our own best interests by doing things like not smoking, wearing seat belts and getting exercise — you’re probably no fan of New York’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg. The mayor, who has already banned smoking in bars and transfats from restaurant food, has created more bike lanes in his administration than all other administrations combined and forced the posting of calorie counts in fast food restaurants, added to his sins by proposing to ban the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) over one pint (16 ounces) in a variety of venues.

The arguments against this ban mostly come from the “right.” (There actually is no right and left here, only right and wrong.) We’re told, as we almost always are when a progressive public health measure is passed, that this is “nanny-statism.” (The American Beverage Association also argues that the move is counterproductive, but the cigarette companies used to market their product as healthful, so as long as you remember that, you know what to do with the A.B.A.’s statements.) On a more personal level, we hear things like, “if people want to be obese, that’s their prerogative.”

Certainly. And if people want to ride motorcycles without helmets or smoke cigarettes that’s their prerogative, too. But it’s the nanny-state’s prerogative to protect the rest of us from their idiotic behavior. Sugar-sweetened beverages account for a full 7 percent of our calorie intake, and those calories are not just “empty,” as is often said, but harmful: obesity-related health care costs are at $147 billion and climbing.

To (loosely) paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, your right to harm yourself stops when I have to pay for it. And just as we all pay for the ravages of smoking, we all pay for the harmful effects of Coke, Snapple and Gatorade.

Let’s be clear: Sugar-sweetened beverages are nothing more than sugar delivery systems, and sugar is probably the most dangerous part of our current diet. People will argue forever about whether sugar-sweetened beverages lead directly to obesity, but Bloomberg’s ban should be framed first and foremost as an effort to reduce sugar consumption. Good.

Some have criticized the mayor’s step as weak. But his public health staff, led by the estimable health commissioner Thomas A. Farley, has already tried to pass a tax on soda (unquestionably the most effective tool in our box to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages) but were rebuffed by Albany. They’ve also tried to prohibit the use of food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to buy soda, and been rebuffed — lamely — by the Department of Agriculture’s secretary, Tom Vilsack. (Food stamps are currently used to purchase $4 billion worth of soda a year, a nice subsidy for soda and commodity corn producers, as well as for makers of insulin.)

Was this the mayor’s optimal move? I asked Farley that question. His response: “This is the best way to go to have a substantial influence on portion size right now, and people still have the freedom to continue to buy sugar-sweetened beverages,” thereby throwing a bone to those who evidently believe that it’s impossible to sit through a ballgame or a movie without at least a quart of Mountain Dew.

If the mayor were to ban 32-ounce mugs of beer at Yankee Stadium after a number of D.U.I. arrests — and, indeed, there are limits to drinking at ballparks — we would not be hearing about his nanny tendencies. (And certainly most non-smokers, at least, are ecstatic that smoking in public places — including Central Park — is increasingly forbidden.) No one questions the prohibition on the use of SNAP for tobacco and alcohol. And that’s because we accept that these things are not food.

So perhaps we ask: What, exactly, is food? My dictionary calls it “any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.” That doesn’t help so much unless you define nutritious. Nutritious food, it says here, “provides those substances necessary for growth, health, and good condition.”

Sugar-sweetened beverages don’t meet this description any more than do beer and tobacco and, for that matter, heroin, and they have more in common with these things than they do with carrots. They promote growth all right — in precisely the wrong way — and they do the opposite of promoting health and good condition. They are not food.

Added sugar, as will be obvious when we look back in 20 or 50 years, is the tobacco of the 21st century. (The time frame will depend on how many decent public health officials we manage to put in office, and how hard we’re willing to fight Big Food.) And if you believe that limiting our “right” to purchase soda is a slippery slope, one that will lead to defining which foods are nutritious and which aren’t — and which ones government funds should be used to subsidize and which they shouldn’t — you’re right. It’s the beginning of better public health policy, policy that is good for the health of our citizenry.

We should be encouraging people to eat real food and discouraging the consumption of non-food. Pretending there’s no difference is siding with the merchants of death who would have us eat junk at the expense of food and spend half our lives earning enough money to deal with the health consequences.

Right now a tall 5-year-old with a dollar can approach a machine and buy a fizzy beverage equivalent to a cup of coffee with nine teaspoons of sugar in it. And that’s a mere 12 ounces. Holding the line at that seems to make some sense. Unless you somehow define harmful, non-food substances as something other than “bad.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... at-is-food
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26776
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:00 pm

As one who like almost everyone else grew up taking sugared sodas for granted and consuming enough of same to float the Seventh Fleet (and who was a skinny kid all along), I find it a bit wrenching to have to adjust my thinking to equate sugar with tobacco. (To be sure, I haven't drunk sugared soda in many years, but will occasionally take a diet one.) But there it is; increasingly, there is no denying what Bittman is saying. But we have another long road ahead of us before his uncompromising position becomes mainstream, as did that of tobacco opponents eventually. Among other things, consider that nearly every alternative to plain water or milk--a food that is used commonly as a beverage only among the young and preponderantly in the United States--is either alcoholic, caffeinated, or sugared (or some combination of these). Fruit juices with the exception of the non-thirst-quenching tomato juice are no exception and have been criticized in recent literature as well. Does this suggest that we should prepare ourselves for a cultural shift in which the beverage of choice across the board is plain old water?

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:49 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Does this suggest that we should prepare ourselves for a cultural shift in which the beverage of choice across the board is plain old water?
Of course not. It's the quantity that's at issue. A 16 fluid ounce cup of Coca Cola is half a quart, and that would still be OK. A can of Coke contains 12 fluid ounces; the classic Coke glass bottle of my youth (yours too?) was 6.5 fluid ounces. Did you often drink three bottles of Coke one-two-three? Me neither.

There's an alternative you haven't mentioned: diet soda. A can (12 oz.) of diet Coke contains 4 calories, compared with 140 calories in a can of regular coke - 35 times as much. The restriction being discussed is for sugary drinks, so presumably you can order a gallon of diet soda anywhere they serve it. There's also black coffee and unsweetened tea, which have no calories at all.

Sugar substitutes have come a long way since that horrible-tasting saccharine of the '50s; for years I've used nothing but granular Splenda, with 1/8 the calories of sugar; there are other sweeteners with no calories at all. Of course, most prepared food and all restaurant food does not use low- or no-calorie sugar substitutes.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26776
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:03 pm

John F wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:Does this suggest that we should prepare ourselves for a cultural shift in which the beverage of choice across the board is plain old water?
Of course not. It's the quantity that's at issue. A 16 fluid ounce cup of Coca Cola is half a quart, and that would still be OK. A can of Coke contains 12 fluid ounces; the classic Coke glass bottle of my youth (yours too?) was 6.5 fluid ounces. Did you often drink three bottles of Coke one-two-three? Me neither.

There's an alternative you haven't mentioned: diet soda. A can (12 oz.) of diet Coke contains 4 calories, compared with 140 calories in a can of regular coke - 35 times as much. The restriction being discussed is for sugary drinks, so presumably you can order a gallon of diet soda anywhere they serve it. There's also black coffee and unsweetened tea, which have no calories at all.

Sugar substitutes have come a long way since that horrible-tasting saccharine of the '50s; for years I've used nothing but granular Splenda, with 1/8 the calories of sugar; there are other sweeteners with no calories at all. Of course, most prepared food and all restaurant food does not use low- or no-calorie sugar substitutes.
You're giving a little more latitude with regard to sodas than it seems Bittman would favor (not a criticism of your point, just an observation). As for diet soda, I wonder if it would have any allure except for people who like me were originally used to sugared soda. IOW, if you killed the one, the other might die as well, but I may be wrong. I do know that when I was responsible for students semi-recreationally, as on a field trip, I could never get them interested in diet soda. Either the difference in taste with aspertame was more important to them than it ever was to me, or they were fond of a sugar high, or both.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:31 am

jbuck919 wrote:I do know that when I was responsible for students semi-recreationally, as on a field trip, I could never get them interested in diet soda.
Given the choice between diet soda and just plain water, though, they might feel differently. And if they preferred the water, so much the better.

This same topic is now being discussed in the thread on bacon sundaes, by the way. I posted at some length there and won't copy the post here.
John Francis

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by karlhenning » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:39 am

FWIW, my physician would agree with the broad point that soda (or pop) is not food.

Or, I suppose, pop is food much as ketchup is a vegetable . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:55 pm

John F wrote:Controversial, as you'd expect.
Yep Mayor Mike went too far this time--next thing you know he'll want to impose a congestion tax on car drivers for NYC! Regards, Len :lol:

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:53 pm

As well he should. Those car drivers keep clogging up the streets and making it hard for pedestrians to cross anywhere in the block they want to.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9084
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by RebLem » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:58 pm

jbuck919 wrote:As one who like almost everyone else grew up taking sugared sodas for granted and consuming enough of same to float the Seventh Fleet (and who was a skinny kid all along), I find it a bit wrenching to have to adjust my thinking to equate sugar with tobacco. (To be sure, I haven't drunk sugared soda in many years, but will occasionally take a diet one.) But there it is; increasingly, there is no denying what Bittman is saying. But we have another long road ahead of us before his uncompromising position becomes mainstream, as did that of tobacco opponents eventually. Among other things, consider that nearly every alternative to plain water or milk--a food that is used commonly as a beverage only among the young and preponderantly in the United States--is either alcoholic, caffeinated, or sugared (or some combination of these). Fruit juices with the exception of the non-thirst-quenching tomato juice are no exception and have been criticized in recent literature as well. Does this suggest that we should prepare ourselves for a cultural shift in which the beverage of choice across the board is plain old water?
I am old enough to remember that Pierre Mendez-France, a two time premier of the French Fourth Republic, insisted on being served milk instead of wine at all public meetings as part of his campaign against alcoholism, espeically among the young, in France.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:32 am

John F wrote:As well he should. Those car drivers keep clogging up the streets and making it hard for pedestrians to cross anywhere in the block they want to.
Come on it's those darn bikers and their bike lanes that are tying the city up in knots! And those maniac cabbies are a much worse danger than the 32 ounce soda cup. And let's fix the potholes over by John Jay college with or without a Federal Jobs program! Regards, NJ Len! :)

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:37 am

RebLem wrote: campaign against alcoholism, espeically among the young, in France.
Maybe it's time to ban magnums and Jeroboams in NYC restaurants! Regards, Len [fleeing] :)

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:52 am

Have you ever seen a jeroboam in a restaurant? The only place I've seen them is in wine stores, mainly for display I'm sure because who would buy that much wine in a single bottle? I mean, that's more than a gallon.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:09 am

John F wrote:Have you ever seen a jeroboam in a restaurant?
Yes next time you walk the High Line check out Del Posto--btw they have a great lunch special and you won't top their atmosphere! Here are some items from their massive wine list:

JEROBOAMS
3 Liters
VINI SPUMANTI
ITALIANI
32902 MOVIA Brut 1997 Slovenia 3L 250
CHAMPAGNE
33911 BILLECART-SALMON Brut Rosé NV 3L 1050
33935 BILLECART-SALMON Brut Grande Cuvée 1985 3L 3000
33941 DOM PERIGNON 1998 3L 3250
33925 DOM PERIGNON 1995 3L 3400
33943 ROEDERER Brut Cristal 1999 3L 5050
VINI BIANCHI
FRIULI - VENEZIA-GIULIA
14855 BASTIANICH Colli Orientali del Friuli Tocai Plus 2006 3L 475
14854 BASTIANICH Colli Orientali del Friuli Tocai Plus 2005 3L 550
14808 BASTIANICH Colli Orientali del Friuli Tocai Plus 2002 3L 600
14856 BASTIANICH Vespa Bianco 2004 3L 700
VENETO
15868 ROBERTO ANSELMI Capitel Croce 1999 3L 350
VINI ROSSI
FRIULI - VENEZIA-GIULIA
14847 RONCHI DI CIALLA Schioppettino 2001 3L 400
14857 BASTIANICH Calabrone 2003 3L 720
14810 BASTIANICH Calabrone 2000 3L 800
14860 BASTIANICH Vespa Rosso 2005 3L 375
14846 BASTIANICH Vespa Rosso 2003 3L 425
14859 BASTIANICH Vespa Rosso 2002 3L 450

There are many more and we've seen these large bottles in other fancy restaurants too! Regards, Len :)

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:33 am

Oh, that's just a little jeroboam, only 3 liters. If you're after Bordeaux, and who wouldn't be, it's 4 liters. Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_bottle

But I asked whether you have actually seen a jeroboam in a restaurant - meaning not just an entry in a wine list but the bottle itself. A restaurant can put anything on its menu if it's confident nobody will actually want to buy it. :mrgreen:
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:40 am

John F wrote: But I asked whether you have actually seen a jeroboam in a restaurant
Yes and not just one restaurant but quite a few of the fancier ones--that's right here in NYC--I won't even mention the 3 star 8 or 10 Michelin restaurants we ate in when travelling to Europe for us was a once or twice per year experience--those were the days! Regards, Len :)

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:15 am

Then I guess you'll need to pack your Carrie Nation hatchet when you dine out. :D
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:24 am

John F wrote:Then I guess you'll need to pack your Carrie Nation hatchet when you dine out. :D
Nope not me--I'm all for serving those large bottles of wine in the restaurants! As for the 32 ounce cups I think Mayor Mike is expending too much political capital on this issue--I think of all the political capital Obama expended on Health Care--thing is that expense was worth it and commendable--so was Mayor Mike on the smoking restrictions--however this 32 ounce soda thing.....and what about those 32 ounce or maybe more cups of popcorn sold in movie houses--that smell which I happen to like can permeate the whole theater! :)

Anyway Sue and I are doing are share for healthy food today--we'll be visiting this garden--maybe Scalia will have something to say on this! :)

Broccoli Hall—Maxine Paetro

Description
Visitors to Broccoli Hall describe this English-style cottage garden as “incredible,” “inspirational,” “magical”—and they come back again and again. Starting in 1986 with an acre and a half of bare earth, Maxine Paetro collaborated with horticulturist Tim Steinhoff to create a series of enchanting garden rooms. Broccoli Hall offers an apple tunnel, a brick courtyard, a lavish display of spring bulbs blooming with crabapples in May, an extensive border of iris, peonies, and old shrub roses flowering in June, a tree house with long views, and a secret woodland garden with a teddy bears’ picnic. Photos of Broccoli Hall can be seen at http://broccolihall.com/.



Directions: From Route 22 North, go towards Amenia. Go west on Route 44 to Route 83 North/Smithfield Road. Go 2.5 miles to dirt road on right, Flint Hill Road. Turn right. Garden is first on left. Please park on Flint Hill Road. Be careful of ditches.

Regards, Len

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by karlhenning » Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:40 am

lennygoran wrote:
RebLem wrote: campaign against alcoholism, espeically among the young, in France.
Maybe it's time to ban magnums and Jeroboams in NYC restaurants! Regards, Len [fleeing] :)
The only regulation which could have saved Mr Creosote!

Image

Cheers,
~Karl
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:43 pm

Karl incredible-just who is this mr. Creosote!-what fireplace did he escape from! Len

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26776
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:19 pm

lennygoran wrote:Karl incredible-just who is this mr. Creosote!-what fireplace did he escape from! Len
Creosote is that which does not escape from the fireplace (or at least the chimney). :wink:

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:13 am

jbuck919 wrote:
lennygoran wrote:Karl incredible-just who is this mr. Creosote!-what fireplace did he escape from! Len
Creosote is that which does not escape from the fireplace (or at least the chimney). :wink:
Good thing we have a reliable chimney sweeper! Mr creosote's
Picture gave me nightmares last night-finally he left my dream and
Was replaced by the last garden of the day out of amenia ny!

Image

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26776
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:45 pm

lennygoran wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
lennygoran wrote:Karl incredible-just who is this mr. Creosote!-what fireplace did he escape from! Len
Creosote is that which does not escape from the fireplace (or at least the chimney). :wink:
Good thing we have a reliable chimney sweeper! Mr creosote's
Picture gave me nightmares last night-finally he left my dream and
Was replaced by the last garden of the day out of amenia ny!

Image
That does not look like a cultivated garden, but like many pieces of attractive open ground anywhere in the rural northeast. However, I supposed that this look can be cultivated deliberately.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:40 am

jbuck919 wrote:However, I supposed that this look can be cultivated deliberately.
Exactly what this gardener had done with that piece of her 8 acres--of course the view behind belongs to New York! Here are other parts of her garden including another pond more cultivated and loaded with 100's of koi which she raises--has a net over it to try and foil the darn great blue herons--then there are the many plants! :)

Image

Image

Image

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:23 pm

Bloomberg seems to be a dedicated and excellent city leader. When it comes to food and drink, he's a power junkie and quite the nut-job.

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:39 pm

So it may seem from Albuquerque. We in New York, who have reelected him, don't think so.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by lennygoran » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:57 am

John F wrote:So it may seem from Albuquerque. We in New York, who have reelected him, don't think so.
Still on the soda cup issue he's in the minority.

"A NY1-Marist College poll regarding Bloomberg's soda ban proposal reveals that a majority of New Yorkers — 53 percent — oppose the mayor's plan to ban soft drinks in containers sixteen ounces or larger at restaurants, movie theaters, street carts, and sports venues. On the flip side, 42 percent of the 500 adult respondents said the mayor's plan is a good one. Six percent, perhaps too jacked up on Coca-Cola to formulate a coherent response, are unsure.

The results contrast with the mayor's assessment last week that the ban is "What the public wants the mayor to do," unless by "public" he meant the minority of New Yorkers who agree with his plan. About 53 percent believe the proposed ban is an example of "government going too far." "We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things," Bloomberg said of the ban, "we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup." And as a bonus to that forced understanding, soda guzzlers might even burn a few calories switching cups."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/ma ... a-ban.html

Much more important for me he lost on the congestion tax! Regards, Len :) :) :)

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:27 pm

John F wrote:So it may seem from Albuquerque. We in New York, who have reelected him, don't think so.

My location is not relevant.

John F
Posts: 19843
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by John F » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:32 am

This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
John Francis

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:46 pm

John F wrote:This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
You don't know what you're talking about. Although the specific issue only applies to one locality, the larger issue of government involvement in our day-to-day lives is a national one.

Also, I have lived in many States - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Rhode Island, Kentucky, etc.

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Dennis Spath » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:28 pm

Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
You don't know what you're talking about. Although the specific issue only applies to one locality, the larger issue of government involvement in our day-to-day lives is a national one.

Also, I have lived in many States - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Rhode Island, Kentucky, etc.
Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal opinions doesn't know what they are talking about Tiger?? How convenient!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26776
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:43 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:
Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
You don't know what you're talking about. Although the specific issue only applies to one locality, the larger issue of government involvement in our day-to-day lives is a national one.

Also, I have lived in many States - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Rhode Island, Kentucky, etc.
Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal opinions doesn't know what they are talking about Tiger?? How convenient!
I was going to ask him what he was fleeing from in all those moves, but I guess I'm a little late (just kidding, Tiger). :D

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by karlhenning » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:24 am

Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:So it may seem from Albuquerque. We in New York, who have reelected him, don't think so.
My location is not relevant.
In optics, it is : )

Cheers,
~Karl
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:11 am

karlhenning wrote:
Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:So it may seem from Albuquerque. We in New York, who have reelected him, don't think so.
My location is not relevant.
In optics, it is : )

Cheers,
~Karl
With sugary drinks that are consumed in all 50 States, it isn't.

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:17 am

Dennis Spath wrote:
Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
You don't know what you're talking about. Although the specific issue only applies to one locality, the larger issue of government involvement in our day-to-day lives is a national one.

Also, I have lived in many States - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Rhode Island, Kentucky, etc.
Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal opinions doesn't know what they are talking about Tiger?? How convenient!
Excellent. I thought you'd be impressed.

Tiger
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Tiger » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:21 am

jbuck919 wrote:
Dennis Spath wrote:
Tiger wrote:
John F wrote:This is a local issue involving a local politician and local politics - local to me and not to you. Your and my locations affect our perspectives and opinions, and certainly are relevant.
You don't know what you're talking about. Although the specific issue only applies to one locality, the larger issue of government involvement in our day-to-day lives is a national one.

Also, I have lived in many States - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Rhode Island, Kentucky, etc.
Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal opinions doesn't know what they are talking about Tiger?? How convenient!
I was going to ask him what he was fleeing from in all those moves, but I guess I'm a little late (just kidding, Tiger). :D
No problem. All the moves were for educational or professional reasons except for a quick departure from Washington after a knife fight (just kidding).

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: New York: on banning supersized sugary drinks

Post by Dennis Spath » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:34 am

For me, soon to be age 78, carbonated soft drinks have never been an issue. During WWII my favorite was an occasional Soda Fountain "Green River". I've never liked Coke or other sweet Cola drinks, but always enjoyed a Black Cow made with Root Beer and Vanilla Ice Cream.

At my last job I worked with a guy who had to have 3-4 Pepsies every morning for his caffein addiction, and surely all those empty calories cannot be good for your health! My son had to quit drinking 5-6 Pepsies a day after a warning heart attack at age 45, and while overweight with a desk job he was far from "obese".

My raw sugar intake is near zero, given I've been using sweet-n-low for almost 30 years. My idea of "dessert" is a Peanut Butter sandwich on whole grain bread with Smuckers Strawberry Jam, although on rare occasions I've consummed an entire Chocolate Cream Pie or Pumpkin Pie with real Whipped Cream topping in less than 24 hours!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests