Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Give me my BIG GULP! (by anon)

New York City has passed a very important initiative: The Banning of giant sugary 16 oz drinks! Now I question the timing of this well-thought initiative as I have serious doubts that it is more pressing than the ultimate comprehensive health package; but what do I know? The political underpinnings today is beyond the liberal arts reason that was taught to me. Even so though I cannot help but feel this bill that-which benevolent intentions -is not going to deter the underlying issue (obesity). In fact, it looks like this bill is missing the complete point completely.

Now on a logical basis, what prevents the person who has a 12 oz cup filling it up once and taking 4 oz worth of semi-gulps and then refilling it once again? Still if refills are allowed for a lesser fee then I guess it can work. But, usually fast food chains allow free refills within a single stay-  so if anything – this ought to be viewed as a minor inconvenience at best. One other point and critique on solely just on the size: is there enough of a significant effect between the 16 oz vis a vis the 12 oz drink? Meaning, is that four oz difference going to really have such a desired effect for the whole NYC populous? The 4 oz difference should be no more than 170 calorie difference with also negligible sugar differences as well.  Also, what about diet drinks that have zero calories? It is unnecessary that this has to apply to diet drinks but I guess how would legislative enforce that?

In addition, do they (lawmakers) have empirical scientific data that implicates a better NYC if 16 oz drinks were banned? I really suspect not. So, if they’re banning 16 oz drinks can they ban giant bags of hot cheetos and pork grinds? What about trans fat cupcakes? I hear hydrogenated oil is hard to burn off for the 5’9 NYC woman who weighs an astounding 140 lbs. That needs to go as well.

And lastly, and my most important point is why do NYC lawmakers feel the need to infringe on such a trivial and insignificant micro problem of a much larger one? Bigger drinks is a symptom of the overall obesity problem. They’re not attacking the source of the problem and that is fast food chains in general.  Also, as we know, our economy is not doing so well right now. Citizens cannot afford to eat healthy as it’s generally more expensive and considered a luxury. That type of unfortunate correlation needs to change.

1 comment:

  1. I was pretty much with you until you said "bigger drinks is a symptom of the overall obesity problem". I'm not sure what your reasoning behind this is. While I do agree with you for the most part about this law, I don't actually think that obesity in itself is "thee problem". Nor do I think that fast food chains are the source of any problem. I think the real problem is people and our society. It's media pressure/influence combined with uneducated, uncritical masses. Get people to start thinking better and more critically about what's around them, and they might be able to make better choices. Of course not everyone will have the same opportunities (as you said, not everyone can afford to eat healthy) and perhaps the government could reallocate some funds and make better use of them by aiming them at the root causes of people's problems in America, to fix society from the ground up, but the government is part of what's helping fuck society up in the first place.

    Unfortunately, people with little opportunity to grow and make positive life choices (because they don't have whatever's required externally to enable them to be in a physical and mental state sufficient to acquire and maintain success), they will just have to suffer, becuase for some, irreversible damage has been done, and they can't be helped. Children and babies are a different case, and why republicans really want to ban abortion is beyond me, because all that means is more poor mouths to feed, more people to be concerned for. I think America needs a new master plan, like pretty much from scratch.