Michelle Obama: No federal big soda ban By BYRON TAU | 6/5/12 5:53 PM EDT
First lady Michelle Obama tells the Associated Press that she wouldn't want a federal ban on big sugary drink, but applauds Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to fight obesity:
Asked about Bloomberg's proposal during an interview with The Associated Press, Mrs. Obama said there's no "one-size-fits-all" solution for the country's health challenges. But she said, "We applaud anyone who's stepping up to think about what changes work in their communities. New York is one example."
And asked whether the nation's obesity epidemic warrants taking a more aggressive approach, such as Bloomberg's, she said: "There are people like Mayor Bloomberg who are, and that is perfectly fine."
Mrs. Obama later issued a statement saying that she hadn't intended to weigh in on the Bloomberg plan "one way or the other."
"I was trying to make the point that every community is different and every solution is different and that I applaud local leaders including mayors, business leaders, parents, etc., who are taking this issue seriously and working towards solving this problem.".................................>>>>.....................>>>>......................http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/michelle-obama-no-federal-big-soda-ban-125362.html
Upon first perusal, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to regulate the serving quantity of sugary drinks in order to control obesity [June 1 Gazette] is a noble one. However, upon further refl ection, it occurs to me that his actions are part of this society’s ongoing promulgation of the “nanny state.” A “nanny state is one in which it has been decided by a select group of men (e.g. liberal politicians) that the common man has no conception of what is good or bad for him, and, as a result, these decisions must be made by people like Mayor Bloomberg and others of his ilk who purportedly know what is best for all people. I resent this holier-than-thou attitude on the part of Mayor Blooomberg and his minions. Furthermore, I demand the right to have a 32-ounce soda accompany my double cheeseburger and french fries if I care to.
John McLoughlin’s excellent June 8 column on “big gulps” [focused on] yet another upcoming loss of freedom: New York City’s mayor wants to ban soda servings larger than a pint. Unfortunately, the huge “health at any cost” majority will support this ban and it will soon go into effect. Gone will be the option of two or three people buying a large drink and sharing it. What’s next? Both free speech and even peaceful assemblies cause stress. Will they get banned in the name of improving our health? In other words, will we repeal the First Amendment to extend our life span by a few days? I hope not.
JOEL NELSON Schenectady
Bloomberg’s plan won’t kill anyone, but supersized sodas do
Columnist John McLoughlin took a jocular swipe at New York City Mayor Bloomberg [June 8 Gazette]. He joined a shadowy business group that recently mocked the mayor as a “nanny” politician. Mr. McLoughlin also thought the mayor was laughable and behaving like a nanny for attempting to restrict sugared soft drinks to no more than 16 ounces per cup in city restaurants. Moreover, McLoughlin did not admire Bloomberg for having already “banned smoking, trans fats, salt, sugary soda in schools and excessive smiling north of 59th street.” I suppose McLoughlin also thinks the mayor, whom he described as short and having a whiny sing-song-y voice, also behaved like a nanny when he banned smoking in all public places in New York City. I will do Mr. McLoughlin the courtesy of taking him seriously. There is excellent evidence that obesity is a high-risk factor for a variety of illnesses, including diabetes and hypertension, which kill people earlier than they ought to die, and seriously impairs the health of many others. There is also plenty of evidence that consumption of an excessive number of calories is related to obesity. There is even evidence that the consumption of supersized sweet drinks contributes importantly to both. What Mayor Bloomberg has done is take a small but signifi cant, courageous step to protect the public’s health.
ARNOLD RITTERBAND, MD Niskayuna The writer is co-medical director of the Schenectady Free Clinic.
The real question is: how can this little power hungry Napoleon like dictator tell everyone what to eat and drink, who died and appointed him king. I don't even drink soda but I respect your right to do so.
Health panel talks about wider food ban Posted: Jun 13, 2012 7:06 AM EDT Updated: Jun 13, 2012 7:21 AM EDT By LUKE FUNK, Senior Web Producer -
MYFOXNY.COM -
The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.
The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.
"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.
Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city. It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.
The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.
New York City voters oppose 51 - 46 percent Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on the sale of over-sized sugary soft drinks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
There are few things in life funnier than an 'irate conservative' who think's he's been wronged.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Every liberal knows it is the job of government to stop businesses through threat of fine or imprisonment to sell only the amount of goods that the government approves of. Because every liberal knows the government knows best, all the time, and the individual is nothing.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Every liberal knows it is the job of government to stop businesses through threat of fine or imprisonment to sell only the amount of goods that the government approves of. Because every liberal knows the government knows best, all the time, and the individual is nothing.
"There are few things in life funnier than an 'irate conservative' who think's he's been wronged."
See what I mean!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Spineless liberals would let the government take every freedom away from them and then want the conservatives to get them back for them.
Graham is still angry because he has to put his shoes on before entering his favorite diner.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
WE KNOW YOU DON'T... THEY WON'T LET YOU IN BECAUSE YOU WON'T PUT YOUR SHOES ON!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
