Posted on 07/25/2012 8:54:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
NEW YORK (AP) — Medical professionals who favor a proposed ban on large-sized sugary drinks likened soda companies to Big Tobacco at a public hearing Tuesday, saying the plan would protect the public, while opponents accused the city of playing Big Brother and wondered what tasty but unhealthy foods might be targeted next.
New York City's health board heard hours of testimony on a proposed rule that would limit soft-drink cup and bottle sizes at food service establishments to no larger than 16 ounces.
Medical experts spared no rhetoric in hailing Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal as a way to protect the public from a soft-drink industry they said pushes carbonated calories on children and employs the same well-financed lobbying tactics as Big Tobacco.
One doctor said before the hearing that the calorie-packed beverages increase the risk of diabetes, and are responsible for a big share of the "massive suffering and premature death" linked to obesity.
"Soda in large amounts is metabolically toxic," said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. "It's obvious that this is the right thing to do."
A 20-ounce bottle of Coca-Cola has roughly the same calorie count as a McDonald's hamburger, but Kelly Brownell, a psychology, epidemiology and public health professor at Yale University, said it is easier to over-drink than over-eat.
"You don't feel as full when you consume calories in liquids," he said. "These beverages are the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet."
Critics ridiculed the idea that city officials should regulate portion sizes.
City Councilman Daniel Halloran III called the proposal a "feel-good placebo" that would hurt profit margins at small businesses while failing to improve anyone's health.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The pro is that people really would be healthier if they didn't drink sugary drinks or didn't drink them to excess - assuming they don't just substitute something else unhealthy for their Big Gulp. The Nanny State activists do have that one point in their favor. The con is that IT’S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FLIPPIN BUSINESS! The con argument wins overwhelmingly.
Watch this change into a “tax law”....just like cigarettes.....say 5 cents per ounce.
Just trying to be humorous, MM.
The very thought of even having this conversation should scare the hell out of people.
When you have a government telling people what you can eat, drink, smoke, etc. You have tyranny. PERIOD!
IF the people of New York had any balls they would have Bloomberg strung up by his balls. But hey, they get what they deserve if they do nothing.
Excellent quote. Thank you!
Dittos to Gabz’s comments, but I would like to add that in reality they are gutless little tyrants that have no core values. They are to weak to face the logical progression of their celebrated policies and that is proven by the fact that by supporting the nanny state, they are admitting that they are to weak to run their own lives.
I consider them great potential fertilizer for the tree of liberty....
Oh I know, sorry if I came off as attacking you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.