Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NYC Ban on Large Sugar Laden Drinks Struck Down by Court


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:07 PM

Last year NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that the city would be banning high sugar drinks (principally sodas) in containers larger than 16 ounces as a measure to try to combat obesity in NYC residents - the so-called Portion Cap Rule.

The ban only applied to restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas and any other establishments that receive letter grades for food service under city control. It did not apply to supermarkets and chain convenience stores such as 7-11 Home of the Big Gulp which are under state control. It also did not apply to other sugared drinks such as coffee based beverages or alcoholic drinks.

Critics decried it as just another in a line of Mayor Bloomberg "nanny state" measures.

The Portion Cap Rule was to take effect today and failure to comply would carry a $200 fine although there was to a moratorium on fines for several months (June 2013) as establishments began to comply.

New York City officials are proposing banning the sale of large-size sodas and other sugary beverages at restaurants and food carts.


"More than half of NYC adults (58%) are overweight or obese," Mayor Michael Bloomberg tweeted Thursday. "We're doing something about it."


The ban would outlaw such drinks larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, food carts and any other establishments that receive letter grades for food service. It would not apply to grocery stores.


Critics -- including McDonald's and Coca-Cola, which stand to be hurt by the proposal -- quickly assailed it as "misguided" and "arbitrary."

...


Speaking by satellite to the All Things D technology event in California -- a previously scheduled appearance -- Bloomberg said, "This is something we think we have the legal authority to do. We¹re not taking away anybody's right to do something; we're simply making it different for them in how they do it." He said he hoped the move will help lead to different behaviors.


The city spends $4 billion a year on medical care for overweight people, he said.


The statement from his office cited health problems facing the city, including an increase in obesity. "The single largest driver of these alarming increases in obesity is sugary drinks, which have grown in size," the statement said.

...


The New York City Health Department commissioner, Dr. Tom Farley, tweeted, "Big sugary drinks are major contributor to obesity epidemic. We're proposing to cap them at 16 oz. in restaurants."


"There they go again," Stefan Friedman, a spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, said in a statement Thursday. "The New York City Health Department's unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates."


McDonald's restaurants issued a statement saying, "Public health issues cannot be effectively addressed through a narrowly focused and misguided ban. This is a complex topic, and one that requires a more collaborative and comprehensive approach."


A statement from the Coca-Cola company said the "people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes. ... New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate."


http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_t2

The ban would have required establishments covered by the law to have to re-size beverage containers and print new menus and change signage at a significant cost.

The measure which was enacted by the NYC Board of Health was challenged in court by a number of groups including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and McDonald's as well as the NYC Restaurant Association.

On Monday New York State Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid on a number of grounds including that Bloomberg exceeded his authority by sidestepping the City Council and placing the issue before the city's Board of Health, a panel whose members were each appointed by the mayor.

The judge ruled the regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," noting how there would be uneven enforcement within a single city block. The regulations didn't affect the Big Gulp at 7-11 because supermarkets and convenience stores are regulated by the state, not the city. He wrote that regulations exclude other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and calories on "suspect grounds." The regulations don't limit patrons from getting refills; that provision, the judge said, appears to "gut the purpose of the rule."

Here is the ruling and its main point:

Next the court addresses whether the Portion Cap Rule itself is arbitrary or capricious.


The standard for same can be described as whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact. Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, (1974).


The court affords the Board every degree of judicial deference in promulgating the Rule. Fanelli v. N.Y. City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 A.D.2d 756 (1' Dept. 1982). The Rule is nevertheless fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences. The simple reading of the Rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the loopholes in this Rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the Rule. It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to no limitations on re-fills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule.


For the aforementioned reasons, in the Article 78 branch of this action, The Portion Cap Rule is found to be arbitrary and capricious.

http://online.wsj.co...aruling0311.pdf

Mayor Bloomberg has stated he plans to appeal the ruling and does not intend to bring the measure before City Council for a vote.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100442833
http://online.wsj.co...3929974394.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#2 King Heffy

King Heffy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,230 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 10

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:28 PM

If that asinine rule is ever brought in here, I'm moving. Even the large pop isn't large enough at most places.

Edited by Number14, 12 March 2013 - 02:29 PM.

  • 0

zWXdYPq.png'

 

Put Gino in the ROH


#3 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:39 PM

If that asinine rule is ever brought in here, I'm moving. Even the large pop isn't large enough at most places.

Outright bans already exist in some cases as in BC and in Toronto:


Juiced: Sugar in a bottle


B.C. was the first province to ban sodas in schools a couple of years ago, and while dietitians applaud the effort, they're still concerned young people are drinking too many of their calories.


B.C. was the first province to ban sodas in schools a couple of years ago, and while dietitians applaud the effort, they're still concerned young people are drinking too many of their calories.


That concern is just one of many that is being considered as the province this year undertakes a major review of school nutrition guidelines.


"People shouldn't be drinking their calories," says Kathy Romses, a registered dietitian. "Studies show that people don't compensate for calories from the liquid they take in so it becomes extra calories."


It's sage advice that's often difficult to swallow, especially for kids who like to hang out at convenience stores slugging back super-sized Slurpees or sodas served in containers the size of sand buckets.


Beverage refrigerators at convenience stores overflow with splashy designer bottles and cans of sweetened, unsweetened and naturally sweetened drinks like 100-per-cent fruit juice.


And almost all of them are served in packaging two to three times larger than the standard 250-ml serving size -a fact that baffles nutritionists battling to stop the beverage industry from super-sizing everything. Starbucks' new 916-ml "trenta" cup -which, incidentally, can hold an entire bottle of wine -is an example of what they're up against.


Between 10 and 15 per cent of B.C. children are obese, according to the BC Pediatric Society, and the numbers are expected to grow unless people curb their intake of foods high in sugar, salt and fat.


That's why, in 2005, the provincial government established mandatory guidelines for food and beverage sales in B.C. schools, and banned junk food from vending machines and cafeterias by 2008. The guidelines were a first in Canada and have been used since as a model for other provinces. In the guidelines, the province says sugary, non-nutritious drinks are "clearly linked to obesity and tooth decay in children."


At the time, the health and education ministries pledged to review those guidelines in five years and are now starting that process.


But a lot has happened in half a decade, particularly in the beverage market. Store shelves have been flooded with designer juices, ice teas and other drinks, many of them purporting to be health products, such as vitamin waters and energy drinks. And while in that time nutritionists waged a war on sodium, so, too, have they sounded the alarm about swapping sodas for an excess of fruit juice.


So staff have now begun the monumental task of wading through all the new products and new health information to reformulate the guidelines, which are expected to be implemented in schools in the fall of 2012.


GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT


In elementary schools, kids now only have access to water, milk and 100-per-cent fruit juice. Dietitians caution that while fruit juice is more nutritious than soda, its sugar concentration is comparable, and too much adds excess calories to the diet.


"We're working hard to get that message out. And I think there probably is still some confusion because juices are heavily marketed and you don't see as much marketing for B.C. fresh fruits and vegetables," says Lisa Forster-Coull, the provincial nutritionist who is working on the revision.


A 355-ml can of Coca-Cola, for instance, has 39 grams of sugar, while the same amount of 100-per-cent orange juice has approximately 33 grams.


Forster-Coull says they'll also consider whether drinks with added sugars should be allowed in schools.


As it stands now, non-diet sodas aren't allowed in secondary schools, while some drinks that have nutritional qualities -but still have added sugar, such as chocolate milk and soy milk -are permitted under a "choose sometimes" category. Elementary schools in Vancouver offer two-per-cent chocolate milk, but only twice a week, according to Jennifer Cook, supervisor of food services for the Vancouver Board of Education.


The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends children and adults only drink half a cup of juice per day, or 125 ml.


But the school guidelines allow for more -250 ml of 100-percent juice in elementary schools and 360 ml of juice for middle and secondary school students. Portion size also will be part of the review, says Forster-Coull, as will some new products containing vitamins and herbs.


Forster-Coull, who is also a registered dietitian, says she doesn't have a problem with the serving sizes of juice in schools for the time being, noting the onus must be on educating kids so they know to limit themselves to one small juice a day.


"I think the 250-ml size for kids and the 360-ml for middle and secondary schools is working quite well when you consider the very large beverage containers that are available on the market," she says. "Switching from pop to juice is good, but we don't want people drinking their calories."


Sarah Carten, community nutritionist for Vancouver Coastal Health who works to help schools implement the guidelines, admits it's been a challenge to find 100-per-cent juice in small containers to sell in schools.


"The 250-mls or 360-mls -these are products that exist, so we have something that can be sold that's much more reasonable than some of the, say, 800ml sizes or other vast quantities."


INDUSTRY INITIATIVES


The Canada-U.S. Dietary Reference Intakes -a system of nutrition recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, on which Health Canada bases its Food Guide -advises 48 grams, or 12 teaspoons, of added sugar a day for a 2,200-calorie diet, not including natural sugar found in fruit and milk.


If you drink two 590-ml bottles of Mountain Dew in one day, you will have consumed nearly 60 grams of sugar.


The beverage industry says it's taking notice of the problem.


Last month, Refreshments Canada introduced Clear on Calories, a voluntary industry initiative to put caloric information in bold on the front of all packages, on company vending machines, and on or near company fountain dispensers.


Calorie counts will be posted on the front of beverage containers up to and including 591 ml, and sports drinks up to 750 ml. Drinks larger than 591 ml, including juice, will only list calories per 355-ml serving.


When asked if industry had any plans to reduce the size of beverages sold in convenience stores, Stephanie Baxter, a spokeswoman for Refreshments Canada, said members will continue to provide Canadians a choice of sizes. She notes, however, that many of the larger-sized beverages are not meant to be consumed in one gulp.


"Product sizes range from single-serve to multi-serve packaging, which was designed to be consumed by either a number of people or over a period of time," she said.


Maureen Rowlands, manager of health promotion for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, recommends people choose fresh vegetables or fruit instead of drinking fruit juice. But if they're drinking 100-percent juice, they should restrict the amount to half a cup (125 ml) per day.


As for the larger bottles of juice sold in stores, Rowlands suggests consumers split them with friends or family.


The foundation is working with a coalition of health agencies (The Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance) to make recommendations to Health Canada on beverages by early next year, including suggested serving sizes and the amount of naturally occurring sugars a person should consume per day.


"I don't think there is set criteria on that yet. So we are working on that," says Rowlands.


The foundation also collaborated with the BC Pediatric Society to create SipSmart BC, an educational program to teach students in Grades 4 through 6 about the pitfalls of guzzling sweet drinks.


NUTRITION LABELLING


Health Canada made nutrition labelling mandatory for all prepackaged foods in 2007.


But many drinks -including Vitamin Water and energy drinks such as Full Throttle and Red Bull -don't include nutrition facts on labels.


Ironically, these are some of the beverages that prompted a warning in the U.S. after a study by the University of Miami School of Medicine suggested energy drinks are dangerous for young people and have no therapeutic benefit.


These natural health products (NHPs) fall under a different set of regulations than prepackaged foods. Instead of labels, the federal health agency requires NHPs to list all medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients, as well as directions for use and cautionary statements. But it recommends that industry voluntarily include labels.


"Understanding that there are [NHPs] on the market that closely resemble foods (e.g. vitamin waters, etc.), Health Canada encourages the manufacturers of such products to include nutrition labelling," said Leslie Meerburg, a spokeswoman for Health Canada.


It may surprise consumers to learn that one bottle of Vitamin Water, for example, contains 33 grams of sugar, more than several competing vitaminwater brands. Snapple Vitamin Supreme has 14 grams of sugar.


Still, a bottle of Vitamin Water is not as bad as some drinks people consume on just one trip to Starbucks.


Take, for instance, the mega coffee chain's grande peppermint white chocolate mocha, which, according to The Vancouver Sun's Fatabase contains 19 teaspoons (76 grams) of sugar -seven more teaspoons than the recommended daily limit of 12 teaspoons.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=99932023-f61c-41ed-b44f-69e4c8786acb

And in The Centre of the Universe???


Soda pop is the new tobacco. First banned in some school boards, soda pop and other sugar-laden drinks are now being legislated away by different levels of government in the next wave of social engineering programs. But if the state starts by substituting soya milk for Gatorade at your local arena, will it end with them telling you, you can't buy Pizza Pops?


The City of Toronto has decided that - on its own property, at least - choice is something its citizens are better off without. Hoping to prod its children into better eating habits, the city is planning to banish pop and energy drinks from vending machines in its community centres and arenas. Canada is not alone. The battle against sugar is being engaged on many levels throughout the United States. On the international level, the World Health Organization was pushing through a global strategy initiative this week.

...

Ontario is rolling out new rules that would all but ban the sale of junk food in the province's schools in 2011. British Columbia did away with junk food in school vending machines in 2008. And the Squamish Nation banned ice-cream trucks from three communities on Vancouver's north shore in 2007.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/who-banned-my-soda-pop/article4320135/?page=all
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#4 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,085 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:43 PM

Just tax the products. Offers "incentive" to cut back and tax dollars to pay medical costs. Done and done.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#5 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:53 PM

If that asinine rule is ever brought in here, I'm moving. Even the large pop isn't large enough at most places.


doubtful you'll be able to get all the fat rolls going in the same direction to make a successful move
  • 4

#6 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:54 PM

Just tax the products. Offers "incentive" to cut back and tax dollars to pay medical costs. Done and done.

The tobacco approach??

Seems Big Sugar has operated much like Big Tobacco.

When Cristin Couzens went on the hunt for evidence that Big Sugar had manipulated public opinion, she had no idea what she was doing. She was a dentist, not an investigative reporter. But she couldn't let go of the nagging suspicion that something was amiss.


Her obsession started in an unlikely place, at a dental conference in Seattle in 2007 about diabetes and gum disease. When one speaker listed foods to avoid, there was no mention of sugar. "I thought this was very strange," Couzens said. And when a second speaker suggested sugary drinks were a healthy choice, she chased him down at the end of the conference to make sure she'd heard him correctly. "How could you possibly recommend sweet tea as a healthy drink?" she asked the speaker, who paused just long enough to say, "There is no evidence that links sugar to chronic disease," before he bolted out the door.



"I was so shocked by that statement," she said, "I felt obligated to do a little bit of research, thinking perhaps the sugar industry had somehow had an influence over the lack of advice to limit sugar intake to prevent and control diabetes. That's what set me off."


She quit her job, exhausted her savings and spent 15 months scouring library archives. Then one day she found what she was looking for, in a cardboard box at the Colorado State University archives.


"The first folder that I opened jumped right out at me," she said. "It was on the Sugar Association letterhead which is the trade association in Washington for cane and beet sugar producers. And the word "confidential" was right under the letterhead. So the first document I saw was a confidential Sugar Association memo talking about their PR strategies in the 70s."

What Couzens found was something food industry critics have been seeking for years — documents suggesting that the sugar industry used Big Tobacco tactics to deflect growing concern over the health effects of sugar.

"So I had lists of their board reports, their financial statements, I had names of their scientific consultants, I had a list of research projects they funded, and I had these memos where they were describing how their PR men should handle conflict of interest questions from the press," she said.


The documents survived in the Colorado University Library Archives only because they helped explain a photograph of three men and a trophy. When the Great West Sugar Company went out of business in the 1980s, someone put the files in a box so that librarians would know who the men were and why they were being honored.


So who were they?


"That was a picture of sugar industry executives being awarded the Silver Anvil, which is like the Oscars of the PR world," Couzens said. In the 1976 photo, the president of the Sugar Association and its director of public relations smile as they pose with their prize for their successful campaign "forging public opinion," in the face of mounting consumer and government concern over the health risks of sugar.


"It's a little bit shocking to me that an industry would be rewarded for manipulating scientific evidence," Couzens said. "At the time the award was given in 1976, there was a controversy. Many people thought sugar was harmful, the sugar industry wanted to turn public opinion toward thinking sugar was safe so they forged public opinion on how the public viewed the effects of sugar," she said.


As Couzens sorted through the documents, the full extent of that campaign to forge public opinion emerged. The documents describe industry lobby efforts to sponsor scientific research, silence media reports critical of sugar, and block dietary guidelines to limit sugar consumption.


The Sugar Association's president reported to the Board of Director's meeting in October, 1976 that, "in confronting our critics we try never to lose sight of the fact that no confirmed scientific evidence links sugar to the death-dealing diseases. This crucial point is the life blood of the association."


And the Sugar Association was clear about its intention to use science to defeat sugar’s critics. To support "our desire to maintain research as a main prop of the industry's defence," the member companies were told that $230,000 was being reserved to fund scientific research, according to a report from the Sugar Association's annual meeting of the board of directors, in Chicago in 1977.


At the next meeting, a year later in Washington, the Sugar Association updated the board of directors on the research program, listing 17 different scientists at some of the world's most prestigious universities, including M.I.T., Harvard, and Yale, receiving sugar industry money


Some of the money was supplied by "contributing research members," heavy sugar users including "Coca-Cola, Hershey, General Foods, General Mills and Nabisco" who contributed the funds specifically for the lobby group's scientific effort. The document reports that those companies each "contributed $10,000 to our general research fund."


Targeting media coverage

The documents also reveal efforts to manipulate media coverage. The Sugar Association had been stung by a New York Times headline: "The Bitter Truth About Sugar," written by a prominent nutritionist in June 1976. "It's bad for the health, bad for the teeth, and we eat more of it than we think", the article declared.


The Sugar Association president warned the board of directors that this "shoddy piece" was being followed up by "naive writers working for other papers around the country." But the association had saved the day. Thanks to an inside tip, they were able to keep Reader's Digest from running a condensed version of the same article.


"Thanks to friendly sources who alerted us, a progressive approach to research by the Digest and persistence on our part, we were able to persuade them to cancel the story," the document reports. "We did it in two stages. We failed in our initial conversations, but succeeded when we took our case to the editor-in-chief. Our telegraph to him is included in your folders and might be helpful should you be confronted by criticism."


The documents Couzens found in that cardboard box also reveal that the Sugar Association was busy trying to block dietary guidelines that would recommend limits on sugar consumption. At the time, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, headed by Senator George McGovern, had released "Dietary Goals for the United States," which recommended that Americans should reduce their sugar intake by 40 per cent.


The Sugar Association had been warned by a committee insider that "the final conclusions would hang sugar," the association's president reported to the board in 1977. And now that the committee's report had been released the results "certainly bear this prediction out," he added.


But the lobby group had a plan. "The McGovern Report has to be 'neutralized'" that document reports, assuring the members that the Sugar Association would fight back, because "the consequences of losing this battle and permitting dietary goals to become a basic reference are too grave to be taken lightly."


Sugar industry committed to sucrose consumption

When Couzens approached the sugar industry for comment, she was told the documents were ancient history. "They gave a comment like, that was in the past and does not reflect the mission of the sugar association currently," she said. But then she found one more document, an internal Sugar Association e-newsletter from August, 2003 that announced "the Sugar Association is committed to the protection and promotion of sucrose consumption. Any disparagement of sugar will be met with forceful, strategic public comments and the supporting science."


Couzens said that document showed "the sugar industry is still very active in nominating scientists to serve on the dietary guidelines advisory committee, and it is still publishing research through connections with the World Sugar Research Organization, based in London. These scientific reviews that are published by the sugar industry are still considered in the evidence review for the dietary guidelines, so they’re still serving to balance out the evidence," she said.


Armed with all of these documents, Couzens' next challenge was to make them public somehow. She sought out author Gary Taubes, an American science writer who has reported extensively on the health effects of sugar. He listened to her story and offered to help her get the documents published in the independent news magazine Mother Jones, under the provocative title "Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies." What happened when this bombshell was finally revealed, after months of research and sacrifice? Nothing, Couzens said. The story failed to be picked up by the mainstream media.


Couzens blames it on Hurricane Sandy. The media was distracted. But, she said, the story "has gotten particular attention from food policy folks here in the U.S. and also from researchers who had been studying the tobacco industry who see the parallels," she said.


"I thought it was just wonderful and I got in touch with her right away," said Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, a professor at New York University and vocal food industry critic. "Those kinds of things are very, very hard to come by. One of the things that brought down the cigarette companies was finding enormous documentation of the efforts of cigarette companies to cover up the fact that they knew that cigarettes were unhealthful. It's very, very difficult to find those kinds of things, so it was a real treasure."


When CBC News asked the Canadian Sugar Institute for comment on the revelations that the sugar lobby group influenced science and public opinion, it didn't answer the question. Instead we received this reply: "The Canadian Sugar Institute (CSI) is the national, non-profit association representing Canadian sugar manufacturers on nutrition and international trade affairs. I am providing you with a summary of the scientific consensus on some common misconceptions about sugars and health."


Chiara DiAngelo, the Canadian Sugar Institute's coordinator of nutrition communications, also offered the names of several university professors to talk to for more information about industry-sponsored research.


http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-big-sugar.html

Sounds a lot like what happened in the tobacco industry, eh?

Next up a study from the US Surgeon General on the health hazards of sugar consumption???
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#7 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,085 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:01 PM

The tobacco approach??


Yup... though I'd start with high fructose corn syrup over traditional sugar myself. Then go from there.

Edited by J.R., 12 March 2013 - 03:01 PM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#8 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:11 PM

Yup... though I'd start with high fructose corn syrup over traditional sugar myself. Then go from there.


That's what I think the real problem is, is the HFCS. Not the real sugar, per se.
  • 0

/=S=/


#9 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:25 PM

I don't drink soda or coffee. I know lots of people who drink diet soda and take their coffee black so they don't get those extra calories. I think Wetcoaster is right. I read in his reports here that people are drinking their calories . I do think we should do something about the drinks with excessive sugar.
  • 0

#10 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,685 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:27 PM

A stupid proposal from the beginning. Walk into McDs and you can't get 300 calories from a 1L bottle Coca-Cola; walk 5 steps next door to a 7-11 and get a Big Gulp.
  • 1

#11 PlayStation

PlayStation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:35 PM

Taxing our sugar? We`ll make our own sugar!!!
Whos with me!
I have the Minecraft formula :)
  • 1
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#12 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,085 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

That's what I think the real problem is, is the HFCS. Not the real sugar, per se.


Blame corn subsidies.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#13 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

Even the large pop isn't large enough at most places.


Then you drink far far too much pop.
  • 0

#14 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,085 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:39 PM

Then you drink far far too much pop.


Any pop is too much IMO. It's garbage.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#15 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:40 PM

Then you drink far far too much pop.

A large Coke at McDonalds is 26 oz. and you have unlimited refills. Each large Coke would be 320 calories.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#16 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,763 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:53 PM

I don't drink soda or coffee. I know lots of people who drink diet soda and take their coffee black so they don't get those extra calories. I think Wetcoaster is right. I read in his reports here that people are drinking their calories . I do think we should do something about the drinks with excessive sugar.


This is in fact a double whammy because the process of proper digestion and metabolizing what we consume begins with the chewing process. Not to mention that fruit juices are most usually pasteurized, which means some of the nutritional value will be killed as a result.

But it's not just this...with one single gulp, someone could easily drink an entire orange if squeezed into juice, which of course simply floods the system. Turn that into a glass and we're talking three or four oranges that are being consumed with a few gulps.

Most people would be satisfied after eating one orange (which will be properly digested and metabolized since it was chewed, retaining its full and proper nutritional value as well as retaining other dietary properties such as fiber).

Fruit juices are healthier than colas just like viciously banging your knee against the wall is healthier than viciously banging your head against the wall.
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

rsz_theylive.jpg 11477626583_2368927097.jpg  7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#17 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,817 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:07 PM

it doesnt stop people from order 2,3,4, 5 etc drinks.

over eating is hard to regulate.
  • 0
Posted Image

#18 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,198 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM

Well, it was clearly asinine in that it targeted some locations and not others, but the obvious problem here is that the government cares at all what people are drinking. Who cares if it's Coke, Captain Morgan, Pennzoil 5W30 synthetic, or the bong water?
  • 0

#19 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

edited

Edited by Keke Mortson's helmet, 13 March 2013 - 07:17 AM.

  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#20 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:09 AM

Yup... though I'd start with high fructose corn syrup over traditional sugar myself. Then go from there.

Yep, I`ve been drinking Pepsi Throwback, made with real sugar since it was re-introduced. The difference in flavor is striking.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#21 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:10 AM

Posted Image
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#22 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:50 AM

Well, it was clearly asinine in that it targeted some locations and not others, but the obvious problem here is that the government cares at all what people are drinking. Who cares if it's Coke, Captain Morgan, Pennzoil 5W30 synthetic, or the bong water?


how can you drink that garbage!? I find that Valvoline 10w30 to be more smooth and not nearly as filling. Sure I'll do a few synthetic shots now and then, but those are few and far between.
  • 1

#23 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,198 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:10 AM

how can you drink that garbage!? I find that Valvoline 10w30 to be more smooth and not nearly as filling. Sure I'll do a few synthetic shots now and then, but those are few and far between.

The 5W30 helps line my digestive tract better for both vodka and the Captain Morgan. If I was bored I might do some Shell 10W40 and chase it with some Prune juice, except I'd spend all week on the john.
  • 0

#24 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,494 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:15 AM

I look down upon adults who drink soda anyways. They can all die of diabetes. It's not the governments business to police stupidity.
  • 0
Posted Image

#25 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:22 AM

NYC has now filed a notice of appeal against the ruling that set aside the Portion Cap Rule.

NEW York City challenged a ruling throwing out Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to restrict sales of large-size soda drinks, calling the decision by a state court judge “contrary to law.”

In a five-page notice of appeal, the city said it would fight the March 11 ruling by New York Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling before the court’s appellate division in Manhattan. Tingling barred the ban from becoming law on Tuesday, saying it had too many loopholes and violated the jurisdiction of New York’s City Council.

“We are moving forward immediately with our appeal,” said Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel of the city’s law department. “We believe the judge was wrong in rejecting this important public-health initiative. We also feel he took an unduly narrow view of the Board of Health’s powers.”

http://businessmirro...an-court-defeat

Edited by Wetcoaster, 13 March 2013 - 10:22 AM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#26 Perfect From Now On

Perfect From Now On

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:08 PM

Well, it was clearly asinine in that it targeted some locations and not others, but the obvious problem here is that the government cares at all what people are drinking. Who cares if it's Coke, Captain Morgan, Pennzoil 5W30 synthetic, or the bong water?


It targeted those specific places because those were the places that the city had some regulatory influence over. And as the article stated, the main reason this was done was as an attempt to counter the growing rate of obesity in NYC which is having a large toll on the medical system.

As for the issue as a whole, I am kind of torn. I think that drinking pop is pointless and almost never do it, however I do enjoy fruit juice from time to time (but will be reassessing my choices based on some of the posts above me), yet despite this, I don't really like the idea of government imposing such limitations (people should have the common sense to avoid this crap on their own), but I can see how they have a financial interest in the subject given the social costs of obesity.
  • 0
Posted Image

Paradise with pines and ice.

#27 Blame Obama

Blame Obama

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,593 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

The ban was due to go into effect today, but a New York judge struck it down, describing the regulation as "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."
  • 0

10f3wcl.jpg

sig made by: -Vintage Canuck-

 


#28 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:22 PM

The ban was due to go into effect today, but a New York judge struck it down, describing the regulation as "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences."

The ban was to go into effect yesterday (Tuesday) but was struck down by the NY state Supreme Court on Monday as set out in the OP.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#29 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,544 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

The 5W30 helps line my digestive tract better for both vodka and the Captain Morgan. If I was bored I might do some Shell 10W40 and chase it with some Prune juice, except I'd spend all week on the john.


You guys are a couple of lightweights, straight gasoline ftw.
  • 0

#30 Lulover88

Lulover88

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,692 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:20 PM

are gigantic slurpees ok ? mmmmmmmmm sluuuuurrrrpeeeeeeessss
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.