Important News Break: Proposed ban on large sugary drinks in NYC

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already banned the use of trans fats in restaurants and required posting of calorie contents in chain restaurants. Under the Bloomberg administration, the city ran controversial ads warning against the obesity-promoting effects of soda. Mayor Bloomberg supported a soda tax and a ban on the use of food stamps for purchasing soda (though these measures later fell through), and also proposed a nation-wide voluntary salt reduction program for packaged and restaurant foods.

Now, in a bold and ambitious attempt to curb rising obesity rates, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed that the city prohibit the sale of sweetened beverages larger than 16 ounces (fountain drinks, bottles, and cans) in delis, fast food outlets, restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues, and street carts.

I commend Mayor Bloomberg for his efforts.

This new measure, if approved by the city’s Board of Health could take effect as early as March 2013, and would be the first ban of its kind in the U.S.

Sugary drinks are a significant contributor to our obesity epidemic: these calories are ingested with no bulk to create a feeling of physical fullness, and no fiber to slow down absorption of the sugars. There is a rapid and dangerous spike in blood glucose, followed by storage of hundreds of calories – without actually eating any food. On average, American men consume 178 calories each day from sugary drinks, and women consume 103.  About 25% of American adults consume more than 200 calories from sugary drinks each day.1 Single-serving, 20-ounce bottles and even larger fountain sodas have become the norm. Those calories add up quickly.

The most recent beverage consumption data from the USDA shows that the average American consumes over 35 gallons of sweetened soft drinks every year.2

The proposed ban wouldn’t extend its reach to all sugary drinks – supermarkets and convenience stores and would not be affected, nor would fruit juices or dairy-based drinks like milkshakes and lattes.  Also, there will of course be disagreement about whether the ban impinges on personal choice.

Regardless, the ban sets an important precedent. This proposed ban is important not just because of the reduced consumption in ounces of sugary drinks by New Yorkers that might result; it is important because of the psychological and social message the ban sends about sweet drinks and their contribution to ill-health and obesity.

The ban itself, by restricting what can be sold, places "harmful intent" on the fast food restaurants and other cheap food outlets that look to create addictive eating habits.

Am I the only adult alive in America who has never had an entire soda drink in their entire life?  I had tasted a sip of a few in my youth and it just tasted so artificial, I could not understand why others even liked it.  It is so disgusting to me to imagine pouring a liquid mix of sweetened chemicals down my throat; I would just as likely drink toilet cleaner. Nevertheless, maybe this law will spread and have the effect of making people rethink their self-destructive actions, and reduce sales of soda in general, over and above the reduction in size.  Who knows?

 

References:

1. Ogden CL, Kit BK, Carroll MD, et al: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Brief: Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the United States, 2005-2008. 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm.

2. Carbonated soft drinks: Per capita availability. USDA/Economic Research Service estimate using data from the Census of Manufactures. Data last updated Feb. 1, 2011. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailspreadsheets.htm - beverage]

 

 

Tags:
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.diseaseproof.com/admin/trackback/279265
Comments (43) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
mike crosby - May 31, 2012 11:45 AM

I got a $200 ticket for not wearing a seat belt last weekend.

If you are OK with government ever more creeping into our lives, you like this law. Not me.

The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Scott - May 31, 2012 11:53 AM

This law is silly.

1) You can't have a 17oz soda but you can have a 64oz chocolate milkshake or a 12pack of beer or 5 free refills of a 16oz soda.

2) There's no "disagreement about whether the ban impinges on person choice." It obviously does. You no longer have the choice to sell 17oz sodas.

Statists should stop trying to run other people's lives and have some kids of their own and raise them right.

Laura - May 31, 2012 12:12 PM

You are fortunate that you had parents that protected you from the perils of sodas. I wish you had been around when I was a child. We lived on sugar, I am sad to say. I applaud these efforts!!

Patrick S - May 31, 2012 12:21 PM

Awesome stuff I wish they'd do it here in Ottawa Canada as well :o)

Carole - May 31, 2012 12:28 PM

This is not about SUGAR, it is about control even in the food venue. Every individual has to be responsible for themselves. Government is gradually impinging on our right to make our own decisions. I totally disagree with this ban.

Tina - May 31, 2012 1:01 PM

It looks like we have two choices on who gets to "influence" what we eat, corporate America or those we elect and entrust with our collective welfare. Millions of dollars are spent by the food industry to research exactly how to chemically influence people to choose their products. I appreciate very much being able to eat in restaurants now without second hand smoke. I am thrilled with the new improved standards for school lunches. And I applaud Mayor Bloomberg for his efforts to improve the health of New Yorkers and indirectly reign in the cost of health care!

Barbara - May 31, 2012 1:05 PM

Sadly, when people cannot make healthy choices for themselves because they have fallen prey to clever marketing ploys then, perhaps, we DO need our governments to step in and help us make the better choices.
Admittedly, an alternative might well be to have the marketing tactics changed so that they have to be completely honest about what is in their product and what it could possibly do to your and your family's health (or the environment) instead of providing the impression that their product is the answer to all your problems and you aren't "cool" if you don't buy and use their products. What the heck ever happened to "truth in advertising"????

Michael - May 31, 2012 1:24 PM

I disagree with government intervention into choices (bad or good) of individuals. Ban smoking across the country, ban drinking, ban driving, ban swimming (you could drown), ban anything dangerous and what do we get?

I do get frustrated, especially here in the south, with HUGE people and their poor choices, but the choices are theirs and not mine.

theresa - May 31, 2012 1:27 PM

I think as a society lacking in self control and demanding instant gratification, every little bit helps. Sure you can get something else or get refills, but doing so would require people to stop and think about what they are doing. I wish they could abolish the happy meal too! All too often I see otherwise educated adults take their kids out for junk and call it a treat! We really need to get our priorities straight and taking a moment to pause and think about what we consider fun. Such laws MAY help curb our societal appetite for trash. Beverages have gotten so large over the years, with adult sized " sippy cups" equalling an economy sized bottle, I mean what's next? A barrel on wheels? Where does it end. And yeah it does take away personal choice just like forbidding drugs does. It takes it away from those incapable of making sound decisions and eases the burden on our healthcare system. If individuals lack self control, and markets see this as an opportunity to profit AND influence our kids, should nobody step in to help? Yeah my kids hear it from me all the time, but maybe having your message reinforced a little from the outside too. And what about those who have no clue? So many studies are linking diet and sugar especially to childhood illnesses. This is such a great way to get folks to ask questions. Drugs are bad for you, cigarettes ( once household items) are too, and news flash people sugar is too!

Stacey Stokes - May 31, 2012 1:33 PM

This is a brilliant move. Americans need to understand that government is supposed to impose a certain amount of regulation for the safety of all. This is so clever, I hope to see more of the same. I certainly don't want my taxes paying for unnecessary medical care for people who are deceived, enticed and tricked into chemical and food addictions by mindless corporations led by greedy people who don't even know what to do with all their money. Capitalism doesn't mean destroying the health of the general public so a few can get rich. And don't think for a second those manufacturers don't know exactly what they're doing. They spend millions researching how to get people to buy their product, which has absolutely no inherent value.

Remember, Coke once used cocaine in its drink. This is no different.

Dena - May 31, 2012 2:43 PM

I agree that government should take care of the big things like protecting our country. We, not the government, should be able to take care of the little things like daily meals. The government thinks we can't take care of ourselves? I don't need a babysitter government. We learn by doing, from trial and mistakes! More and more are tuning to natural health and doing it themselves! Instead of having soda machines in the High School or snow cones and lollipops at the elementary schools, parents should complain, take a stand and make the changes they want to see! Parents should ask for real Health classes that teach how to stay healthy, how to grow gardens, and more fitness classes! Educating parents and children would help a lot! What else is there besides fast food, slurpies, and sodas? That's the way many people grow up. They don't think about health - just quick and easy!

Jonathan Carp - May 31, 2012 2:52 PM

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

I don't think sugar should be eaten anymore than you, trust me, but this is dangerous, the only solace here is that it is not happening or being suggested on a federal level. If you think this is a good step, you are sadly lacking in any historical knowledge about the slippery slope that starts when something like this gets enacted. We are born free and should not be protected by the government from ourselves.

Matt D - May 31, 2012 3:31 PM

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that government telling its citizens what it cannot eat is a good idea. The moment we put that kind of authority on the government, there is no limit to what they may try to do. Where is personal responsibility and accountability? I think soft drinks are terrible and I am a big nutritarian but never would I want the government to have any say so in my food choices.

Yang - May 31, 2012 3:44 PM

Folks, take a good look around you. (And enough with the politically correct technical terms) There are fat people all around us! They don't care about themselves or their family. Look at our over all medical expenses...its outrages..and we get nothing out of it. If big brother does not intervene, guess who gets stuck with all the chronic disease bills? Private firms out there have an endless wallet on commercials and ads. Government/Healthy entities do not! These are the steps we have to take when our hands are forced. You want to educate the masses? Good luck! For every bill board our tax money puts up to fight cancer, Philip Morris puts up 10! If we don't put laws in, its almost useless.

Denise D'Agostino - May 31, 2012 4:28 PM

I tend to agree with the first posts from Mike Crosby & Scott, otherwise torn.

David - May 31, 2012 5:07 PM

That is amazing that an American has never had an entire soda drink in a lifetime. I remember it being a "treat" at home when I was young, then later being hooked on diet sodas before quitting completely.

I'm all for Eat To Live, I have been following the plan for about 3 months and have dropped 10% body weight. However, how can NYC ban certain drink sizes? If they think it's harmful, shouldn't they pass a law to ban soft drinks altogether? Seems like if a person wants a certain amount of soda, they'll buy more than 1 at a smaller size.

Jane K - May 31, 2012 5:19 PM

What's next? Banning t-bone steak? While I've gone nutritarian, that is MY choice. Not my government's. Sodas are bad for you, but it's not the government's place to tell us we can't drink them. That being said, I think if they want to get rid of sodas, the public schools are the place to ban them. Many school districts have several vending machines in every building, and not just in the teacher's lounge. Get rid of the soda machines and install refrigerated snack machines with raw veggies in them!

Lorrie - May 31, 2012 7:07 PM

I agree with all the reasons for banning the large-size sodas, but I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot eat, any more than I want them telling me what kind of light bulb or toilet I can buy. Perhaps a better way would be to educate our youth in schools and to put a warning label on sugary drinks and desserts. Then no one's freedom or responsibility is taken away. From a purely political perspective, I believe what Mayor Bloomberg is doing is unconstitutional.

Vennesa - May 31, 2012 7:56 PM

Government has no place here. Think back to the founding fathers. They established a government that would protect our rights - our property rights, our freedom, etc.
It's ridiculous that now we think it's ok for them to tell us how much soda we can drink.
It's also ridiculous that my tax dollars pay for anyone's health care. It's gotten way out of hand and it's only getting worse.

Bud S - May 31, 2012 9:51 PM

You cannot legislate morals, ethics, and now ...nutrition? If things were as simple as just writing another law the world would be a better place....maybe (depends on who is writing the laws). You change human behavior through education. People will always find a way to get what they want. Shall we try again ...banning alcoholic beverages? How about Cheese? Double bacon cheeseburgers? Pizza? French fries? See's candy? It wouldn't bother me if they did ( I'm a nutritarian) but the government intrusion into people's lives by big government does. What do they ban next? I guess everyone has a right to clog their arteries!?

Bud S - May 31, 2012 10:00 PM

For the sake of the Dairy and Beef industry ...What if the USDA were to mandate the consumption of meat and cheese by all of us nutritarians out here. Of course they would do it because of the concern for our calcium and protein intake because we are misinformed about nutrition and thus edangering our health.

Mac - May 31, 2012 10:04 PM

It will have absolutely no effect. This is a waste of legislation.

"Sadly, when people cannot make healthy choices for themselves because they have fallen prey to clever marketing ploys then, perhaps, we DO need our governments to step in and help us make the better choices." ... huh? This argument could be used to justify some really scary things. And isn't this is the same government that gives us the current food pyramid? Yeah, I want the folks on top telling me how to eat.

Bud S - May 31, 2012 10:37 PM

You cannot legislate morals, ethics, and now ...nutrition? If things were as simple as just writing another law the world would be a better place....maybe (depends on who is writing the laws). You change human behavior through education. People will always find a way to get what they want. Shall we try again ...banning alcoholic beverages? How about Cheese? Double bacon cheeseburgers? Pizza? French fries? See's candy? It wouldn't bother me if they did ( I'm a nutritarian) but the government intrusion into people's lives by big government does. What do they ban next? I guess everyone has a right to clog their arteries!?

Stacy - May 31, 2012 10:43 PM

I wholeheartedly disagree with this ban! I believe in eating healthfully and would want everyone to eat well, but government intervention like this is out of the question. How do we justify government control when it comes to what we eat? That's our own business, and certainly NOT government's.

mike rubino - June 1, 2012 6:10 AM

The idea is good , but leave the 7/11 where you cant get a coke more than 16 ounces and go across the street to a bar and drink all the alcoholic "Iced Teas " that you want, then go into a local steak house and get a 42 ounce ribeye , creamed spinach , and buttery mashed potatoes , followed by a supersized peace of NY cheesecake.

john polifronio - June 1, 2012 6:32 AM

Food Choices? Nonsense. We don't make food "choices," our food addictions are created for us, by parents and the surrounding environment of restaurants and advertising. If government attempts to re-make our eating habits, and uses good science in the process, it's all fine with me. It's absurd to make these distinctions between what we call "government," and our parents or others, that have unknowingly formed our eating habits, it's all government, in a sense, by which I mean, parents, etc., act as a kind of government, in our lives. It's imperative, to be sure, that government will have examined these matters with a fine tooth comb, before moving to reshape our habits. Governments, after all, have control over cigarettes and booze, and, though these should never be prohibited, some control is inevitable, since both these "drugs" have dangerous, even lethal potential. Most of the people objecting to these restricitions, are, in fact, addicted to the beverages that Bloomberg seeks to restrain slightly. It's the objective sought here, which is to try to lessen the destructive effects of obesity and disease that these soft-drinks have, that are praiseworthy. It's along these lines, that I favor the legalization of drugs, but, with stringent controls, and, where "real" dangers to health are discovered, appropriate controls, even prohibitions, particularly for youngsters, are in order.

nora manwiller - June 1, 2012 6:46 AM

I have to agree that I think the ban is even more dangerous to our ability to make good choices in the future than the addictive marketing schemes it seeks to curtail. Government regulation is not the solution to helping people make good choices. We will be sorry in the end when the government regulates things in ways we don't want. Right now I am thankful that improving nutrition through limiting sugar is gaining in social acceptance. But what about when that social climate changes. What happens when the government is telling me what to eat, feed my children, etc. and I think their outdated ideas are "out to lunch?"

sharon - June 1, 2012 7:28 AM

You really think the government can control what people put in their bodies? The government should spend their time and money on what they are supposed to be doing, not regulating every little act a citizen does. I applaud sites like this one and others that encourage people to eat healthy and take care of our bodies. But eventually people have to make their own choices in life.

Joel Fuhrman, M.D. - June 1, 2012 8:51 AM

Great comments and discussion guys. I wonder the same thing about excess government intervention, I do not want anyone or a majority telling me what to do, so maybe you are right. However, if you feel government should not control or prohibit anything, then what about making addictive drugs, illegal or controlled, why is that okay? Should cocaine be legal? If so, why is that different? Isn’t soda addictive and doesn’t it kill much more people than cocaine? Also, Mayor Bloomberg is not prohibiting it, just controlling the obscene size servings, that are more self-destructive. Who does this take rights away from?. After all you can still order two. All it does is make people think about how much they are drinking, and it sends a message that his is a dangerous food. If you disagree, what do you feel about a warning on these foods, like cigarettes?. Such as, “drinking soft drinks are dangerous to your health and you must be pretty stupid to be buying this, and if you are buying this for your child you are abusing your child.

mgm - June 1, 2012 10:18 AM

People say we need better gun laws. No we don't. Everyone who goes on a crazy spree or robs a store has BROKEN existing gun laws - the law didn't stop anyone. It's naive to think people who want to poison themselves with HFCS are going to stop - all this law will do is chip away a little bit more at the notion that as long as the govt means well, we shouldn't mind little tweaks of personal choice here and there, if it's for 'the greater good'. Soften the independent world view to one of socialism - you get there in small, seemingly harmless increments, til one day you look back and think 'How did we get here?' The whole country needs to take a civics class and rediscover what the role of the govt in America was meant to be, and it isn't this. And the 'baby with the bath water argument' holds no water with me. Just because you don't want food choices regulated, doesn't mean therefore cocaine/drinking and driving shouldn't be regulated, either. People do things TO OTHER PEOPLE under the influence of drugs/alcohol - it isn't the isolated, personal choice it seems - it endangers others in an immediate, under the influence sense. Sugar intake doesn't make you crash your car and kill people, unless you are so distracted trying to operate the paper cup and straw that you drive into someone, I suppose. When did common sense become so uncommon?

Rick - June 1, 2012 10:45 AM

The government is already involved in our food choices. For example, it sets the federal guidelines that controls what is served in school lunches. Pizza is now classified as a vegetable so it can be served on a regular basis in school lunches. The food habits these kids learn will follow them their whole lives.

At my company our health insurance went up 35% this year. The norm is 15-30% every year. The poor eating habits of Americans is the main reason for this dramatic and unsustainable increase in health care costs.

Since the government (primarily the USDA) is already influencing what we eat by promoting the overconsumption of meat, poultry and dairy products, maybe they can occassionally help out by limiting/discouraging the consumption of unhealthy foods...water anyone?

mgm - June 1, 2012 10:57 AM

Also, who decides? I happen to think, after an awful lot of research, that soy is the devil. I won't touch it - whole form or isolated. I think the science is absolutely there to show that it should be eliminated from our food supply. But others think it's a wonderful component of a healthy diet. Who gets to decide? And what do I care if you eat soy? It 's your choice. How finely do you parse this nutrional arguement of 'for their own good'? Who decides where it stops? I don't think politicians know (or care) any more about nutrition than they do about creating jobs or not wasting our money on friviolous programs that don't work. I really don't want Harry Reid or David Boehner deciding if I eat a burger or a bean. Especially since we know politicans make all kinds of rules for us that they don't follow themselves, because they know we can't touch them.

Ida - June 1, 2012 11:48 AM

Dr. Fuhrman:

You may be the only adult in the US who hasn't indulged in soda drinking to some extent. That is pretty sad to be sure. I am a confirmed Nutritarian, and one of your certified NETs and I am against this kind of legislation. I am a firm believer in free choice in the context of real knowledge and widely dispersed accurate information. So...if I were to design or support legislation, I would insist on full disclosure about the dangers of low nutrient eating, having menus that disclose the sodium and fat content of foods, etc. Fortunately for all of us, we all found you and became acquainted with your revolutionary communications regarding the real costs of the Standard American Diet to our health and well being.
A million thanks for this nutritional wisdom, and perhaps the Nutritional Excellence Institute could sponsor some legislation which would mandate truth telling in the food industry.
Who knows...stranger things have happened!!

Robin - June 1, 2012 12:35 PM

I see why it could be a good idea but government intervention is a slippery slope! However, aren't we all paying taxes for the support of medicare/medicaid that is getting higher every year because of people's unhealthy choices. I think government should stop providing the meat & dairy business money to lighten the cost to end users. That would save money for our government. That is a government intervention that should be re-evaluated! I do agree that education is key and a warning label might at least affect the children if not the parents.

carfree - June 1, 2012 3:12 PM

I'm really torn on this one. On one hand I know that other people's bad decisions DO affect me with higher insurance costs and higher medical costs. On the other hand, I don't want the same government that approves those horrible school lunch programs anywhere near MY plate. An individual like Bloomberg may know a thing or two about nutrition, but government in general certainly does not.

Leigh - June 1, 2012 5:56 PM

Love "Eat to Live." Disappointed to learn Dr. Furhman approves of Bloomberg's tactics.


Stacey Stokes - June 1, 2012 7:42 PM

I'm so surprised to see comments here about how the government shouldn't control to some degree what the public consumes. Do you think the government isn't already controlling what we consume? Agencies like the CDC & FDA are made up of people with corporate connections. Who taught us that pasta should be at the bottom of the food pyramid? Who allows Monsanto to grow genetically-engineered corn? Who subsidizes meat, diary and mass farming industries? Our democratic and capitalist system has already been hijacked by a government infiltrated by money-hungry corporations. This law doesn't take anyone's rights away except that of the movie theaters and restaurants and stores who want to trick unknowing young people into consuming dangerous levels of non-nutritive, chemically engineered, addictive products. Hasn't everyone here read "The End of Overeating" by David Kessler or seen "Supersize Me"?
That book & movie are what started my journey to learn to eat to live.

Claire - June 2, 2012 4:16 AM

I have been sitting and reading these responses and find it really interesting what some Americans describe as freedom. Why is it that so many believe that government intervention can only be bad? Why is it that when many Europeans and Australians talk about different countries they always refer to the American healthcare and welfare system as being way down the bottom and yet Americans are so willing to defend what they haven't got? It sounds like brainwashing by the corporations has well and truly got people under control which can also be just as bad as complete government control. The way some talk it as if they think they are going to get off the plane in Europe or Australia and discover everything is terrible and restrictive and people are miserable. Hmm quite the opposite! Believe me, many of us are quite happy.

JMS - June 2, 2012 5:34 AM

The government contributes to this problem by subsidizing the over-production of corn. This led to the development and proliferation of high fructose corn syrup -- the primary sweetener in these drinks and an ingredient in bread and other commonly consumed products. The same subsidies, combined with the development of factory farming, similarly create artificially low prices for meat. So US tax dollars are, in effect, subsidizing unhealthy eating by making unhealthy items more economical than un-subsidized whole fruits and vegetables. The government should take some action here, but not by trying to ban the items it plays a role in promoting.

Manda - June 3, 2012 10:56 AM

Dr. Fuhrman, you must understand that the idea you and I have about the definition of "healthy" eating differs wildly from that of the government. We have done our research and sought out healthy eating ... now what if someone from the government disagrees with our choices and decides to mandate we eat otherwise - for our own good, or course. It is because of their very food subsidies that such terribly unhealthy foods are so widely and cheaply available - see JMS above. Look at the school lunch program, the push to irradiate all fresh produce, the push to take vitamins and nutritional supplements off the market, etc. The government has no place in my pantry or on my plate. I choose not to drink soda, but if someone else does, that is their choice, however unhealthy. There is no benefit in forcing people to eat or drink a certain way. The benefit is in passing along information and seeing people make healthy choices for themselves. Will everyone make that choice? No.
Having the government waste taxpayer money and overstepping it's bounds is not the answer. Perhaps a better place to start would be on trying to influence your fellow physicians - perhaps a great impact could be made when our PMDs put down the cigarette, the big gulp, and the cheeseburger and stops insisting that diet makes no impact on disease.

Michael - June 4, 2012 9:48 AM

I think some gov't intervention is okay. I think ending subsidies on production of unhealthy food is perfectly acceptable as well as warnings on unhealthy or potentially unhealthy (depending on quantity) foods. I have no problem with the gov't telling us what's healthy to eat, provided it's based on good science and not influenced by corporate and political interests. we are free to ignore their recommendations.

Kenny - June 5, 2012 10:28 AM

Dr. F said in his books, on his podcasts, and in other places that he doesn't think that people should be forced to eat the nutrient dense way, but that people should be educated and make their own choice. I am surprised, then, that he is in favor of a law that will not change people's diets but just force business owners to do something they don't want to do.

As someone who is still trying to fight my addiction to soda, I know that before my decision to eat the nutrient dense way, if confronted with this law, it would not have slowed me down. Instead of one refill with a 32 oz coke I would simply get 4-5 refills with my new 16 oz coke and I would have two reasons for doing so: (1) I am addicted to soda, and (2) I want to feel that I am getting my money's worth.

I would venture to guess that this law could actually INCREASE soda consumption, not decrease it. I wonder if Dr. F lived in 1920 if he would have been in favor of prohibition? You know, the law that made acholol consumption illegal and increased alcohol consumption. People can be rebellious in nature.

I support what Dr. F is doing in educating people (he educated me). But I don't think we should make laws to force people to live a certain way. What's next? A ban on all movies becauses it causes people to stay seated for 2 hours?

LaurieInSarasota - June 5, 2012 5:28 PM

Not only are many restaurant foods and beverages disease-promoting, but their serving sizes have increased so much over the years that children grow up with a bizarre and distorted sense of appropriate serving sizes for junk food. Restaurants and other vendors are not voluntarily decreasing their serving sizes, so a ban such as the one proposed in NY is most welcome. Something has to happen to reverse the serving-size trend, and it does not appear that it's going to happen any other way.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?