Make it a small: N.Y.'s ban on large sodas likely won't take in Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wally West SLC, UT
    June 4, 2012 9:48 p.m.

    @ OneAmerican 9:05 a.m. June 1, 2012

    "Obesity in America has much more to do with lifestyle changes from active to sedentary, "

    I disagree. Diet is a key component in going from healthy to ill and vice versa,

    Re: byu rugby 9:10 a.m. June 1, 2012

    Color me cynical but I don’t thnk it’s the government that some Utahns think should tell us how to act. Hint: it’s a bit more ecclesiastical in nature.

    Re: care4usa 2:25 p.m. June 1, 2012

    Interesting point. A few yrs ago, I read that w/ the current BMI formula Shaquille O'Neal would have been considered overweight. Its not a bad metric just outdated and in need of updating.

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    June 1, 2012 11:50 p.m.

    Does a cup that can contain 100 oz. of anything come with wheels? I can't even imagine how "delicious" that would be at 4 p.m. after being purchased at 7:30 a.m. What do these politicians do if something really, really important comes up? I can't even think of anything satirical to say, because on the surface this entire question is not only unbelievable, it's ludicrous. As a nation, when will we tire of being the laughing stock of the world?

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    June 1, 2012 8:20 p.m.

    They want to legalize Weed, but outlaw large cokes.
    They have jumped the shark again.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 1, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    Re: Vince the boonies, mexico
    "In Utah the word is-Thou shalt not smoke or drink coffee, but you can drown yourselves is soda pop ,fast food junk, and we all will over look "obesity"!"

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There are approximately 440,000 smoking related deaths in the USA every year. Are you saying that smoking is a good thing, a bad thing, or are you agreeing that the government should stay out of the fast food business?

  • care4usa Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 1, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    The amount of propaganda that has been inserted in news coverage these days is mine boggling. Americans were in an obesity epidemic until we changed the federal weight standards and instituted BMI(Body Mass Indicator)to measure normal weight.The BMI measurement system is so flawed as to be unusable. Most football players are now indicated as over weight to obese according to BMI measurement. About 15 years ago the standard weight chart was revised and the weight range for a person of my stature went from 100-to 120# to 99 to 111#. At 99# I am gaunt and boney. Not a look I aspire to.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 1, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    Here is the irony of the situation. You have NY, a city run by the same liberals that say a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. Now, those same liberals say that she can't put that 32 oz Coke in her body.

    Which way is it liberals, do we have the right to do with our bodies as we please or not?

    June 1, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    The man in the picture is a construction worker. He needs the liquid and the sugar in it. If you take out the ice in fast food drinks, it is only half soda. But it is ridiculous that one person should want to drink enough for 6 people.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    June 1, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    Just get a 12 oz drink and refill it a few times...

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 1, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    I've struggled with my weight for years. I've finally gotten it down to an acceptable level, but I have always be on the watch. I wish more restaurants gave out more nutritional facts. Also, I am lucky, because I have never liked soda pop, or much else. I drink water. Yum!

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    June 1, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    Obesity is slowing winning the war ... it will eventually kill off the human race. Keep stuffing your face with excess calories to protect your "rights". Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense to me.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 1, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    Whatever. Keep drinking those huge sodas and eating massive amounts of food. Be fat. It's the way it is, especially in red states. NYC has a law that posts calories at restaurants, giving the consumer more information with which to make choices, yet the right-wingers decry that. Even when Michelle Obama goes on a public awareness campaign about eating right and exercise to combat the growing public health issue of obesity, the right goes nuts. You may like your choices, but your choices do affect the rest of us in the long run.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    Hmm... if New York and Utah lawmakers got together they'd find a way to ban every drink out there except water which we wouldn't have any of because overpopulation is leading towards more needed + more wanted from Colorado and Nevada.

    Anyway this is silly, just add a tax on sodas over 16oz and be done with it.

  • pmaier Stansbury, UT
    June 1, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    Carbonated drinks are highly acidic, so why isn't this fact even mentioned? Since acidification assist in the hydrolysis of organic matter, more food can be adsorbed by our bodies. Why then is this factor causing weight gain not even mentioned? Mentioning this would at least educate the people and let them make up their own mind.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    70,000 calories per year equates to approximately 20 pounds gained from drinking sodas. I agree with previous comments that more government regulation isn't the solution to obesity, but I wish people would take more responsibility for their actions. Do people really want to gain 20 pounds from drinking sodas that have almost no nutritional value? That's 20 pounds average per person. Teens and adults actually drink more soda than that since young children drink less.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    I agree with this quote: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    I am against government "regulation" on something as silly as this.

    If common sense can't tell that purchasing 100 oz of soda at one time is ridiculous then maybe Natural selection should take over.

  • roughd Draper, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT
    "However, if they exercise that right they should forfeit the right to any future tax payer funded financial assistance for health care costs related to the consequences of doing so."

    Atlanta, GA
    "...something ought to be done to ensure that we as a society don't end up paying for the irresponsible choices of others."

    LVIS, the answer to all those other subsidies is that NO ONE should have a RIGHT to taxpayer funded financial assistance for health care costs. Health care is not a right, its a commodity, and its costs are hidden in our ridiculous upside down employer based insurance model. That model was introduced after WWII when wages were frozen but benefits were not, so now we have this asinine system where, if you have a decent job and an employer that will pay the majority of the cost of your health insurance premium, that is tax free income. The simplest, most effective reform would be to declare that as taxable income, and then provide a large tax credit that all could qualify for when they purchase their own insurance. This would go far toward weaning many off public health assistance.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:12 a.m.


    The answer is to allow insurance companies to internalize the costs of health insurance for those who choose risky behaviors and fail to take care of their health. We should pool risk for genetic and environmental disease, but internalize the costs for choice based behaviors. National health insurance is a step in the wrong direction unless the same choice based risk premiums are added. If you smoke, your premium goes up. High cholesterol or high resting heart rate, you pay more. Ride a murder cycle, you pay higher rates. High triglycerides, pay up buddy. We need to stop essentially subsidizing poor choices by spreading the risks to other via risk pools.

  • byu rugby Crystal Lake, IL
    June 1, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    Good to see from the past comments that Utah has it's share of "Nanny State'rs". We should all just sit down and wait for the Government Beaurocrates to tell us what is good for us and how we should live. Why exercise personal responsibility? Just wait for the government. They always know best.

    It is OK to kill a baby in the third trimester but, don't you dare drink too much soda!

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 1, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Personally, I don't care for soda and never have -- I simply don't like it. There are also many types of candy that I don't like, and several that I do. We are all individuals with personal likes and dislikes.

    Joseph Smith explained on one occasion: "I teach them correct principals and let them govern themselves."

    Someone stated here that we need more education regarding food choices, but to simply outlaw things. . . . I find it interesting that if saccharine is thought to cause cancer it's pulled from the market. Alcohol related incidents (drunk driving, etc.) are listed as one of the top killers in America and you'll never hear much of a discussion about pulling it from the shelves. The argument of the government looking out for our best interests just doesn't work.

    Give us options and let us choose, and stop making healthy choices the most expensive option.

  • OneAmerican Idaho Falls, ID
    June 1, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    Obesity in America has much more to do with lifestyle changes from active to sedentary, from riding your bike around the neighborhood or playing cops and robbers all day to sitting in front of the TV playing video games or watching movies all day. Technically, it's not sugary sodas that have led to obesity in America, it has been the advent of the PC, X-Box, and Netflix (although gaming systems have attempted to create more physically-engaging games of late). So, you'd think the liberal/RINO response would be to tax the amount of time people spend using sedentary technology...taxing entities would make bank! Now that I've suggested it, just watch it happen...the new bandwith obesity surcharge. They lay awake at night thinking how to control our lives through taxation.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    June 1, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    I think the positive result from this controversy is that it brings forth a healthy discussion. I love soft drinks but at 50 can start to feel what too much of a good thing is doing to my health. Check out all of the grocery carts next time you are in a grocery store. You are likely to see more 2 liters and cases of soda pop than gallons of milk. Coke is the cheap opium of this generation.

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT
    "However, if they exercise that right they should forfeit the right to any future tax payer funded financial assistance for health care costs related to the consequences of doing so."

    Atlanta, GA
    "...something ought to be done to ensure that we as a society don't end up paying for the irresponsible choices of others."

    I agree. But then,let's take those thoughts and apply them across the board. I shouldn't have to pay for the health care of smokers, drinkers, people who ride motorcycles (especially without a helmet), people who don't exercise (should be a government-mandated exercise program, don't you think?), people who overeat (should be a government-mandated 'max calories allowed per day', don't you think?), people who don't wear seatbelts, people who speed, people who 'super-size' at fast-food restaurants, etc.

    And at the top of the list would most certainly be sodas, 'cause they are the absolute leading cause of our nation's health issues. And btw--while we're at it, no longer should you be allowed to buy a dozen donuts. Nope, max is 8. 'Cause, you know...

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    June 1, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    While the proposed large soda ban in NYC is ludicrous on many levels, we do need to educate folks on the huge negative health risks of sugared drinks, particularly in regular, large servings. One major, well-known obesity clinic for children says that if they simply remove sweetened drinks from their patient's diets, that the weight starts to drop off almost immediately.

    The biggest problem drinks are: carbonated beverages, sports drinks, fruit juices (don't be suprised with this one - they are just concetrated sugar!), chocolate milk, sweet teas, and frozen drinks (slurpees/smoothies/icees). These drinks are a major contributor to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and gout. And obesity, diabetes and heart disease are three of the largest problems in the U.S. which are lowering life quality, life expectancy and are boosting health costs.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    Don't worry New York. Big Brother and Big Sister are watching out for you. They won't help you get a job, but, they'll make sure you have to make several purchases and pay taxes each time to ensure that you don't get as much sugar.

    My guess is, the sugar lobbyists stopped supporting democrats and without the demos pockets getting lined with cash, they decided to penalize the industry. That's the real story.

    If government was worried about our health, then they would be giving us tax breaks, so we don't have to work 2-3 jobs to stay afloat. And instead have more time to focus on our health. Why not remove taxes on fresh fruits and vegetables? Why not give tax breaks for gym memberships or purchasing sports equipment? Instead the democrats only line of thought is raise taxes, regulate it, create a government entity. Who cares it's not like it's their money that they're spending....


  • milhouse Atlanta, GA
    June 1, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    The New York City ban, if it ever does take effect, is a silly solution to a very real problem. The 100 ounce men listed in the article are using their "freedom," but society pays for it economically through increased medical obligations (public or private, the effect is the same). I end up paying for his soda drinking; how is this liberty?

    This is a classic example of an externality, and something ought to be done to ensure that we as a society don't end up paying for the irresponsible choices of others. The typical solution to this is a tax, and a non-linear tax could have the same effect in consumption as a ban on large containers. The revenues could be used to subsidize fruit, reducing the Coke-to-Apple price ratio. People could still get what they want, but they would be paying for it on their own.

    Also, I think if Patrick Henry saw that the "liberty" he spoke of was applied to the drinking of sugar water, he might have reconsidered the value of that whole revolution thing.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    I just don't see this as a solution, mainly because the real cause of overeating has nothing to do with the thing eaten...

    But then government really can't fill up that sort of hunger...

  • Don Ira St George, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    JimInSLC, Right-On.

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    So this NYC law bans sodas, but does not have a cap on coffee sizes, nor alcholic drinks. It almost sounds like it's targeting Mormons. Unless we want milk with our jumbo tubs of popcorn at the movie theater. YUCK!!!!

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    The more important issue is the inclusion of addictive substances in the soft drinks, placed there for the purpose of ensuring the daily traffic for the daily fix.

    June 1, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    OK, I get that this ban is good at heart. Yes I know I am guilty of drinking too much soda BUT. In a state where one can still smoke or drink beer and just about anything else, I do not understand this one at all. I guess they figure it will cost the party in power less votes and make them look like they care. What is next to be taken away from peoples rights

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    A person has a right to destroy their body if they so choose. However, if they exercise that right they should forfeit the right to any future tax payer funded financial assistance for health care costs related to the consequences of doing so. It used to be that we only had one body and we needed to take care of it. We now live in a time when we can get replacement parts installed; If available and can be afforded. Should these people that consume mass quantities of soda ever break a bone, they should not be surprised if it takes forever to mend. Some with this habit/addiction may escape obesity, but osteoporosis is waiting in the wings. There is only one protection from the high cost of health care; Maintain your health through diet and exercise and good judgment to reduce risk of accident. Regarding the latter, YouTube chronicles the idiotic death defying stunts of many numbskulls that appear to think themselves invincible. Death comes to us all, but where is the wisdom in hurrying that day.

  • Vince the boonies, mexico
    June 1, 2012 7:03 a.m.

    In Utah the word is-Thou shalt not smoke or drink coffee, but you can drown yourselves is soda pop ,fast food junk, and we all will over look "obesity"! It's hilarious in this state when digesting and accepting health issues also.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 1, 2012 7:00 a.m.

    Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." I always thought that meant death by gunfire in a war for independence, but it may mean death by obesity; nevertheless I agree with Patrick; it is better to have liberty and die than to not have liberty and live. We're on a slippery slope toward a more and more dictatorial government, and it starts with do-gooders like Bloomberg doing things to us "for our own good."

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    June 1, 2012 6:54 a.m.

    I can't see where banning large drinks will teach anyone anything except that they need to buy two or three drink a day instead of one. Which makes the whole notion look less like a Big Brother concern for health and more of a sneaky way for New York to generate tax revenues by the increased sales of smaller drinks.

    You really want to get people to lose weight, reward them with something like a reduction in their insurance premiums, but taking away their treats is not a great incentive to improvement.

    June 1, 2012 6:11 a.m.

    When I see the individuals pictured in the article, I can't help wondering if we Utahns really are the tip of the spear.

  • SME Bountiful, UT
    June 1, 2012 6:04 a.m.

    I particularly like the last paragraph with the quote from the U of U student. If you are going to permit alcohol and tobacco, how can you possibly justify eliminating soda. I don't think that nanny state regulations are the correct response.

  • Afterglow Fanissimo Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 1, 2012 4:21 a.m.

    Heck no it won't take! We love our freedom and liberties too much to have some Washington burocrat dicatin' what food I eat. Go tea party!