8 ms·

I'd prefer to make my own choices on what I eat and drink. I'm a big boy and I can make my own informed decisions, and the sanctimonious tone of this practice i

I'd prefer to make my own choices on what I eat and drink. I'm a big boy and I can make my own informed decisions, and the sanctimonious tone of this practice is insufferable. "We know better than you ignorant masses, so we're going to save you from yourself". I also like that they lead with an image of Coke Zero, which has no sugar nor calories, and happens to be my drink of choice. But I made that choice myself, without my employer or government telling me I had to.

jmedwards 10y ago
Do you accept it as a compromise for a state subsidised healthcare system? "I want free/subsidised healthcare" and "I want to gradually erode my health without realising it OR incredibly cheaply OR because in helpless to not do so" are normally incompatible.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  I want fair treatment/condemnation to juice drinkers. :)
- ksdale 10y ago
  It is definitely consistent as a compromise for state subsidized healthcare, but it's also perfectly consistent to think that the state should neither nudge people away from soda or subsidize healthcare. If someone says that they would prefer it if the state lowered taxes rather than subsidizing healthcare, then healthcare gets subsidized anyway, and then soda gets regulated and that same person objects, it seems a bit disingenuous for the government to then argue that it is entitled to regulate soda because it's paying for that person's healthcare.
- rogerbinns 10y ago
  The "state subsidised" system also subsidises these: * People having children (more health visits and possible complications) * Those who drive (more accidents versus public transport) * Those living further south (more sunshine -> more skin cancer) * People with hobbies like rock climbing (more likely to get injured) * People who consume alcohol (more likely to get health issues) * People with pre-existing conditions I'm sure there are many many more examples where individuals do things that put them at greater risk of some health concerns versus other groups.
dntrkv 10y ago
Do you feel the same way about seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Heroin? Vaccines? My opinion is that there are certain things that should be regulated, or banned in many cases, because doing so would help our society as a whole.
- mbostleman 10y ago
  I feel the same way about all those things.
- jakebasile 10y ago
  Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Heroin hurts the individual using, so it should be warned against but not criminalized. You can't stop self harm by inflicting harm on the perpetrator. See also the regulation of marijuana which is a huge waste of money and only creates more problems than it solves. Compare with suicide prevention. Vaccines protect the population as a whole through herd immunity, so are different from your other examples.
  - bashinator 10y ago
    Do you think that insurance companies should have the right to withhold coverage from people who don't use seat belts or helmets? Also, do you think the State should have the right to withhold drivers' licenses from people who cannot get insurance?
    - vollmond 10y ago
      Wouldn't that come down to liability vs comprehensive? As it is, states only require liability insurance, which seems unlikely to be affected by my wearing of seatbelts or helmets. Helmets are optional in several states, yet I've never heard of that causing a problem for acquiring motorcycle insurance.
  - tokai 10y ago
    You do use seat belts for the safety of others. Back seat passengers without seat belts increase the risk of front seat passengers dramatically during a crash. And front seat passengers without belts run the chance of turning in to a mansize projectile endangering all in an arch in front of the vehicle. You could also ague that anything that lowers the severity of traffic accidents lessens the work need by police and clean up crews. Effectively protecting them as working roadside can be a risky job.
teslabox 10y ago
> I also like that they lead with an image of Coke Zero, which has no sugar nor calories This is sweetened with sucralose. In a recent study, fruit flies fed sucralose consumed more total calories than those fed sugar: http://abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/research-shows-artificial-sweeteners-encourage-a-sweet-tooth/7622720 http://abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/research-shows-artificial-... Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that soda does not. With that said, there's also a huge difference between the old herbal beverages (Cocaine & kola nut flavorings, "root beer", 21 natural plant flavors, etc), and modern artificially-colored and artificially-flavored concoctions.
- jakebasile 10y ago
  > This is sweetened with sucralose. I have a can in front of me, it is sweetened with Acesulfame Potassium and Aspartame. > In a recent study, fruit flies fed sucralose consumed more total calories than those fed sugar. I'm not a fruit fly, and everything is a trade off. If this has been widely proven in human trials it'd be one thing. > Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that soda does not. Vitamins and minerals are available in more than just fruit. > artificially-colored and artificially-flavored The Coke Zero in front of me has no artificial flavors listed, but is "caramel colored", so maybe that's artificial. Artificial doesn't inherently mean "bad for you".
- douche 10y ago
  You have to be a little careful with fruit juices; some are loaded with an equivalent or greater amount of sugar than CocaCola.
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    I seriously doubt that. Source?
    - douche 10y ago
      Walk down the grocery store aisle and read the labels? But here's a handful from the first page of Google search results: http://time.com/103898/5-juices-with-more-sugar-than-soda/ http://time.com/103898/5-juices-with-more-sugar-than-soda/ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/11/children-juice-drinks-sugar-coca-cola https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/11/childre... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/09/319230765/fruit-juice-vs-soda-both-beverages-pack-in-sugar-and-health-risk http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/09/319230765/fru...
surrey-fringe 10y ago
Great, also excited to hear your objections to health education in public schools. And the WHO. And food stamps that don't enable people to buy banana boo-boos.
- jakebasile 10y ago
  Education is not the same as prohibition. Refusing to pay for junk food is not the same as prohibiting it from being sold. I don't have much of an opinion on the WHO.
  - surrey-fringe 10y ago
    Education is absolutely the same as prohibition when it's both compulsory and teaching falsehoods.
ourmandave 10y ago
It is ironic that they showed Coke Cherry Zero when it says they replaced all the sugary drinks (except natural fruit juices) with water and zero-calorie drinks. (Coke Zero is also my first choice and I didn't know it came in Cherry.)
the_watcher 10y ago
I completely agree with you about making our own decisions on our health, and very much oppose soda taxes. That said, as I read it, UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus. While not technically a private organization, they should still have the ability to choose what they offer their employees. By the same token, employees should be able to bring their own soda and seek employment somewhere that does stock sodas.
- grzm 10y ago
  "UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus." This calls to mind "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness"[0]. It discusses, in part, setting up decisions and choices so that the default choice is in the best interest of the decider. (It's been a while since I read it. Improvements on my sentence-long summary welcome :) They also discuss what they term "liberal paternalism".[1] Good, interesting stuff if this are interests you. This seems in line with the decision UCSF made. You still have the choice to drink sugary soda. They're just not going to make it as easily available. Where this line is drawn is often going to be contentious. That said, there's always going to be some sort of line, right? Why this is being called into question now is that something is changing. At some point in the past, soda machines weren't on campus. Putting them on campus likely didn't have this same issue. But it did change the environment, and opened up more choice. What choices should be made available? All legal ones? All healthy ones? I think it's an interesting and valid question, one that needs to take into account both the individual and the community as a whole. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism If you choose to down vote, I'd appreciate it if you'd also take the time to reply in a comment. I'm interested in hearing what you think!
  - cam_l 10y ago
    Agree.. Why is it when a public org makes a decision on your behalf it is paternalism, but when a company decides to put 10-15 teaspoons of sugar in almost every drink you have access to, it is choice?
arnarbi 10y ago
A lot of smart folks just have enough other things to deal with in their life to allow them to make informed decisions on every single topic. At the same time, marketing machines use side-channels to put unhealthy choices at the front of their minds. I don't see a problem with countering that bias. It doesn't mean they are dumb. Public health is also a big factor in society, even economically, so your argument below about vaccines does apply to healthy eating as well.

jmedwards 10y ago

Do you accept it as a compromise for a state subsidised healthcare system? "I want free/subsidised healthcare" and "I want to gradually erode my health without realising it OR incredibly cheaply OR because in helpless to not do so" are normally incompatible.

drakonandor 10y ago
I want fair treatment/condemnation to juice drinkers. :)
ksdale 10y ago
It is definitely consistent as a compromise for state subsidized healthcare, but it's also perfectly consistent to think that the state should neither nudge people away from soda or subsidize healthcare. If someone says that they would prefer it if the state lowered taxes rather than subsidizing healthcare, then healthcare gets subsidized anyway, and then soda gets regulated and that same person objects, it seems a bit disingenuous for the government to then argue that it is entitled to regulate soda because it's paying for that person's healthcare.
rogerbinns 10y ago
The "state subsidised" system also subsidises these: * People having children (more health visits and possible complications) * Those who drive (more accidents versus public transport) * Those living further south (more sunshine -> more skin cancer) * People with hobbies like rock climbing (more likely to get injured) * People who consume alcohol (more likely to get health issues) * People with pre-existing conditions I'm sure there are many many more examples where individuals do things that put them at greater risk of some health concerns versus other groups.

dntrkv 10y ago

Do you feel the same way about seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Heroin? Vaccines? My opinion is that there are certain things that should be regulated, or banned in many cases, because doing so would help our society as a whole.

mbostleman 10y ago
I feel the same way about all those things.
jakebasile 10y ago
Seat belts and helmets protect the individual using them, so no they shouldn't be required. Heroin hurts the individual using, so it should be warned against but not criminalized. You can't stop self harm by inflicting harm on the perpetrator. See also the regulation of marijuana which is a huge waste of money and only creates more problems than it solves. Compare with suicide prevention. Vaccines protect the population as a whole through herd immunity, so are different from your other examples.
- bashinator 10y ago
  Do you think that insurance companies should have the right to withhold coverage from people who don't use seat belts or helmets? Also, do you think the State should have the right to withhold drivers' licenses from people who cannot get insurance?
  - vollmond 10y ago
    Wouldn't that come down to liability vs comprehensive? As it is, states only require liability insurance, which seems unlikely to be affected by my wearing of seatbelts or helmets. Helmets are optional in several states, yet I've never heard of that causing a problem for acquiring motorcycle insurance.
- tokai 10y ago
  You do use seat belts for the safety of others. Back seat passengers without seat belts increase the risk of front seat passengers dramatically during a crash. And front seat passengers without belts run the chance of turning in to a mansize projectile endangering all in an arch in front of the vehicle. You could also ague that anything that lowers the severity of traffic accidents lessens the work need by police and clean up crews. Effectively protecting them as working roadside can be a risky job.

teslabox 10y ago

> I also like that they lead with an image of Coke Zero, which has no sugar nor calories This is sweetened with sucralose. In a recent study, fruit flies fed sucralose consumed more total calories than those fed sugar: http://abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/research-shows-artificial-sweeteners-encourage-a-sweet-tooth/7622720 http://abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/research-shows-artificial-... Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that soda does not. With that said, there's also a huge difference between the old herbal beverages (Cocaine & kola nut flavorings, "root beer", 21 natural plant flavors, etc), and modern artificially-colored and artificially-flavored concoctions.

jakebasile 10y ago
> This is sweetened with sucralose. I have a can in front of me, it is sweetened with Acesulfame Potassium and Aspartame. > In a recent study, fruit flies fed sucralose consumed more total calories than those fed sugar. I'm not a fruit fly, and everything is a trade off. If this has been widely proven in human trials it'd be one thing. > Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that soda does not. Vitamins and minerals are available in more than just fruit. > artificially-colored and artificially-flavored The Coke Zero in front of me has no artificial flavors listed, but is "caramel colored", so maybe that's artificial. Artificial doesn't inherently mean "bad for you".
douche 10y ago
You have to be a little careful with fruit juices; some are loaded with an equivalent or greater amount of sugar than CocaCola.
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  I seriously doubt that. Source?
  - douche 10y ago
    Walk down the grocery store aisle and read the labels? But here's a handful from the first page of Google search results: http://time.com/103898/5-juices-with-more-sugar-than-soda/ http://time.com/103898/5-juices-with-more-sugar-than-soda/ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/11/children-juice-drinks-sugar-coca-cola https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/11/childre... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/09/319230765/fruit-juice-vs-soda-both-beverages-pack-in-sugar-and-health-risk http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/09/319230765/fru...

surrey-fringe 10y ago

Great, also excited to hear your objections to health education in public schools. And the WHO. And food stamps that don't enable people to buy banana boo-boos.

jakebasile 10y ago
Education is not the same as prohibition. Refusing to pay for junk food is not the same as prohibiting it from being sold. I don't have much of an opinion on the WHO.
- surrey-fringe 10y ago
  Education is absolutely the same as prohibition when it's both compulsory and teaching falsehoods.

ourmandave 10y ago

It is ironic that they showed Coke Cherry Zero when it says they replaced all the sugary drinks (except natural fruit juices) with water and zero-calorie drinks. (Coke Zero is also my first choice and I didn't know it came in Cherry.)

the_watcher 10y ago

I completely agree with you about making our own decisions on our health, and very much oppose soda taxes. That said, as I read it, UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus. While not technically a private organization, they should still have the ability to choose what they offer their employees. By the same token, employees should be able to bring their own soda and seek employment somewhere that does stock sodas.

grzm 10y ago
"UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus." This calls to mind "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness"[0]. It discusses, in part, setting up decisions and choices so that the default choice is in the best interest of the decider. (It's been a while since I read it. Improvements on my sentence-long summary welcome :) They also discuss what they term "liberal paternalism".[1] Good, interesting stuff if this are interests you. This seems in line with the decision UCSF made. You still have the choice to drink sugary soda. They're just not going to make it as easily available. Where this line is drawn is often going to be contentious. That said, there's always going to be some sort of line, right? Why this is being called into question now is that something is changing. At some point in the past, soda machines weren't on campus. Putting them on campus likely didn't have this same issue. But it did change the environment, and opened up more choice. What choices should be made available? All legal ones? All healthy ones? I think it's an interesting and valid question, one that needs to take into account both the individual and the community as a whole. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism If you choose to down vote, I'd appreciate it if you'd also take the time to reply in a comment. I'm interested in hearing what you think!
- cam_l 10y ago
  Agree.. Why is it when a public org makes a decision on your behalf it is paternalism, but when a company decides to put 10-15 teaspoons of sugar in almost every drink you have access to, it is choice?

arnarbi 10y ago

A lot of smart folks just have enough other things to deal with in their life to allow them to make informed decisions on every single topic. At the same time, marketing machines use side-channels to put unhealthy choices at the front of their minds. I don't see a problem with countering that bias. It doesn't mean they are dumb. Public health is also a big factor in society, even economically, so your argument below about vaccines does apply to healthy eating as well.