Soda Warnings by San Francisco

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2015 2:04 AM GMT
    NYT: San Francisco could soon be the first city in the country to place health warnings on advertisements for sugary drinks.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/warning-soda-may-be-bad-for-your-health-san-francisco-says/?ref=health
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2015 12:19 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidNYT: San Francisco could soon be the first city in the country to place health warnings on advertisements for sugary drinks.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/warning-soda-may-be-bad-for-your-health-san-francisco-says/?ref=health


    Add a tax while they are at it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2015 4:51 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidPlease....

    As if this will accomplish anything.

    It didn't do diddlysquat for warning labels on cigarette packaging. People are still out there smoking like chimneys.
    But not as many. That's the goal...right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 9:46 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    paulflexes said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidPlease....

    As if this will accomplish anything.

    It didn't do diddlysquat for warning labels on cigarette packaging. People are still out there smoking like chimneys.
    But not as many. That's the goal...right?


    Do you really think smoking has declined?

    I should look into studies to see if this is the case.
    I know that it's declined in the US just by seeing fewer and fewer butts on the sidewalks. The fact that only 2 people smoke outside at your apt should be quite telling, as just 10 years ago that number would have been much higher.

    As for other countries, though...especially developing countries...smoking is on the rise. In fact, if you dig deep with research, you'll find that health insurance companies actually invest in tobacco companies for that very reason. The stocks are soaring. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2015 8:26 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidPlease....

    As if this will accomplish anything.

    It didn't do diddlysquat for warning labels on cigarette packaging. People are still out there smoking like chimneys.


    Smoking has declined enormously in the U.S. over the last 50 years.

    http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20081113/smoking-rate-is-declining-in-us

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/smoking-rate-for-adults-declines-cdc-report-shows/2434525/

    Of course, far too many people still smoke, but the decline has been substantial. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country, and especially among poor people, smoking has declined much less. And one of the groups that has higher than average smoking rates is the LGBT community.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/07/31/336386346/amid-smoking-decline-look-whos-still-lighting-up

    It seems, however, that because of worldwide population growth, there may now be a greater number of smokers around the world than ever before, even though worldwide percentages have dropped.

    http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/01/08/despite-declines-in-smoking-rates-number-of-smokers-and-cigarettes-rises/
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 15, 2015 3:04 PM GMT
    ^^Thank you for collecting those stats and commenting. Indeed, smoking has declined in the U.S., thankfully. The question still on the table is to what extent can we attribute the Surgeon General's Warning to the decline, but that's likely really gritty science we'll never fully get at since the warning came with other cessation efforts (no advertising on TV, agreement by producers to not show characters smoking, banning smoking on airplanes, outreach programs, etc.).

    It should suffice to say, the soda warning will likely curb SOME soda drinking. It'd be interesting to see them implement the soda ban, perform no other cessation efforts, and then get some hardcore data on what percent of people stop or reduce their soda intake (you could track this with vending/soda sales, and/or self reporting surveys, though I prefer the former as more accurate).
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Jun 15, 2015 8:36 PM GMT
    Comparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2015 12:44 AM GMT
    venue35 saidComparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif
    Soda and smoking are not being compared. The comparison is the marketing method used to reduce consumption.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 16, 2015 12:54 AM GMT
    venue35 saidComparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif


    @Venue, I think PaulFlexes is correct. Personally, I compared soda to cigarettes insofar that both have "cessation" efforts, which are a gambit of tricks (carrots and sticks) to reduce consumption of the socially defined 'evil'.

    No one, for a second, is saying that soda is as addictive or harmful medically as smoking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2015 1:06 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    venue35 said
    Comparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif

    @Venue, I think PaulFlexes is correct. Personally, I compared soda to cigarettes insofar that both have "cessation" efforts, which are a gambit of tricks (carrots and sticks) to reduce consumption of the socially defined 'evil'.

    No one, for a second, is saying that soda is as addictive or harmful medically as smoking.

    But I also recently read that hospital dietitians are starting to remove soft drinks from patient menus. It isn't a matter of addiction, but of good nutrition. I believe that's the stated focus in SF.

    At the same time, I'm not totally comfortable with the government being so controlling of my diet. Their business is to keep the food clean and disease-free.

    A concept Republican lawmakers refuse to accept, preferring "free-market forces" instead. When enough people sicken & die (assuming we can identify the diseased food sources ourselves without government inspection agencies), the theory says we'll stop buying those products and the manufacturers will clean up their acts voluntarily.

    But I wonder if SF would like to add the products from California wineries to their proscribed & regulated list? Certainly the health benefits of THOSE products are debatable. I wonder what's stopping them?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 16, 2015 1:33 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 said
    venue35 said
    Comparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif

    @Venue, I think PaulFlexes is correct. Personally, I compared soda to cigarettes insofar that both have "cessation" efforts, which are a gambit of tricks (carrots and sticks) to reduce consumption of the socially defined 'evil'.

    No one, for a second, is saying that soda is as addictive or harmful medically as smoking.

    But I also recently read that hospital dietitians are starting to remove soft drinks from patient menus. It isn't a matter of addiction, but of good nutrition. I believe that's the stated focus in SF.

    At the same time, I'm not totally comfortable with the government being so controlling of my diet. Their business is to keep the food clean and disease-free.

    A concept Republican lawmakers refuse to accept, preferring "free-market forces" instead. When enough people sicken & die (assuming we can identify the diseased food sources ourselves without government inspection agencies), the theory says we'll stop buying those products and the manufacturers will clean up their acts voluntarily.

    But I wonder if SF would like to add the products from California wineries to their proscribed & regulated list? Certainly the health benefits of THOSE products are debatable. I wonder what's stopping them?


    Good point Art_Deco, this deserves extra attention, and I think a post in and of itself. Market forces are debatable at best, and it is without debate that without regulation, which is PROACTIVE, market regulation is REACTIVE. Said another way, proactive forces PREVENT the injury from occurring, and reactive forces RESPOND to an injury. This is a minor inconvenience if we're talking about prices, but a game stopper if death is on the menu in the form of food borne illnesses such as listeria, salmonella, and mad cow disease.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 8:32 PM GMT
    This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/this-is-what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-stop-drinking-soda/ss-BBimfs0#image=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2015 12:34 AM GMT
    2bnaked saidThis Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda
    This is what happens to your body when you visit Nigeria. icon_eek.gif
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/nigerian-restaurant-shut-down-for-serving-human-flesh/ar-BBjQfOB
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2015 7:12 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 said
    venue35 said
    Comparing soda with cigarette smoking is just...icon_rolleyes.gif

    @Venue, I think PaulFlexes is correct. Personally, I compared soda to cigarettes insofar that both have "cessation" efforts, which are a gambit of tricks (carrots and sticks) to reduce consumption of the socially defined 'evil'.

    No one, for a second, is saying that soda is as addictive or harmful medically as smoking.

    But I also recently read that hospital dietitians are starting to remove soft drinks from patient menus. It isn't a matter of addiction, but of good nutrition. I believe that's the stated focus in SF.

    At the same time, I'm not totally comfortable with the government being so controlling of my diet. Their business is to keep the food clean and disease-free.

    A concept Republican lawmakers refuse to accept, preferring "free-market forces" instead. When enough people sicken & die (assuming we can identify the diseased food sources ourselves without government inspection agencies), the theory says we'll stop buying those products and the manufacturers will clean up their acts voluntarily.

    But I wonder if SF would like to add the products from California wineries to their proscribed & regulated list? Certainly the health benefits of THOSE products are debatable. I wonder what's stopping them?


    The suggestion that Republican lawmakers want to do away with the FDA and similar agencies is absurd. It was, after all, that GOPer Teddy Roosevelt who founded the FDA in 1906, and no GOPer has suggested it be dismantled since. And, spare us your twisted definition of the free market, and what constitutes "being so controlling of your diet." Try controlling your own overindulgence in alcohol next time you've one of your cravings for a BM, and put a stopper in the nonsense like the above that flows from your drunken reveries.

    As for SF, apparently its Bd. of Supervisors feels regulating sodas is more important that regulating illegal aliens who come and hide out there, and then go on to kill American citizens, as recently reoccurred. The killer could have been thwarted - and an American citizen's life saved - if SF had cooperated with ICE instead of indulging in more permissive approaches towards law enforcement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2015 10:45 PM GMT
    Remember that Joe Camel brought back smoking, just as Starbucks brought back coffee (consumption of which was so much on the decline in the early eighties that advertisers were trying to figure out a way to hook a new generation on caffeine, not realizing the answer lay in the product, or what to add to it - whipped cream and artificially flavored syrups).

    Smoking IS down (though why young people today choose to begin smoking is beyond me). But coffee consumption is UP. Yesterday's ice cream shops have turned into today's Starbucks. I literally recoiled at the "Glee" scenes where Kurt and Blaine were lined up at the barista for their cup of joe. OBNOXIOUS. And passing Starbucks I've seen kids as young as 12, maybe younger!

    Don't forget the debacle that occurred when NYC recently tried to outlaw Big Gulp-sized sodas. Instead of buying two regular sized (NOT regulated), people just rebelled against this infringement on their rights.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 25, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    paulflexes said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidPlease....

    As if this will accomplish anything.

    It didn't do diddlysquat for warning labels on cigarette packaging. People are still out there smoking like chimneys.
    But not as many. That's the goal...right?


    Do you really think smoking has declined?


    I think the number of people who think smoking doesn't kill has declined. I think that will affect the number of people suffering from lung disease.
    I hope warning against refined sugar will do the same for diabetes.

    The amount of sugar in these drinks is obscene.
    No one ever eats 15 lumps of sugar a day thinking that it's healthy. Somehow they do drink that same amount and just call it "I like mountain dew" and they have no clue it will make them go blind or lose them a foot in the end.

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Jul 26, 2015 2:08 PM GMT
    CheeseKraut said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    paulflexes said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidPlease....

    As if this will accomplish anything.

    It didn't do diddlysquat for warning labels on cigarette packaging. People are still out there smoking like chimneys.
    But not as many. That's the goal...right?


    Do you really think smoking has declined?


    I think the number of people who think smoking doesn't kill has declined. I think that will affect the number of people suffering from lung disease.
    I hope warning against refined sugar will do the same for diabetes.

    The amount of sugar in these drinks is obscene.
    No one ever eats 15 lumps of sugar a day thinking that it's healthy. Somehow they do drink that same amount and just call it "I like mountain dew" and they have no clue it will make them go blind or lose them a foot in the end.

    The absolute worst culprit is that high fructose corn syrup. When sodas were sweetened with pure cane sugar they were not so bad. But when the evil, poisonous high fructose corn syrup came onto the scene to cut production costs, that is when sodas became more toxic. Before I purchase anything, I always read the ingredients and if it contains high fructose corn syrup, I put it back on the shelf. The company that made that food product just lost me as a customer. End of discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2015 5:44 PM GMT
    SF would be do better by warning of illegal aliens and then seeking out, apprehending, and turning them over to ICE for deportation. This is just more silly window dressing from one of the most ridiculous governmental bodies in the US. Lord only knows how much its costing the taxpayers.
  • CheeseKraut

    Posts: 145

    Jul 26, 2015 8:51 PM GMT
    Before I purchase anything, I always read the ingredients and if it contains high fructose corn syrup, I put it back on the shelf. The company that made that food product just lost me as a customer. End of discussion.[/quote]

    In what way is fructose corn syrup worse than sugar?
    Just asking because I'm curious. I thought it was all just sugar.

    I agree on not buying that stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2015 3:43 AM GMT
    CheeseKraut said
    Before I purchase anything, I always read the ingredients and if it contains high fructose corn syrup, I put it back on the shelf. The company that made that food product just lost me as a customer. End of discussion.

    In what way is fructose corn syrup worse than sugar?
    Just asking because I'm curious. I thought it was all just sugar.

    I agree on not buying that stuff. [/quote]

    (insert gap to compensate for RJ's inadequate quote feature)

    HFCS is sweeter than sugar, and tricks the brain into thinking it needs more food to be satiated (that 'full' feeling). Therefore a person is more likely to overeat to compensate for the synthetic "empty" feeling after consuming HFCS.

    As a person who has very little sugar in my diet, it's easy for me to recognize HFCS in foods and beverages, just by the extreme sweetness. Even a banana seems a little too sweet sometimes.