Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New York plans to ban sugared drinks over 16 oz.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » New York plans to ban sugared drinks over 16 oz. (Page 6)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: New York plans to ban sugared drinks over 16 oz.

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 06-19-2012 11:54 AM

> I guess that's another way of saying soft drink industry executives will aggressively advertise lies to the public claiming high fructose corn syrup is perfectly natural and safe to consume in large quantities.

Next Bobby will be telling us that global warming is real... [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-19-2012 02:11 PM

So with your wink you're jokingly saying high fructose corn syrup is perfectly fine? Maybe the nation's increasingly expensive problem with obesity is just a figment of someone's imagination as well?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-19-2012 03:17 PM

That's just the same thing as the tobacco people continuing to educate the public on how dangerous tobacco is, while trying to sell more tobacco.

Like all things, soda is OK in moderation. If a person drinks nothing else, that's bad. I drink too much of the stuff myself, but I do watch my weight. I figure, I don't smoke, drink (much), or gamble, so I gotta have one vice! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Jake Spell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 294
From: Johns Island SC
Registered: May 2009

posted 06-19-2012 07:54 PM

For me soda is a bad thing. When I first started working at a theater when I was 16 I drank a TON of soda because it was free and I love Pibb. Just so happens Pibb is full of both caffeine and high fructose syrup. After a few months I gained weight and started feeling like poo. Im hypersensitive to caffine so if I drink too much it gives me a high heart beat and tires me out. Once I started drinking water only at work I lost the weight and felt better pretty quickly. For me soda is terrible.

Iv also seen someone drink 3, yes THREE 44 oz Pepsi's in a single movie. Im not sure how they werent a diabetic...

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 06-20-2012 01:15 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's just the same thing as the tobacco people continuing to educate the public on how dangerous tobacco is, while trying to sell more tobacco.

To be fair, they aren't trying to be hypocrites... they're forced to do so. The education stuff they do comes from that huge settlement they had with the government. They are obligated to spend a certain amount on educating people on the bad effects of smoking.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 06-20-2012 06:01 AM

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin was the last to post
I guess that's another way of saying soft drink industry executives will aggressively advertise lies to the public claiming high fructose corn syrup is perfectly natural and safe to consume in large quantities.

There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about high fructose corn syrup. A calorie is a calorie. Drinking sugar sweetened soda isn't any better for you. The issue with high fructose corn syrup is that the farm subsidies make it cheaper than sugar. Therefore it helps make high calorie unhealthy foods and drinks cheaper than healthier stuff.

That said, the "war on soda" is retarded. Orange Juice has more calories per ounce than some sodas (and only slightly less than Mountain Dew). If I guzzle OJ all day I'll get just as fat as if I guzzle Coke.

I agree with Bobby completely about the costs of obesity. The solution isn't dumb totalitarian state solutions like this. The solution is to allow there to be consequences for being unhealthy. Health insurance should cost more for people with risk factors for having health problems (smoking, obesity, etc.). Hell, allow airlines to charge by weight.

And for the "genetics" argument. There are an extremely miniscule percentage of people that have such a slow metabolism that they will become 400 lbs no matter what they do. I guarantee you that if you take a fat slob and get them in the gym a few hours a week and have them eat just a little bit better they will lose weight. Two of my mom's friends are some of the most obese people you will ever see. However, both of them were fit and trim in their 20's. They got married, had kids and became enormous due to their own eating and lack of exercise.

Back to the topic. I should have the freedom to buy whatever I want. I work out 4 or 5 times a week so that I can treat myself to a large soda once in a while.

The solution is in the consequences. People should stop having sex with obese people no matter how desparate they are. Then there will be an incentive not to be obese!

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-20-2012 06:17 AM

Lyle, you are correct that a calorie is a calorie. The difference between orange juice and soda is that orange juice has other things your body needs for good nutrition. But yes, drinking a couple 44oz cups of OJ every day would have the same effect as drinking a couple 44oz cups of soda.

The point about farm subsidies making corn syrup so cheap is really the critical point. Unfortunately this is a main part of the reason there is an inverse relationship between income and rates of obesity. Those with more money can afford to eat and live healthier, so they tend to have lower rates of obesity. Unfortunately, nutrition is only part of the reason why a lower income person is more likely to be overweight.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-20-2012 09:43 AM

There's a price penalty to drinking 44oz of OJ -- it would cost a whole lot more than soda -- that's probably why nobody's out there doing it.

That's also ONE OF the main reasons why people aren't eating healthy food -- it's too expensive.

Also, isn't corn still a subsidized commodity? Isn't that part of the economic incentive to sweeten with corn, as opposed to cane? Did I see this in FOOD, INC or KING CORN? -- it was one of those documentaries.

I can guarantee you, if we had to pay top-dollar for corn, it would go back to being a side dish.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-20-2012 01:18 PM

quote: Manny Knowles
There's a price penalty to drinking 44oz of OJ -- it would cost a whole lot more than soda -- that's probably why nobody's out there doing it.

Nope. The reason people drink soda more than OJ is because they LIKE THE TASTE BETTER. Price has very little to do with it.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-20-2012 01:31 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about high fructose corn syrup. A calorie is a calorie. Drinking sugar sweetened soda isn't any better for you. The issue with high fructose corn syrup is that the farm subsidies make it cheaper than sugar. Therefore it helps make high calorie unhealthy foods and drinks cheaper than healthier stuff.

There are key differences between natural cane/beet sugar and high frutose corn syrup at the molecular level.
Table sugar (sucrose) has equal levels of two simple sugars, 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Every fructose molecule is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule. The fructose in table sugar must go through an extra metabolic step before the body can process it.

That isn't the case with HFCS. Its ratio is 55% fructose, 42% glucose and 3% higher saccharides. Due to how HFCS is processed the fructose molecules in it are free and not bound to glucose molecules. The body can absorb the fructose immediately and metabolize it to produce fat. Glucose is primarily used for energy, but if it is stored it is primarily stored as a carbohydrate called glycogen in the liver and muscles.

Either way, Americans consume way too much added sugar in their diets. High Fructose Corn Syrup is especially insidious because it is found in all sorts of other foods, not just soda pop. Add to this the fast & loose nature the food industry has with stating the truth on its labels. Recently a number of fruit juice brands sold in dollar stores drew fire from a consumer watch dog group because their "100% Fruit Juice" products really had only 10% to 33% fruit juice -the rest of it was artificial crap, including high fructose corn syrup.

The American Heart Association says the average adult woman shouldn't consume more than 100 calories worth of added sugar per day; adult men shouldn't take in more than 150 calories worth of added sugar per day. Just one 12 ounce can of Dr. Pepper has 150 calories, all of it listed as "sugars" on the nutritional label.

Some scientists and nutrionists point the effect added sugar has on our appetite. The body uses insulin to process sugar. Consume excess sugar and the body must produce more insulin to handle it. The theory is a roller coaster inertia effect is created where the body not only metabolizes all that sugar but does so to the point where blood sugar levels end up going too low and increasing the appetite.

The statement "a calorie is a calorie" is very broad and could easily be misinterpreted by someone trying to say there is no quality difference between junk food and healthy food. Our bodies run on more than mere calories. Calories taken in from soda pop and junk food are largely devoid of nutrients. They're empty calories. The consumer can eat/drink that stuff and he'll quickly be hungry for even more of it since he's not giving his body the healthy fuel it really needs.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-20-2012 03:42 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason people drink soda more than OJ is because they LIKE THE TASTE BETTER. Price has very little to do with it.

Okay, I could go along with this. That's certainly why I drink Coke versus OJ.

But cost is nonetheless an important factor in why people choose poorly when it comes to nutrition. I guess convenience would also rank pretty high. That's why I choose McDonald's -- it's delicious and (usually) convenient. I know there are better food choices, but they are less convenient and cost more. (I don't eat McD a lot and, when I do, it's usually the child-size portions, and I almost never eat all of the fries.)

So, I believe that making it inconvenient (not impossible, mind you) to drink a lot of soda (etc) would give people an adequate moment to have "second thoughts" about consuming more. If you really want more, you'll have to make the extra effort to get it.

Even if this ban doesn't pass, it has certainly put a spotlight on the issue. What's interesting is that so many people prefer to focus on the issue of "freedoms" over the health issues. I'm not saying anybody is wrong for that. Just that I find it interesting that health takes the back seat.

It actually calls to mind the situation with the MPAA and CARA. Self-regulation to prevent government involvement. Maybe the "defenders of freedom" should pledge to eat right and get plenty of exercise. If the problem subsides after "x number of years," then the ban falls off the table. But if the obesity crisis continues, the ban kicks in.

At the moment, the situation (obesity crisis) can be blamed on ignorance and food industry labeling practices. But now that the issue is being argued -- If the ban doesn't pass -- might this suggest that the people of New York are consciously choosing poor dietary habits?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-21-2012 12:08 PM

Our popular culture champions making poor dietary choices. You're not a real man if eat salad and avoid junk food.

Consider the advertising situation. Food related advertising is dominated by fast food restaurants and junk food. Not as many commercials are run for more healthy foods. I can't remember the last time I saw a grocery store TV commercial showing prices of fresh vegetables.

If someone wants to eat healthy that person must develop a deliberate plan to do so and then go out of his way to find those healthier foods and often pay more for them. Someone is who already obese and serious about losing weight must do all of that and other things, like keeping a food diary of what he eats. For most Americans that's just too much of a pain in the ass.

Convenience definitely is huge factor in what's worsening this obesity problem. It may even be a more important factor than the cost premium of healthier foods. It takes a lot more time to prepare a healthy, balanced meal than it does to put a couple of sandwiches and a pile of potato chips on a plate. Many junk foods are ready to eat in the package. Others may take only a couple or so minutes in the microwave or oven to be ready.

quote: Manny Knowles
What's interesting is that so many people prefer to focus on the issue of "freedoms" over the health issues. I'm not saying anybody is wrong for that. Just that I find it interesting that health takes the back seat.

Yeah, it's "freedom" without any of the associated responsibility and consequence that should be tied to it. Americans want the freedom to make a bad choice and then they want employers, hospitals, insurance companies and all the other taxpayers to save their lives and help pay the bill. It's hypocrisy.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-21-2012 01:57 PM

You can't legislate responsibility. Sometimes, you just have to let people do things even if they are wrong, as long as they aren't breaking the law. You use that as an excuse for the government to create more laws which usurp authority from the people.

Remember, I'm the guy who is against this proposed law AND I am against insurance, too.
(Or, at least, think it should be radically restructured from the way it is, now.)

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-21-2012 02:19 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Americans want the freedom to make a bad choice and then they want employers, hospitals, insurance companies and all the other taxpayers to save their lives and help pay the bill. It's hypocrisy.

Might this be an example of the rampant "entitlement mentality" that I keep hearing so much about?

quote: Randy Stankey
You can't legislate responsibility. Sometimes, you just have to let people do things even if they are wrong, as long as they aren't breaking the law.

But if you did legislate responsibility, then being irresponsible would be against the law.

And then, you'd have to be in favor of it, wouldn't you? [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-21-2012 02:40 PM

The purposely inflammatory comments I made above speak directly to that point: We must be in favor of new laws, no matter how restrictive, lest we be labeled enemies of the government. The government always knows what's good for the people and anybody who doesn't go along is obviously detrimental to the public order.

It's a Catch-22 that the government uses to justify new laws.

Regardless how good that law seems on the surface, when government takes more authority, it is almost always bad.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.