Live data from Hacker News

The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

nytimes.com

151–160 of 244 posts

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#151
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about real fruit juice? Much healthier. Minute Maid is owned by Coca-Cola, anyways.

> How about real fruit juice? Much healthier. Most fresh squeezed fruit juices have comparable levels of sugar to soda. They may have some extra vitamins but they are not terribly 'healthy'.

Indeed. Fruit is "healthy" because it has fiber in it. Fruit juice removes the fiber, making it basically the same thing as soda.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#152

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 poin…

That's why we haven't had anyone start smoking in decades.. Soda sales are down but obesity is still up, so the calories are coming from somewhere. If you believe the other common stories, we're drinking the calories. I'd wager they come from the rise of coffee-based beverages - which would not be considered soda - but I don't have data to back that up.

Are obesity rates increasing? I'd like to see your source. Same with smoking rates.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#153
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about real fruit juice? Much healthier. Minute Maid is owned by Coca-Cola, anyways.

How is it "much healthier"? 8 ounces of real orange juice has 21 g of sugar and 110 calories. This is about what Minute Maid orange juice has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This suggests a strategy for improving the healthiness of soda: the government should work to make the ice-cream float come back into fashion. "Don't drink your soda plain: add a scoop for your health!"

Maybe? I mean, have you ever tried to eat dinner after icecream? It's just not happening, even if it's delicious dinner. But soda, well, take a 2000 calorie meal and add soda and you have a 3000 calorie meal.

Maybe? No, not at all.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#155

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.

If you work in retail then you are interested in profit, not making a good deal for your customers. If the proper branded product gives you a nice 37% margin (with that being 37% of a proper price), what is the incentive for selling something with a lower margin at a lower price?

The proper branded products have some distribution arrangements that mean you cannot sell their stuff at a low price, i.e. lower than everyone else. This is not 'price fixing' in a way the government can outlaw. Salesman from brand simply phones retailer's buyer and has a few words, implicit being the threat not to re-supply them. Large buyers will have negotiated a better price so long as they sell at the agreed price, clearly this privilege goes if they break their part of the deal, so next time they will have to buy at the official trade price, which is higher than what they need to make a profit.

Ma and Pa stores don't have the bargaining position - they buy from a 'cash 'n' carry' that might be supplied by another distributor (and an importer) all levels taking a percentage. They can stock 'off brand' products, but, even in a Ma and Pa store every square foot has to pay for itself, so why sell a low value, low margin, low $$$ turnover product?

Supermarkets sell own brand alongside branded products to present choice so you can buy big bottles of water at a price you would think does not make it worth them to stock. But check out the lunch purchases aisle, we are back to branded products at normal retail prices.

There is no conspiracy just capitalism and 'free market' practices. Having said that, water does have competition from a) the tap and b) the natural world. If you really wanted cheap water you could always run a tap (in the first world) or even collect your own rain water, filtering accordingly.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#156

pro-tip for anyone trying to kick a soda (or alcohol) habit: get yourself a seltzer maker, and an assortment of bitters (Fee Bros Cranberry, Walnut, and standard Angostura are a good place to start). This is just my personal experience, but I found that most of the unhealthy drinking I was doing was out of habit and boredom. I’m just as happy with a seltzer + a few dashes of bitters as I was with a beer or a coke.

Fee Brothers is great and that is also my "soft" drink of choice.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#157
post #100

It's amazing how many people seem to think drugs should be legalised but sugar should be banned.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that sugar should be banned the way drugs are, just limited in how much can be contained in a product marketed as food. Similarly, I don't think that many people who support drug legalization would support allowing drugs to be added to products that are marketed as food rather than marketed as drugs.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.

The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations. We already limit the advertising of tobacco, for example. Sugar is as harmful.

Sugar is as harmful

I think that sort of hyperbole isn't helping any arguments against sugar. No need to ratchet up the rhetoric - this is already a hot topic. Sugar is bad, yes, but if it was thought to be "as harmful" as tobacco it would have warning labels and you'd have to be a certain age to use it.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the ads to children. The ADA chief medical scientist has already said there is no conclusive proof that sugary food causes diabetes. Also I don't know if you've seen any kids cereal commercials recently, but they're not making deceptive claims…

We're all just commenting on your vague original comment. If you wanted to add context, that was the time to do it - not later as a defense of your original comment. You've specifically focused on "sugary cereal" in your comment to me - okay, that's fine. But your original comment was in reply to a much broader comment yet you decided to just make a blanket statement.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#160

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 poin…

That's why we haven't had anyone start smoking in decades.. Soda sales are down but obesity is still up, so the calories are coming from somewhere. If you believe the other common stories, we're drinking the calories. I'd wager they come from the rise of coffee-based beverages - which would not be considered soda - but I don't have data to back that up.

I'm confused about your comment on smoking? Are you saying because of labelling people aren't smoking?

I ask because for example Singapore has extremely harsh labeling and yet they've seen an increase recently.

Sorry if I mis-understood your point.

https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Parlia...

Warning!! THESE LABELS ARE GROSS!!! https://www.google.es/search?q=singapore+cigarettes+labels&t...

Post reply on HN