The Decline of ‘Big Soda’ • Hacker News Board

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#21

Post by ihsw » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #9

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #4

I would like to see a decline of "Big water". It astonishes me that bottled water is consistently sold for more than sugar water and not one bottler breaks from the pack and sells it for less. That can only happen with industry wide collusion to fix prices and yet no one in the government does anything about it.

I think my local supermarket sells bottled water for as little as 19p (29c) for 2 litres, as as much as about £2 ($3) so I think you are mistaken.

Bottled water prices are usually regionally-defined and bulk prices vary from excellent to horrendous.

I'm fairly certain the parent was referring to the 24-unit packs of water, where each bottle is ~500ml.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#22

Post by the-dude » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

yincrash wrote: post #14

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

where do you draw the line? should all food be sold in white boxes with plain lettering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#23

Post by kachnuv_ocasek » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #18

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

Young children don't do the grocery shopping. Parents need to take responsibility and not buy unhealthy food for their kids. I'd say children up to a certain age are drinking this stuff simply because their parents bought it for them (How else?). Plus, "when they target children" would simply become harder to define as companies would modify their ads, but the problem would remain if parents aren't taking an active r…

Kids can buy whatever they want if they have money. And surely, they'll buy the shiny thing thing they saw on TV or the internet when they encounter it in the shop and see it's cheap.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#24

Post by kachnuv_ocasek » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

lfjmfkekdk wrote: post #15

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.

Two clicks from the 'First amendment' Wikipedia article led me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... So yeah, it might pass.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#25

Post by klenwell » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

When Mr. Nutter was fighting the soda tax battle, he kept a bottle of Mountain Dew and a container with 17 teaspoons of sugar — the amount in the bottle — on the table in the center of his office. It was a good “conversation piece,” he said, about the surprising number of calories in a typical soda.

I think this is key. Better information and transparency is having an effect. I'm glad to hear we're approaching a point where the RDA for sugar will be listed on products just like fat, sodium, and potassium. I expect this will have a major impact on consumer behavior and industry behavior, much like calorie listings on fast food menus. It still requires government regulations, but instead of challenging First Amendment principles, it embraces them.

Most consumers aren't idiots. But they're aren't scientists or academic researchers for the most part either. Bring them relevant, accurate information and they are capable of making rational choices. This article is encouraging evidence.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#26

Post by ScottWhigham » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

lfjmfkekdk wrote: post #15

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.

I'm not sure what the 'first amendment test' is when it comes to corporate advertising but our government already limits how alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and marijuana can be advertised. We also limit what and how things can be advertised to children. So I'm not really sure your sentence is correct.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#27

Post by sambull » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #18

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

Young children don't do the grocery shopping. Parents need to take responsibility and not buy unhealthy food for their kids. I'd say children up to a certain age are drinking this stuff simply because their parents bought it for them (How else?). Plus, "when they target children" would simply become harder to define as companies would modify their ads, but the problem would remain if parents aren't taking an active r…

I sure did, and when I was 11 years old we had soda machines at our public school. Sold soda at the lunch counter, and had free soda give away days where the distributor would hand out free new/trial products.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#28

Post by bufordsharkley » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

andyfleming wrote: post #16

littletimmy wrote: post #10

What we really need is a limit on advertising. Corporations manufacturing packaged sugar like coke, cereal etc. should not be able to manipulate young children to get them addicted to their crap. Sell this stuff in plain white boxes, ban advertising to young children, and in general, limit the free speech of soulless legal fictions when they target children.

Regulating advertising then gives control to whatever organization makes those decsisions. Are their interests always going to be in alignment with our own?

From working in a non-commercial radio station for years-- I think applying non-commercial criteria is pretty easy:

1) No mentioning of prices 2) No calls to action 3) No aggrandizement of product. Underwriting can be a neutrally-worded description of product.

I've really come to believe that all media that could be described as public (the outdoors, network television, radio, perhaps much more...) should abide by these rules, insofar as commercial advertising pollutes it horribly.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#29

Post by dingbat » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

lfjmfkekdk wrote: post #13

lemevi wrote: post #5

Just take some time next time you're in a supermarket and walk down the cereal aisle, it's just incredible. It's all sugar and carbohydrates in colorful cartoony boxes meant to appeal to children. Just a cup of cereal has many calories and people and children eat huge bowls of this stuff. So I think an anti-cereal campaign might also help. I often wonder what would happen to national obesity rates if cereal aisles in…

I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.

damage to the pancreas and related hormonal systems is cumulative, often not apparent until its too late. people can be pre-diabetic and not obese. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-26/more-than-...

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#30

Post by lfjmfkekdk » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #20

lfjmfkekdk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.

I was a cereal addict as a kid. Killed a couple boxes of the stuff a week. And I was super skinny, probably because we played outside to the point of exhaustion every single day.

Yeah, was the same like like you as a kid. Was super skinny. Even as an adult, I'm not nearly as active but I do count my calories. IMO, banning things like cereal is not the answer when the more effective approach is to teach kids how to burn their calories and/or limit their calorie intake per day.