« Is It Still School?: The New York Times on Online Courses | Main | Bringing His A Game: Ian Crouch on A-Rod, the Astros, and Austerity »

03/29/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fred

In the article “Banning the Big Gulp Ban” it seems that Mark Bittman is in total agreement with the “nanny state” that Mayor Bloomberg and his administration are trying to create. They seem to be quite upset that State Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling in Manhattan struck down their law a day before it took effect and have decided to appeal the decision. Basically, the premise of the law is that it would limit sugary drinks served in restaurants, theaters and food carts to 16 ozs.
According to the CDC over 30% of U.S. adults are obese; we should all be concerned with these statistics, and as a result we must be observant of our eating and drinking habits. No one can disagree that America has an obesity problem that needs to be addressed, but is it really our government leaders’ responsibility to dictate to us how that problem should be handled? I seriously doubt this is what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they hammered out what our fledgling government would look like and the way it would function over 200 years ago. The Mayor is quoted as saying, “I’ve got to defend my children, and yours, and do what’s right to save lives.” (Grynbaum) Mr. Bloomberg is confused, this is not so much a matter of defending children as it is teaching them the dangers of poor nutrition and poor eating habits. This instruction needs to come from the parents; the schools and the city of New York can reinforce these lessons but it is ultimately the parent’s responsibility to teach good habits. It is not the responsibility of big government to direct what you can and cannot ingest. In reading Mr. Bittman’s article it struck me that no one seemed concerned about an intrusive regime or big brother watching over us to protect us from ourselves.
The author of the article complains that “…every time a move that attempts to limit the sale of soda comes before a legislative, electoral or judicial body, the publicity is tremendous, in part thanks to the huge amount of money the beverage industry is forced to spend defending its turf.” (Bittman) Perhaps the writer and the New York Times should look at the outrage voiced by the citizens when this law was introduced. Mr. Bittman complains about the publicity made by the sugar industry when they informed the public, but would he prefer sneaking legislation through with no discussion and no opposition? That’s not part of our democratic process, and that is not the way laws are passed. If the good Mayor of New York was as concerned with the inhabitants and their health as he wants us to believe, he could have laid out a total encompassing plan, presented it as such, and started work bringing it to fruition.


Works Cited

Bittman, Mark. "The New York Times Opinion Pages." 19 March 2013. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/banning-the-big-gulp-ban/?src=rechp. Electronic. 24 April 2013.

Grynbaum, Michael M. "The New York Times, Judge Blocks New York City's Limits on Big Sugary Drinks." 11 March 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Electronic. 25 April 2013.


Manisha

In this article “Banning the Big Gulp Ban”, by Mark Bittman discusses that all of the sugary drinks that are being served in a restaurant, delis, food trucks, and movie theater they should reduce the size to be 16 oz. Bittman has some very interesting points in his article about pop drinks. No doubt that USA has the biggest obesity problem according to the CDC more than one-third of U.S. adults (35.7 %) are obese.
Everyone should be concerned about the obesity and what they consumed throughout the day. Also we should watch what we eat and drink, consuming good nutrition will only do well to your body, so choose water not those big size sugary drinks. What really should be smallest size sugary drink? An 8 oz. should be the perfect but if is not satisfying or quench the thirst then 16 oz. would not people would get 2 drinks instead. Is it really government leader responsibility to address the problem and how it should be handled? Many of the schools should not even have soda in vending machine it should just be the water and juice. It is the parent’s responsibility to teaching their children of good eating habits and what could be the risk of consuming poor nutrition would lead them in later life. Definitely it isn’t up to the government leader to teach people of the dangers of sugary drink or eating big mac. Parents should be the role models for their kids when it comes to eat healthier and drinking soda, as well as school should be teaching children, and city of New York should have some sort of commercial.
After reading Bittman’s article it made clear sense that Bloomberg seems to have mixed up thoughts, if he was so serious about the soda ban then he should have start taking all of the soda machines not just from schools and work place. In general obesity is obviously a public health issue; we end up paying more tax than we should if not many weren’t obese. People like to have their freedom to choose what and how much they eat and drink.

Bittman, Mark. “The New York Times Opinion Pages.” 19 March 2013. Electronic 26 April 2013.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/banning-the-big-gulp-ban/

Kelly Mills

So it seems that Mark Bittman in his article "Banning the Big Gulp Ban" is quite annoyed that banning the super-size sugary drink has been stayed. I really do not think that banning a 32-ounce soda in 7-11 is going to help the obesity rate in the country. Seriously, almost everything we consume has some kind of consequence. As stated in his article, health commissioner Thomas Farley believed that the best option available for the city of New York would be to move forward in its struggle against obesity, metabolic syndrome and associated diseases, which kill thousands of New Yorkers each year, by banning the purchase of 32 ounce soda. Is it really soda that is killing thousands of New Yorkers? I find that hard to believe. I agree that soda may not be the greatest beverage to consume, but banning the purchase of 32 ounces compared to 16 ounces is not going to help the obesity rate by any means. It seems as though everything can be purchased "supersized" nowadays, so how can banning 32 ounces of soda be any worse for us than being able to purchase three king-size candy bars for the price of one? I don't see how obesity is going to decline if we ban sugary beverages. And besides, if you can't purchase a big gulp, you can just purchase two of a smaller size.

Research shows that we'll consume pretty much whatever quantity we're served and if 16 ounces of soda isn't enough, the ban would not prohibit one from purchasing two 16-ounce containers. Bittman claims though they believe the ban would make one think twice before doing so. Maybe that is true, but there are many other places 32 ounces or more of soda can be consumed. Let's look at restaurants for example. Most restaurants have free refills on beverages. So, every time your glass is empty, your waiter/waitress is refilling it. A person, on average, probably consumes 3-4 refills in one sitting, which is way more than the 32-ounce big gulp. So, the ban would have to apply everywhere, not just 7-11. The argument that preventing us from buying 32 ounces of liquid candy in one container somehow restricts are "liberties" can be seriously made only by those who would allow marketing of tobacco to children is absurd. It's easy to put the blame on the FDA and the Surgeon General, but isn't it an individual's decision on what they consume? Bittman even further claims that Michelle Obama and the Department of Agriculture pussyfoot around the issue, talking about "making better choices" and getting plenty of exercise. Well, that doesn't seem like pussyfooting to me. It makes more sense than banning a 32-ounce soda.
Work Cited

Bittman, Mark. "Banning the Big Gulp Ban." Opinionator Banning the Big Gulp Ban Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

Josephine Gutierrez

Sugary drinks are really bad for people and banning the sale of Big Gulps is a smart move but would that stop someone from buying two 16 oz drinks. California has recently imposed a tax on every ounce of soda you buy, this is worse than tabacco prices, but it makes sense because obesity is the second killing diseases from tabacco. Where would the revenue go from this new imposed tax? If the money is used to provide healthier food in schools than paying that extra tax is fine, but if politicians are going to pocket the money that would be upsetting. It is true that intake of sugary drinks is worse than solid calories from food yet some people do not know this and awareness is key to preventing many of the health related issues of obesity. The problem with today not many are active and burn off the calories they consume. The accumulation of fat is bad for the heart, although there is good fat the fat acquired from sugary drinks is bad. Everything in restaurants is large, large burgers, fries, and drinks. The human brain is used to see large as ok or the norm and if something was small we ask if they have anything bigger. If people start managing what they eat and drink Americans would be healthier but not everyone is like that. Nothing can be done to make soft drinks healthier, water is the only thing that is healthy but some people cannot drink water plainly; they would add soda. The brain is wired to drinking soda with the many television ads of Pepsi and Coke, Sprite and Dr. Pepper advertising soda as cool and hip. Everyone could do without a Big Gulp, there are other sizes to buy it is the amount of sugar in a Big Gulp that is extremely unhealthy.

Nino Gonzalez

Mark Bittman, in his article, "Banning the Big Gulp Ban" explains the ban on super-sized drinks. He continues to explain what exactly the Big Gulp Ban is and what the whole purpose of it is. Bittman seems to be in favor of the Big Gulp Ban because he believes it will help people control their cravings for soda. For example he states, "If this is about freedom, it’s about the freedom of marketers to sell vectors of disease; we should all be in favor of restricting that freedom." Bittman is suggesting that the marketers are trying to poison the population with their soda. I think Bittman's article is ridiculous because nobody is forcing people to drink soda. Nobody is saying that people have to drink soda with each meal. If a person wanted a 32 oz soda then they could simply refill a 16 oz cup. Bittman states, "If 16 ounces of soda isn’t enough for you, the ban would not, of course, have prohibited your purchase of two 16-ounce containers; the idea was to make you think twice before doing so." He thinks that the ban will make people think twice about drinking that much soda. If a person really cared about their weight then they would not even drink soda at all! This is all a matter of self-control and self-discipline, which is what most Americans lack which is why the obesity rate is so high in America. Instead of limiting how much soda a person can buy, the government should be worried about stopping the rest of the country from having to pay for these obese people that obviously do not seem to care about themselves. Unless a person has an eating disorder, obesity is completely preventable just like tobacco. I think the government needs to stop worrying about all of the obese people in the country and focus on more important things like fixing our education system.

Eric Anaya

I disagree with Mark Bittman in this article “Banning the Big Gulp Ban.” Bittman feels that the New York ban on oversized sugary drinks such as soda is necessary and justified. Bittman feels that the positive effects on banning these oversized drinks outweigh the fact that they are basically bossing the people of New York around. Bittman states “If this is about freedom, it’s about the freedom of marketers to sell vectors of disease; we should all be in favor of restricting that freedom.” In his very own words Bittman is talking about taking away the freedom of the people of New York. Yes drinking large quantities of soda is unhealthy and may lead to disease but that is not the governments choice to make whether we should be allowed to drink it or not. It should be the people’s decision whether or not they want to consume large amounts of soda not the governments. The government should inform people about the dangers and health risks, however the final decision should be left up to the public. Bittman compares soda to tobacco which is a ridiculous comparison. Tobacco contains nicotine which has been proven to be addictive and contains a Surgeon General’s warning on the health risks where as soda does not. There are much more important issues facing our nation in today’s society than banning the sale of a large quantity soda. Yes, diabetes and health care is an important issue, but banning a 32 oz. soft drink is not going to solve the problem or even make any significant changes. If people want to buy a 32 oz. soft drink they should be allowed to and not be made to eat and drink only what the government says like children. Better ways of attacking these issues would be by getting to the root of the problem. To solve the obesity problem the question must be asked why do people buy unhealthy 32oz drinks? Answers may include being poor, not being nutritionally knowledgeable, or not having sufficient healthy alternatives. Studies have found a direct correlation between poverty and obesity which demonstrates that we need a better solution to the obesity crisis than by simply banning a 32oz. drink.

Rebecca Gree

I cannot even believe that banning big size drinks actually made it to court, and I am even more shocked at the 8-0 ruling in favor of the ban! I do not believe for a second that banning a soft drink, or banning anything we consume for that matter, is going to reduce the obesity epidemic in America. Obesity is a psychological issue, unless proven biological by a physician, and will not simply fix itself with the absence of soft drinks. People over eat, over drink, over whatever , due to a void they have. The void could be a loss of someone, a lack of love, a lack of appreciation for themselves, the list goes on. They fill that void with things that make them feel better, and as genius as are brains are, the things that make us feel better are wonderfully delicious and easily accessible carbohydrates and sugary filled delights. Obese people need counseling, they need to understand why they cannot stop eating, or why they do not want to stop eating. They need to find out if their obesity is due to chemical imbalances, and if so, get a physician to treat them. Instead of having a hearing on banning soft drinks, have a hearing with parents on trial for making their kids obese, it is a form of child abuse, and will have lasting effects on that kid, and their kids, and their kids.

Minjie Tan

In the article “Banning the Big Gulp Ban,” Mark Bittman argues that the Big Gulp Ban is a good law because it does not restrict consumers’ ability to buy more than 16-ounce of sugary drink at once; instead, it restricts the beverage industry and the fast food chains to sell the amount of drink that would cause diabetes. I agree with his argument. In the U.S., the sizes of drink are much bigger than the sizes of other countries. For example, a typical small size cup can hold 16-ounce of drink in the U.S., but in Europe, 16-ounce is medium size. Their small size is 12-ounce. Furthermore, Japanese McDonald's small size is only 8-ounce which is only one half of America’s “small” standard, and it is smaller than America’s smallest size, “kiddie,” which is 12-ounce, and “kiddie” is only available with the Happy Meal. I also have to mention that United States is the only country has Super Size and Mega Size. Look back in 1955, the original fountain drink size of McDonald’s was 7-ounce. Fast food chains want to sell as much beverage as possible, so they increase the size of the drink for the consumers. People in the U.S. do not have the right to buy a soda that is 8-ounce, but people in Japan can simply refill their small drinks to get 16-ounce of soda. We, the American, has less freedom of choice on soda sizes than anyone outside of the United States. The small size of Carl’s Jr. is 20-ounce. In the near future, many other fast food chains will follow, and the American will not able to get a drink that is less than 20-ounce. The Big Gulp Ban can prevent the bigger future, and it may bring back the smaller small size from the old days.

Lilian Campos

Mark Bittman writes in his article “Banning the Big Gulp Ban,” that the 32 oz. drinks that are usually sold at 7-Eleven should be banned and that this will help with the obesity epidemic happening in the U.S. However, I disagree because limiting the amount of soda a person can buy will not help with the obesity problem. It may seem easy that banning something as simple as a drink size will greatly help, in fact, this epidemic is cause by many factors, not just the size of the soda a person orders. Bittman gives a couple of examples of what the government has already banned to ensure the safety of the public, lead in paint and window guards in apartments. So why stop there; the government can ban certain alcohols because they kill brain cells and make people impaired which increase the risk of hurting themselves or others. The government can also limit how much people can watch television because it might turn them into couch potatoes. I know that Bittman wants the government to get more involved in the choices people make on sugary sodas, but there are countless more ways people consume too much sugar. Some people do not know that certain fruit juices contain just as much sugar as sodas or that artificial sugars are not much better than real sugar. Another thing Bittman should have mentioned is that sugar is not the only factor people tend to over eat; salt is also a major factor in the obesity epidemic. So maybe salt should be also regulated by the government as well. In reality, the government cannot regulate everything a person consumes in their diet. I believe that the government should be more focused on educating people on nutrition and give them better access to healthier foods.

lawFupalula

Spot on with this write-up, I genuinely believe this site wants a lot more consideration. I'll in all probability be once more to read a lot more, thanks for that information.


new era caps

Destiny Mendez

In the article “ Banning the Big Gulp Ban” by Bittman it points out clearly Mark Bittman is in favor of banning big sugary drinks. I would have to disagree, in my opinion it would not matter wether the government bans the bigger cup sizes because people can just buy or refill the same cup to get the same amount they would if the individual had bought a bigger sized cup. I disagree with the statements this article is making, the government is saying they care, but they are not really doing anything to help the situation because what they call their solution banning drinks, which in my opinion will have no effect. I personally do not think banning big sized drinks would help because it is not just soda, but other drinks too that can cause obesity and other diseases. Everything we consume has some amount of sugar in it and without proper exercise it can turn into fat and with time may lead to obesity.I also disagree with Mark Bittman on the idea that the government does not address the obesity issue directly, they do address it but it is the way that the issue is being addressed that puts the government’s plans at fault. Yes, obesity is an epidemic in the United States but banning soft drinks will not change it. Just as the government decided to place a CRV tax on all soft drinks with hopes people might find it expensive and not want to pay the extra fee, it still has not changed the fact that people are still buying soft drinks. Lastly I defiantly disagree with Bittman’s last comment, he stated “it is the direct leading cause of obesity”, which is not true, there are many variables that occur with obesity. Someone may have a medical condition, not enough finances to eat healthy, or stressed out. I think the government needs to improve on their tactics to help people instead of coming up with ‘solutions’ that may help. It is going to take an individual much more than just banning the biggest cup size they see to get them to change their eating habits and help decrease the epidemic.

Hannah

1. Soda for me is not a weakness. I hardly ever drink it. When I do it is usually 16 to 24 oz. and I of course drink it all at once. My go to drink is water. I drink water all day every day. It makes me feel good, it’s good for my skin and makes the whites of my eyes whiter. I heard that if one cut out soda from their life they would weigh about five pounds less. Soda is also bad for your teeth. These two things make me shun a soda. If I am going to drink something other than water it is coffee or unsweetened tea with a splash of lemonade. These two drinks have way fewer calories than that of any soda. This debate in New York has not changed how I feel about soda because I already have known soda is terrible for people.

2. No. Honestly it makes me roll my eyes. Yes, soda is bad, but comparing it to the deadliness of cigarettes is going too far. “The argument that preventing us from buying 32 ounces of liquid candy in one container somehow restricts our “liberties” can be seriously made only by those who would allow marketing of tobacco to children.” Here in my head I can’t help but to think, “Really Dude, really?” I give him props for his enthusiasm, but it doesn’t cut it for me. He sounds ignorant.
3.Bittman would agree most with Zinczenko, “Don’t Blame the Eater;” Because Zinczenko like Bittman believe that it is the companies wrong doing for causing obesity. Bittman would disagree most with Warner’s “Junking Junk Food” because she believes that it is un-American to not enjoy the simple pleasures of cookies and apple pie.
4. Banning cups over 16 oz. is silly. It isn’t banning soda it is banning cups. Let us get realistic. Banning a cup is not going to stop someone from drinking as much soda as they want. One is just going to refill their cup. The government’s involvement is absolutely a waste of their time. I would rather have my government discussing and debating the economy or education, instead of investing their time into a fight over cups. This is a silly way to spend our energy. Instead of blaming others for ones problems, one should be a smart citizen and do some research and make the decision for themselves.

Connor Anderson

In the article “Banning the Big Gulp Man”, Mark Bittman explains that obesity and diseases associated with obesity kill thousands of people in the state of New York each year. Bittman believes that sugary drinks sold in large containers are a big problem. He believes than banning 32 ounce drinks will help control the obesity issue. Sodas are a huge concern for those battling obesity, so much sugar is in soda, but there are other contributing factors to obesity. To battle obesity, a person must start eating right, exercising and take it seriously. Banning large containers for soda isn’t going to decrease the obesity rate, it might slow it down at a very slow rate but it is not going to create a massive drop in the obesity rate. Sure, taxes can be placed on sugar to make us think twice about buying it, but it will always be relevant. Sugar is used in too many things to try to ban. A lot of people that buy big gulps from 7-11 sip on them throughout the course of a couple of hours or so, they don’t just drink it all in one sitting. Eating at a restaurant is different though, without realizing it, a person drinks 2-4 sodas without realizing it over the course of his/her meal. A ban in large drinks might be somewhat helpful, but smaller drinks will be purchased more frequently and filled up more often. Essentially the same amount of soda, if not more, will be consumed. The issue of obesity can be controlled with proper knowledge of what to eat, how to exercise and support. Banning the big gulp would help very little in the fight against obesity. There are other liquor stores and gas stations that sell over 32 ounce drinks. Investing in school programs to help obese children, stop focusing on banning the big gulp when there are other, more effective ways to fight obesity.

Ramon Huerta

The ban of Big Gulps in New York City was great start for a city. Especially since the cities health officials were the ones to implement the ban. It is understandable that the city does not have fuel authority over all restaurants in the city. Yet, to have a city that can install a law that prevents the 20,000 restaurants and 5,000 mobile food vendors is the leading example the state needs to move to reduce drink proportions. If a state can implement a law for all restaurants in its jurisdiction this would start a new movement. I agree with the banning of the larger drinks such as the big gulp because it makes us purchase less sugar then we need. If the price of sugar could continue to lower in price and we are trying to regulate the consumption of larger drinks there should also be some sort of tax on any drink that is larger than for example a 16-ounze drink. This would also make consumers think twice about buying drinks with excise sugar. New York should be an example to other cities and soon states with the banning of the large size drinks. Also, if the representative from the White House and the Department of Agriculture should see that being active is not the only solution especially when there is a constant rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. The government should see that there has to be some of control or regulation in the size of drinks we are able to purchase at a restaurant and any other food venders. The new goal is to emplace the law so it becomes state wide and soon the nation. Once the nation is able to regulate the selling of large size drinks then other health problems can be addressed with more precision. In essence New York has done a great good to improve the health of young people.

Jacob Peña

Pop was a pretty normal beverage for me growing up, but around the age of 15 or 16 years old, I simply decided to quit consuming it. My choice was based on observation and seemed like a no-brainer. First, I was told that my uncle had diabetes because he over-indulged in sugar when he was younger. The next red flags were waved by all the different dyes and artificial ingredients found in pop. Because such substances are simply unnatural to consume, it seemed logical to conclude that “unnatural to my biological make-up”, meant “unhealthy for my body.” When I heard that carbonation leaches nutrients from our bones, my pop drinking days were officially over.

The solution that Bittman suggests almost seems pointless. From what I read in his article, it seems the ban would apply to places that often offer free, or next to free, refills anyway. Furthermore, there are plenty of markets with aisles stocked full of 2 liter bottles of soda, just waiting to be purchased. I don’t live in NYC, but it’s hard to imagine this law even making a dent, especially given the fact that obesity isn’t solely linked to sugar intake.

Believing that government can solve all our problems is actually quite authoritarian. Banning substances that people want to consume, no matter what, only makes “choice” illegal. We learned this during the prohibition of alcohol, one of the most dangerous drugs, and we see it now with marijuana, one of the least dangerous drugs. The best thing the government can do, is help educate the public to ensure more responsible decisions. If more people knew that aspartame has been linked to brain damage and turns to formaldehyde when heated to around 90˚ Fahrenheit, there would likely be more people unwilling to purchase products containing the substance. Regardless, there will always be those who could care less about what they put in their bodies, but that shouldn't be a taxpayer's problem.

my website

That's the kind of image that i really thing is super image like. If more images very real like this were out there we'd be super full of graet images in the world.

terry bandy

I'm truly enjoying the design and layout of your blog. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Great work!

Evan Keeney

When I was fourteen years old, I was drinking at least one Mountain Dew a day. I didn't realize what this carbonated drink was doing to me until I stopped drinking soda entirely. Soda is so bad when it comes to everyday health. After quitting, first thing I realized was I didn't have my belly anymore and I didn't feel like I was out of shape anymore. Mountain Dew is loaded with sugar, which provides many unwanted calories.

After quitting, I switched to orange juice. However, eventually I grew to dislike orange juice, now I'm drinking apple juice all the time. I feel healthier and in shape.
So for New York to ban big gulps is very good idea. This will restrict people from drinking an excessive amount of calories and is small step toward people losing weight and keeping the obesity rate low.

S. Robinson

Mark Bittman's article "Banning the Big Gulp Ban" is a topic that needs real addressing in our country. And because individuals seem not to have the will power to fight the urge to buy the largest sugary drink they can, maybe someone higher up needs to step in. Preventable diseases are the new epidemic in our country. They are killing people in droves and costing taxpayers precious dollars that could be spent for example on, a better education for their children or home improvements.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous that people are going as far as to say concerned leaders are being capricious in their attempt to save thousands of lives. What would be truly capricious would be to deny tax-dollars to patients who are suffering from preventable diseases. It may sound harsh but what would you rather have--your health, life, and vitality or freedom to fill your body with fat, sugar, and sodium? And if you choose the latter then you should figure out how you will afford healthcare cost when your freedom to choose begins to take you out, slowly and painfully. So, when the freedom to choose is costing not only the individual but others, then maybe the choice needs to made for that person by someone who is not tainted.

Shavonne Boyle

While I believe freedom is such an important issue, I also believe the government has the burden on their shoulders to keep us protected and healthy. That is why we vote in the people we like best to try to sway the government in the ways we hope. I do think that the big gulp is dangerous to our health and that we shouldn't stop there. We should eliminate foods that are essentially straight sickness for our people in general. This can include big macs, and other very processed foods that don't belong in our well informed society today. We should be able to make these decisions not to eat this junk for ourselves but for the people who cant, its time to eliminate the bad and bring in some good options.

Ai

Banning these big drinks seems to be a weak action to take in order to reduce obesity. Rather it is a better option for the government to inform the people of making the proper decision when buying these sugary drinks.

Vanessa T

I don't completely agree with banning the Big Gulp Ban, or with banning any pop drink. Although Bittman takes a strong and explicit position in this editorial and makes me rethink twice about my choice, he still isn't completely able to win me over. Naturally it is impossible to avoid sugar. Evan Keeney writes, "After quitting, I switched to orange juice. However, eventually I grew to dislike orange juice, now I'm drinking apple juice all the time. I feel healthier and in shape." He goes on to talk about how quitting soda changed a part of him. But he speaks as if he completely eliminated the problem. He is still consuming tons of sugar through his juices and he speaks about it as if it's part of a routine. People are still going to consume high calorie and high sugar contents. It's inevitable. The ban wouldn't seem logical if people could easily pay for more than one serving. It seems to me that even the ban would work as irony and actually make the companies more money rather than less.

Arthur Morales

There should be a limit on the amount of soda that is being sold because soda is one of the causes of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and other negative effects. As deine on the Mayo Clinic website, Obesity is a complex disorder involving an excessive amount of body fat. Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. In increases your risk of diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. Metabolic Syndrome is a cluster of condition, increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels- that occur together, increasing your risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. In an article called “Banning the Big Gulp Ban” by Mark Bittman, he states “Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, believed the ban to be the best option available for the city to move forward in its struggle against obesity, metabolic syndrome and associated diseases, which kill thousands of New Yorkers each year. And, by the way, tens of thousands of Americans.” Obesity and metabolic syndrome can lead to many diseases and one of the diseases obesity and metabolic syndrome have in common is heart diseases. When people drink soda constantly every day, they are at a risk of becoming obese or having metabolic syndrome. Once someone reaches one of those stages, they have a high risk of getting heart diseases, and heart diseases is the number one leading cause of death in the United States with about 610,000 deaths, according to Medical News Today.

Abu Bakr Ghaznavi

Bittman really doesn't trust the American people. He believes that they are so addicted to sugar and fats that they can't make their own decisions. His agreement with the Big Gulp ban is the brightest indicator of that position. I believe that companies like 7-Eleven should be able to sell sugary drinks at whatever quantity they please. The government should have no say in how much is enough. People are capable of controlling themselves, and if they fail to do so then they suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Marta W

Let's begin with the fact that banning a soft drink actually made it to court. I mean, do legislators have nothing better t do except focus on the personal decisions of people and what they drink? It is unbelievable that anyone thought even for a second that restricting the size of soda sale would actually help American obesity. Most Americans are obese because they are too lazy to take the time out of their day to take a walk , while instead laying on the couch and consuming a burger. What people want, they will find a way to. Ban XL drinks, they will order two larges. Government should not have an actual say in the personal decisions of people, no matter how smart or stupid.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan