Sugary Drinks Banned in San Francisco

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, I'm not. I gave my opinion and the reasons why. You gave yours. Oh that's right, you 'support it even though you don't think it will work, and if a ban continues to grow, then you will oppose it'

I am not dismissing the 'wider context' at all. I think you are, actually.

Lisa - besides the point you raised about which drinks are healthier, your opinion is entirely ideological. You even used soundbites.

What I am interested in is why it has been assumed so far in the thread that the products currently stocked in those vending machines amount to "choice". I think that is entirely fallacious - but it isn't possible to discuss that point without some understanding of how those products got into the machines in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This alone will not do anything to combat obesity. However, what it does is establishes a precedent that it's acceptable for government to do things like this - so they press on with something more restrictive. No sugary drinks in the building. You're too fat, here's a reprimand. Taxes at "unhealthy" restaurants.

Where does it end?

While it may not seem like much now... this is just the beginning.

Illegal wiretaps = waterboarding. Think about it.

Can we please drop the ideological stuff?

I have indeed thought about it - and this isn't some terrible watershed moment (although I suppose everything is perceived that way when it ends up on VJ) where the government has shamelessly intruded into the lives of private citizens and threatened there liberty.

Fact: this has been done before in a number of public schools (along with reviews of school cafeteria food and changes to the menus to move away from processed foods and bring in freshly produced "healthy" alternatives). It is also a fact that San Francisco is not the first city to make this kind of change in its public buildings - San Antonio in Texas did exactly the same thing back in May. Santa Clara in CA also did it back in 2008 and has also recently banned McDonalds from selling toys with its Happy Meals.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa - besides the point you raised about which drinks are healthier, your opinion is entirely ideological. You even used soundbites.

What I am interested in is why it has been assumed so far in the thread that the products currently stocked in those vending machines amount to "choice". I think that is entirely fallacious - but it isn't possible to discuss that point without some understanding of how those products got into the machines in the first place.

Soundbites? #######? It must be too early in the morning.

As I said before, I don't care if they are in there due to winning the bid. I even don't care if they stocked it all with soy milk and granola (very fattening btw) because of winning a financial bid to do so. What I have a problem with, is the intrusion of what I see as gov't - even as low level as a Mayor - deciding what is the 'healthier' alternative. I disagree because of some study showing 27% people who are fat drink a soda a day, that regular soda will not be sold in the new vending machines. Yes, you can go off premises and get whatever you want, but that is not the point.

Did you catch this from the article?

Newsom floated the idea last year of imposing a fee on retailers that sell soda but has yet to follow through with legislation.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/05/BAMU1E8QKR.DTL#ixzz0tBwgbKyh

it's already foreshadowed. This is step one of the intrusion. Oh wait, the health care 'reform' was...this is step two.

Like it or lump it, that' my opinion.

[slim 1,525]

Fact: this has been done before in a number of public schools (along with reviews of school cafeteria food and changes to the menus to move away from processed foods and bring in freshly produced "healthy" alternatives). It is also a fact that San Francisco is not the first city to make this kind of change in its public buildings - San Antonio in Texas did exactly the same thing back in May. Santa Clara in CA also did it back in 2008 and has also recently banned McDonalds from selling toys with its Happy Meals.

You're making my point for me.

It is an intrusion on liberty when the government bans private business from selling it's product. It starts off with an innocent "it's for health, and that's a good thing, right?" argument and ends up with public bans on private enterprise. Only the government can approve what can be bought and sold.

Thanks, big brother!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Soundbites? #######? It must be too early in the morning.

As I said before, I don't care if they are in there due to winning the bid. I even don't care if they stocked it all with soy milk and granola (very fattening btw) because of winning a financial bid to do so. What I have a problem with, is the intrusion of what I see as gov't - even as low level as a Mayor - deciding what is the 'healthier' alternative.

Why?

I disagree because of some study showing 27% people who are fat drink a soda a day, that regular soda will not be sold in the new vending machines. Yes, you can go off premises and get whatever you want, but that is not the point.

Did you catch this from the article?

Yes, soda is not the single root cause of obesity. It is however, one of the contributing factors in high calorific intake - and that is without taking into consideration the way in which the HFCS in regular sodas and (nearly all) processed foods interferes with the body's appetite suppression mechanism, leading people to eat more calories than their body needs.

it's already foreshadowed. This is step one of the intrusion. Oh wait, the health care 'reform' was...this is step two.

Like it or lump it, that' my opinion.

See the preceding post.

[slim 1,525]

Yes, soda is not the single root cause of obesity. It is however, one of the contributing factors in high calorific intake - and that is without taking into consideration the way in which the HFCS in regular sodas and (nearly all) processed foods interferes with the body's appetite suppression mechanism, leading people to eat more calories than their body needs.

What does that have to do with the government telling private businesses what they can and can't sell?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're making my point for me.

It is an intrusion on liberty when the government bans private business from selling it's product. It starts off with an innocent "it's for health, and that's a good thing, right?" argument and ends up with public bans on private enterprise. Only the government can approve what can be bought and sold.

Thanks, big brother!

No it isn't. The private business is still free to sell it's product - just not in vending machines in public buildings.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself about the way in which those companies operate, how they advertise and market products which are physiologically addictive to children in a way that is psychologically manipulative.

[Fandango 1,439]

Why?

Yes, soda is not the single root cause of obesity. It is however, one of the contributing factors in high calorific intake - and that is without taking into consideration the way in which the HFCS in regular sodas and (nearly all) processed foods interferes with the body's appetite suppression mechanism, leading people to eat more calories than their body needs.

See the preceding post.

D, I've explained why in every post I've written here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does that have to do with the government telling private businesses what they can and can't sell?

Where is the government telling private businesses what they can and can't sell - can you or can you not still buy regular sodas in San Francisco?

Furthermore, how do you prove that the products in those vending machines are things that consumers actually want to drink? I've tried to use vending machines before and ended up avoided them because they didn't stock anything I wanted to drink. Some of them don't even sell bottled water.

[slim 1,525]

No it isn't. The private business is still free to sell it's product - just not in vending machines in public buildings.

So a McDonald's that can't sell toys in their Happy Meals is being regulated on government property? Sounds to me like the government is controlling a private business' practices through regulation. Is that NOT what's happening here?

Perhaps you need to ask yourself about the way in which those companies operate, how they advertise and market products which are physiologically addictive to children in a way that is psychologically manipulative.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why parents would allow their kids to get addicted to something and need the government to prohibit them from doing so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

D, I've explained why in every post I've written here.

You're acting as if the city has no right to change what it stocks in vending machines on its property.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So a McDonald's that can't sell toys in their Happy Meals is being regulated on government property? Sounds to me like the government is controlling a private business' practices through regulation. Is that NOT what's happening here?

I'm pointing out that objecting to this story as if it is some violent assault on liberty is hyperbolic and is ignoring the fact that it isn't new.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why parents would allow their kids to get addicted to something and need the government to prohibit them from doing so.

Perphaps you should take a look at some of the pressure campaigns that are trying to ban food advertising to children on the grounds that it is manipulative and that it challenges the parents right to teach instil proper nutrition to their children.

[Fandango 1,439]

You're acting as if the city has no right to change what it stocks in vending machines on its property.

Let's be clear: I don't object to them changing it...I object to WHY they change it and the methodology behind it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Let's be clear: I don't object to them changing it...I object to WHY they change it and the methodology behind it.

So what should be their considerations in changing the contents of vending machines?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Perphaps you should take a look at some of the pressure campaigns that are trying to ban food advertising to children on the grounds that it is manipulative and that it challenges the parents right to teach instil proper nutrition to their children.

Come on now... Pressure as a parent? That comes with the territory.

It's real simple and I was taught this as a kid, "No means no."