Join AARP
Join for Just $16 A Year
- Discounts on travel and everyday savings
- Subscription to AARP The Magazine
- Free membership for your spouse or partner
Message Boards Directory
Welcome to the AARP Discussion Board. Here you can talk with peers about current events ranging from Social Security to caring for your parents to the latest on health care reform. It is also the perfect place to exchange healthy eating recipes and job hunting tips.
These forums are for you to engage and have fun meeting new people. Just remember the community code: Be nice!
Government control of beverages
False
Healthy Living
Government control of beverages
<p>Exchange recipes, learn how to go green (affordably, of course) and share how to improve your mind, body and spirit to live the best second half of life you possibly can.</p>
"This is getting a lot of buzz this morning. Billionaire Mayor Mike, on the heels of banning barroom smoking and trans fat in New York , now wants to go after large sodas . The Bloomberg “big gu
1
Cat:91a4afbf-9555-4e02-b9d3-9eef604476f6Forum:e69fd7a7-a2db-481a-b40e-feabee87bb73
Cat:91a4afbf-9555-4e02-b9d3-9eef604476f6Forum:e69fd7a7-a2db-481a-b40e-feabee87bb73Discussion:1d6f372d-f76b-4c0e-9876-9e1252106b2b
Forums » Health » Healthy Living » Government control of beverages
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at June 11, 2012 7:52 PM EDT
|
Posts: 1
First: June 11, 2012 Last: June 11, 2012 |
Who benefits from this? Instead of getting one Big Gulp @ $3.00, people will buy 4 to 5 6oz pops @ $1.50 @. The pop and sugar manufacturers, that's who. I just cannot believe any Federal or state government does not have anything better to do!! Like private sectore jobs! Why can't this Mayor make a deal with fitness businesses instead? Say, 15 or 20% off membership or appeal for a tax credit for those that do enroll? Big government interference seems to be the Trend right now! |
|
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at June 11, 2012 9:02 PM EDT
|
Posts: 1
First: June 11, 2012 Last: June 11, 2012 |
Government cannot control vice and sin since they go underground therefore pot, prostitution will always be here and should be legal and a lot healthier than sugar loaded sodas. We should tax pot and make a fortune. Working girls always will be here and now with all the puma and cougars women need some gigalo release. They love those nude strippers at their showers and bachlorette parties. It is sick enough seeing those garbage can size popcorn containers at movies with all that salt and fat. Face it. America loves junk and over indulgence. But remember, if you want freedom it means stay out of our bedrooms and lsex life also and choices about death and life support. And this came about because of sodee pop. I hate white sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Now HFCS should be illegal. Sugar is sugar like a man is a man and a woman is a woman and a calorie is a calorie .. I don't think so. |
|
|
Government Control of Sugar
posted at June 12, 2012 11:48 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1
First: June 12, 2012 Last: June 12, 2012 |
I just read the editor of the June 2012 AARP Bulletin, Jim Toedtman's, editorial regarding his encouragement and endorsement of a tax on sugar. I have also been following the increasing call for an outright ban on certain sizes of Soda and other sugar sweetened drinks in New York City. My concern regarding these increasingly loud and fervent calls for Government intervention in our lives is the risk and inevitable encrouchment in an ever larger circle of items and foodstuffs some "Food Police" or someone other than the indidual decides is harmful. Sugar today, but what is next? White flour? Butter? Red meat? Oatmeal? And what else can be regulated? What you wear? The books you are allowed to read? Who your friends can be? Yes, you may find these suggestions to be ludicrous and think it ridiculous that an effort to ban or regulate such staples could occur, but who would have thought, even a few short years ago, we'd see efforts to regulate/limit/ban a dietary staple like sugar? The thought is noble - this is being proposed and endorsed to protect our health. But, I ask you again, where does it stop? Is not our own free will enough? Instead of taking things away from the people, as if they were small children too young or immature to understand, would education not be a better approach and allow us, the people, to make our own choices? At the time George Orwell wrote his cautionary novel, 1984, it was consdiered satire against the Government... Sadly it has moved from satire to prophecy... Prophecy that is becoming truth. |
|
|
Re: Government Control of Sugar
posted at June 13, 2012 9:22 AM EDT
|
Posts: 1923
First: November 27, 2011 Last: May 18, 2013 |
In Response to Government Control of Sugar: I just read the editor of the June 2012 AARP Bulletin, Jim Toedtman's, editorial regarding his encouragement and endorsement of a tax on sugar. I have also been following the increasing call for an outright ban on certain sizes of Soda and other sugar sweetened drinks in New York City. My concern regarding these increasingly loud and fervent calls for Government intervention in our lives is the risk and inevitable encrouchment in an ever larger circle of items and foodstuffs some "Food Police" or someone other than the indidual decides is harmful. Sugar today, but what is next? White flour? Butter? Red meat? Oatmeal? And what else can be regulated? What you wear? The books you are allowed to read? Who your friends can be? Yes, you may find these suggestions to be ludicrous and think it ridiculous that an effort to ban or regulate such staples could occur, but who would have thought, even a few short years ago, we'd see efforts to regulate/limit/ban a dietary staple like sugar? The thought is noble - this is being proposed and endorsed to protect our health. But, I ask you again, where does it stop? Is not our own free will enough? Instead of taking things away from the people, as if they were small children too young or immature to understand, would education not be a better approach and allow us, the people, to make our own choices? At the time George Orwell wrote his cautionary novel, 1984 , it was consdiered satire against the Government... Sadly it has moved from satire to prophecy... Prophecy that is becoming truth. Posted by bigreagan Perhaps a TAX on tanning salons - Opps, already got that one! I sure hope we are not turning into a society where the individual wants government to control their decision-making. It does sure seems we are on this sort of path . . . . . Who should be the judge and jury? It may not just end with actual substances, it could be extended to our health care too. Opps, already getting to that too. |
|
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at June 13, 2012 7:09 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 373
First: October 22, 2011 Last: May 3, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Government control of beverages: Who benefits from this? Instead of getting one Big Gulp @ $3.00, people will buy 4 to 5 6oz pops @ $1.50 @. The pop and sugar manufacturers, that's who. I just cannot believe any Federal or state government does not have anything better to do!! Like private sectore jobs! Why can't this Mayor make a deal with fitness businesses instead? Say, 15 or 20% off membership or appeal for a tax credit for those that do enroll? Big government interference seems to be the Trend right now! Posted by sherrie9 Sherrie you are pointing out the stupidity of this suggestion. A person will end up spending more to get the same amount. Will he also disallow selling a case of pop or six pack since they are more than 32 ounces. |
|
|
Re: Government Control of Sugar
posted at June 13, 2012 7:23 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 373
First: October 22, 2011 Last: May 3, 2013 |
In Response to Government Control of Sugar: I just read the editor of the June 2012 AARP Bulletin, Jim Toedtman's, editorial regarding his encouragement and endorsement of a tax on sugar. I have also been following the increasing call for an outright ban on certain sizes of Soda and other sugar sweetened drinks in New York City. My concern regarding these increasingly loud and fervent calls for Government intervention in our lives is the risk and inevitable encrouchment in an ever larger circle of items and foodstuffs some "Food Police" or someone other than the indidual decides is harmful. Sugar today, but what is next? White flour? Butter? Red meat? Oatmeal? And what else can be regulated? What you wear? The books you are allowed to read? Who your friends can be? Yes, you may find these suggestions to be ludicrous and think it ridiculous that an effort to ban or regulate such staples could occur, but who would have thought, even a few short years ago, we'd see efforts to regulate/limit/ban a dietary staple like sugar? The thought is noble - this is being proposed and endorsed to protect our health. But, I ask you again, where does it stop? Is not our own free will enough? Instead of taking things away from the people, as if they were small children too young or immature to understand, would education not be a better approach and allow us, the people, to make our own choices? At the time George Orwell wrote his cautionary novel, 1984 , it was consdiered satire against the Government... Sadly it has moved from satire to prophecy... Prophecy that is becoming truth. Posted by bigreagan What is scary is that George Orwell did not have much of an idea of the type of technology we would have. Now we have the internet, spy sattelites, cameras on the streets, drones used for law enforcement, audio devices to pick up sound, gps to track, and the list goes. We can be monitored more than people think. Now they want to police legal purchases since some may suggest they are not good. Is sugar the problem or how much is used. One big gulp is not going to kill someone, but if we restrict the size there why not the size of beef, chicken, or other foods we eat. Will they mandate the size of dinners we may order, so that I can no longer take home the left overs for another meal. Seems they would need to look at the size of candy bars as they contain a lot of sugar also. |
|
|
Re: Government Control of Sugar
posted at June 13, 2012 7:27 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 373
First: October 22, 2011 Last: May 3, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Government Control of Sugar: In Response to Government Control of Sugar : Perhaps a TAX on tanning salons - Opps, already got that one! I sure hope we are not turning into a society where the individual wants government to control their decision-making. It does sure seems we are on this sort of path . . . . . Who should be the judge and jury? It may not just end with actual substances, it could be extended to our health care too. Opps, already getting to that too. Posted by GailL1 I know we are a republc and not a pure democracy, but the intent there was to prevent mob rule not to put in place a totalitarian regime that can tax us to death and place absurd restrictions on us because some nut case decides to do so. I think it is time for that mayor to be retired. |
|
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2
First: July 19, 2011 Last: June 14, 2012 |
This is a states' rights issue and shouldn't be mistaken for any Federal intervention into our purchasing rights of large-sized beverages. But my opinion about the AARP editorial in June's issue about increasing the tax on sugary drinks is a Federal "fat tax" and has no place in legislative process. I'm not saying we should drink them - they're bad for us in so many ways - but why put the tax burden so low on the totum pole? The real problem of finding and increasing a real source of national revenue is avoided. Sugar tax maybe on the sugar industry, as in the corn-syrup manufacturers? They put it in just about everything we buy that's processed...which is just about everything these days. We've cut spending and some of us still scream for more cuts; which seems to hurt the middle class, what few we have to left -- and the poor, who outnumber every other monetary demographic-- to the point that most of us what in the world happened to American Dream? And we wonder why the rich keep getting richer? And we ponder the political discourse that describes any one who's rich as a job-creator. We listen to the lies coming from the mouths of everyone who's on television. And why do they lie? Because they have something to sell us. The product for sale is a candidate, or an idea, or a product or some combination of these. |
|
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at June 16, 2012 3:17 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 373
First: October 22, 2011 Last: May 3, 2013 |
In Response to Re: Government control of beverages: This is a states' rights issue and shouldn't be mistaken for any Federal intervention into our purchasing rights of large-sized beverages. But my opinion about the AARP editorial in June's issue about increasing the tax on sugary drinks is a Federal "fat tax" and has no place in legislative process. I'm not saying we should drink them - they're bad for us in so many ways - but why put the tax burden so low on the totum pole? The real problem of finding and increasing a real source of national revenue is avoided. Sugar tax maybe on the sugar industry, as in the corn-syrup manufacturers? They put it in just about everything we buy that's processed...which is just about everything these days. We've cut spending and some of us still scream for more cuts; which seems to hurt the middle class, what few we have to left -- and the poor, who outnumber every other monetary demographic-- to the point that most of us what in the world happened to American Dream? And we wonder why the rich keep getting richer? And we ponder the political discourse that describes any one who's rich as a job-creator. We listen to the lies coming from the mouths of everyone who's on television. And why do they lie? Because they have something to sell us. The product for sale is a candidate, or an idea, or a product or some combination of these. Posted by slontone I do not even think a state should be involved in a matter like this issue other than making producers report better on the contents of various foods and products. They should also mandate better expiration notices. But these would be providing information to the public and not allow companies to hide such matters, but taxes or other controls on beverages or food is not necessary. Monitoring the safety of our food supply is a legitimate responsibility of the government not setting up our dinner plates. |
|
|
Re: Government control of beverages
posted at August 8, 2012 8:05 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 5
First: August 8, 2012 Last: August 8, 2012 |
In Response to Re: Government control of beverages: In Response to Re: Government control of beverages : That is a good point. Even though my wife and I both drink diet pops getting a larger drink can be a cost savings. Doubt that they would make a large size available to diet when they cannot to the others. I agree that education is the proper method rather than dictating this by law. Will they next legislate about foods also? I do not like the precedent this is setting. He is stepping into an area he should not be considering. Posted by JimR45 So you only drink diet pop. Are you aware that it is loaded with Aspartame? Are you aware that Aspartame is a poison. read this: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/rumsfeld-and-aspartame-did-diet-drinks-maime-kill-our-troops-gulf-war-1 You all are right, government should not be telling us what we can and cannot eat. However, they should ban production of know harmful substances. Actually sugar is one of them, and they can't take it away now. Only education can cause us to self-regulate consumption. If you want to know more about the effects of various products on our health read this:. it is an eye opener. http://www.relfe.com/history_1.html |
Forums » Health » Healthy Living » Government control of beverages
