http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57444945/nyc-soda-ban-could-another-blow-for-drink-makers/
I'm no fan of the nanny state but soda/pop/tonic is 100% toxic. Aspartame, HFCS and even the materials used to make the containers are pure poison.
The market is already taking care of it. Evermore people are discontinuing the consumption of it. It's gotten to the point that the HFCS PR team has PSA on TV about how HFCS is just like all other suger. The paleo/primal movement is growing. Even McDonald's has had to start selling "healthy" alternatives.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
This was pleasantly surprising:
The irony of all this is, if they just GOT RID OF THE CORN SUBSIDY, soda (along with almost everything on the McDonald's menu) would become WAY more expensive, literally solving the problem overnight.
Isn't a bit too ironic that POOR people are the fat ones these days?
Hmm... so I gotta get my black market soda from my light bulb dealer now?
Maybe this will help Bloomberg see what his city is heading towards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puM1eT15NYw
I gotta say, I'm at least happy about the amount of attention this is getting.
Got another one:
http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/1228/food-nazi
It's as ineffective as it is immoral.
Unlimited refills? Will those be banned? If not, banning in restaurants/theme parks will be pointless. Buy one get one free/half price/whatever? Stores could probably end up selling the same amount of liquid for the same price as before... just more plastic in the process... let's see how the liberals like that.
Europeans weigh in, and give a very sad dose of the reality of their mindset:
Jackson LaRose:The irony of all this is, if they just GOT RID OF THE CORN SUBSIDY, soda (along with almost everything on the McDonald's menu) would become WAY more expensive, literally solving the problem overnight.
Penn & Teller emphasize the same point regarding corn syrup:
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Using cane sugar isn't that much more expensive than corn syrup, and sugar would be cheaper if there were no tariffs or quotas on imported sugar.
Here's my thing. I used to enjoy Coca-Cola, drank and really liked the two-three cans I drank daily.
Then in the early '90s they replaced cane sugar with locally made beet sugar (because of tariffs and subsidies, of course). I stopped drinking it pretty much overnight in disgust.
Just last month my mother called me and (since I am a chemist) asked me what was wrong with her favorite soft drink, a local product made by a Nestlé subsidiary. Guess what? Corn syrup has arrived here too, though at the moment is still mixed with ordinary beet sugar.
All this cavorting to get around tariffs and benefit from subsidies is actually hurting soda manufacturers. People are consuming their products in ever decreasing amounts or simply not consuming them anymore. Health concerns have nothing to do with it: energy drinks and imported soft drinks (like Guaranà) still sell extremely well or are even increasing their market share despite costing three or four times more than a traditional soda. The fact is people find the new ingredients off-putting if not downright disgusting and stop consuming. Coca-Cola has taken such a beating they abandoned their traditional can to adopt one mimicking the tall, thin one made popular by Red Bull in a desperate marketing attempt.
As for me, I'll stick to my tea, thank you very much.
That's pure superstition.
Kaz: I'm no fan of the nanny state but soda/pop/tonic is 100% toxic. Aspartame, HFCS and even the materials used to make the containers are pure poison. That's pure superstition.
The researchers at Princeton must be pretty superstitious
"When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
FYI I don't support the ban. But anyone who cares about their health NEEDS to kiss 99% of the foods at the supermarket goodbye. Take up natural eating/living.
Hey you know where there's no supermarket? In the woods. You should go there. To live.
I will when I know I won't be caged by the state for it. living off the grid is illegal in most places.
I thought New Hampshire was a paradise of freedom! I mean, you can buy all the raw milk you want for crissake! It's motto is "live free or die" for crissake! You mean you can't even live free in the woods without being put in a cage???
WHAT HAPPENED?!
For people like you F4M, the basement sounds like a better choice of residence.
I thought New Hampshire was a paradise of freedom! I mean, you can buy all the raw milk you want for crissake! It's motto is "live free or die" for crissake! You mean you can't even live free in the woods without being put in a cage??? WHAT HAPPENED?!
That's why I'm in NH. Least violent state by far. But the state will still arrest you for living in the woods.
Doesn't sound very free to me.
Oh well. You know what you say. Live free or die. So I guess you should get treking. If they do come to put you in a cage, make sure you commit suicide. As that's basically the only other option you really have, given your motto.
That's not science.
Science requires coming up with a theory that includes the actual mechanism by which it works, then coming up with an experiment that, if the theory is mistaken, should prove it wrong.
If your hypothesis was "aspirin kills people", and you fed it to rats, they'd all die --- aspirin is poisonous to rodents -- and you'd have proven just about nothing.
Forcing rats to eat high-fructose corn syrup doesn't prove that human beings who voluntarily eat it are being made fat by it.
Especially if someone's ignorant enough to think it's more harmful than normal sucrose.
Our digestive systems cannot absorb sucrose, until it's broken down into fructose and sucrose...at which point it's identical, as far as our body knows, to high-fructose corn syrup. Yes, modern, instrumentalist junk science is more akin to superstition than to actual scientific realism.
until it's broken down into fructose and sucrose
I guess you made a typo: it's broken down into fructose and glucose.
Also, even if sucrose has to be metabolised into fructose first, there may be various ways by which HFCS can be harmful. To name a couple, HFCS may contain other chemicals, or presense of sucrose may trigger additional (beneficial) reactions.
I think Robert Lustig lays out the biological case for why all sugar, but especially HFCS is 'bad' for human consumption. (Ie, HFCS is worse than sugar because it's more fructose than glucose, although it was a while since I watched his presentation, so I may not remember it correctly.)
"There may be various ways" is not science. It's speculation.
So far, nobody's presented an exact mechanism and then subjected it to falsification testing.
The "may contain other chemicals" argument is meaningless. If that's the case, then high fructose corn syrup, itself, isn't the problem.
And since the body cannot absorb sucrose until it's broken down exactly like corn syrup, it can't "trigger additional reactions". The body can't tell the difference, once it's digested.
To the other reply:
High-fructoste corn syrup has exactly the same ratio of glucose and fructose, which is why it's used.
The premise that sugar, in general, is bad is just silly. Hopefully, this isn't the claim that we should try to mostly eliminate glucose from our blood, in preference for ketones.
Kaz: High-fructoste corn syrup has exactly the same ratio of glucose and fructose, which is why it's used.
50% in sucrose 55% in HFCS-55 (soft-drinks) 42% in HFCS-42 (food sweeteners)
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1470
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that refined sugars are problematic due to their refined-ness. In natural foods the sugars exist in a complex arrangement with other nutrients and fibers, and are thus metabolized at a controlled rate. When refined sugars are used, they exist in a simple mixture with any other nutrients, or all alone in the case of soda pop, and in a highly available state causing the system to o.d. on the sugar. Also the fructose content in natural foods is typically low.
Sucrose, at least, is slowed down by the metabolic step of being broken down into glucose and fructose. HFCS requires no such step; the sugars are immediately available.
In any case, it seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon those that claim that the new substance, which is clearly structurally different from the known substance, nevertheless behaves identically in the body. As far as I know, this has never been proven.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that refined sugars are problematic due to their refined-ness. In natural foods the sugars exist in a complex arrangement with other nutrients and fibers, and are thus metabolized at a controlled rate.
That's also a load of crap, to be blunt. The 'problem' with refined sugars and refined foods in general is people suck them down by the metric ton. And doing that may lead to some health problems for some people, especially those with predispositions to diabetes or other risks. But there also plenty of people who drink and eat sugar a plenty with no problems. The problem is people and their pattern searching minds which make spurious links that turn out to be BS when studied. Granted, foods of different composition might lead to feeling less 'full' and thus, more eating, and how certain foods may affect hormones like insulin and leptin and what not are being studied. But the ultimate governor of all this is your waistline; and if it's expanding, then you're eating too much. That's thermodynamics and tha subsumes it all in the end. It applies as much to humans as it does to black holes.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that refined sugars are problematic due to their refined-ness.
Inductive reasoning. Things that are natural are no more likely to be healthy than things artificial. Especially when you consider that all things man-made ARE natural. The premise that termite mounds, oxygen, and honey are natural, but skyscrapers, plutonium, and refined sugar are not is absolutely silly.
n natural foods the sugars exist in a complex arrangement with other nutrients and fibers, and are thus metabolized at a controlled rate
Unless you're sucking on sugar cane, or eating honey.
Also the fructose content in natural foods is typically low.
Except in fruit. Fructose means, of course, "fruit sugar".
In any case, it seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon those that claim that the new substance, which is clearly structurally different from the known substance, nevertheless behaves identically in the body.
No, the burden of proof is with the silly alarmists who fear new things.
I am going to put my conspiracy cap on. What if big corporations are actually for the drink ban? Does Pepsi benefit for having people spend money on a bunch of smaller drinks as opposed to larger drinks? Do resturants favor this so they can charge more for less? Do packaging companies benefit from more plastic being used?
Is Bloomberg creating more pollution by this law?
@Wibee, here is your case:
It will just force you to buy 2 drinks if you want more instead of having 1 big cup, thus giving more money to soda corporations.
WE know this shits bad for you, then just cut the corn subsidy, then everything made of our shit worthless ass corn will be more expensive and market will drive for another type of material to sweeten our stuff.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will appeal a New York judge's choice to overturn the town's ban on sugary beverages served in cups larger than 16 ounces. The soda ban was intended to have gone into impact on Tues, March 12, but it was overturned right before.
awwwwsssooooome.
Bloomberg better be glad that they haven't yet set up ID checks and tracking so that he couldn't get around these restrictions on the number of pizza slices. He could go to jail for getting around these the way he did, by going to another restaurant.
Just in case anyone doesn't know, The Daily Currant is satire, but I still found the whole thing awesome. The fact that they're choosing to draw attention to it is great