Margot Sanger-Katz reports in the NYT that soda consumption is experiencing a serious and sustained decline as sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted by more than 25 percent over the past twenty years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they are actively trying to avoid the drinks that have been a mainstay of American culture and bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years. The changing patterns of soda drinking appear to come thanks, in part, to a loud campaign to eradicate sodas. School cafeterias and vending machines no longer contain regular sodas. Many workplaces and government offices have similarly prohibited their sale.
For many public health advocates, soda has become the new tobacco — a toxic product to be banned, taxed and stigmatized. "There will always be soda, but I think the era of it being acceptable for kids to drink soda all day long is passing, slowly," says Marion Nestle. "In some socioeconomic groups, it's over." Soda represents nearly 25% of the U.S. beverage market and its massive scale have guaranteed profit margins for decades. Historically, beverage preferences are set in adolescence, the first time that most people begin choosing and buying a favorite brand. But the declines in soda drinking appear to be sharpest among young Americans. "Kids these days are growing up with all of these other options, and there are some parents who say, 'I really want my kids to drink juice or a bottled water,' " says Gary A. Hemphill. "If kids grow up without carbonated soft drinks, the likelihood that they are going to grow up and, when they are 35, start drinking is very low."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday October 04 2015, @02:47PM
No, it is not. For all the problems that soda has, it does not stink up the surroundings for others by making the air itself poisonous nor does it scatter non-biodegradable butts all over the ground to disturb others. .
If they want to make a real dent in smoking, in addition to plain packs, they need to implement a 10¢ or greater deposit on filters. That would reduce the amount of butts that the smokers seem to feel entitled to cast around and those that do get through in public have a greater chance of getting picked up if there is a deposit. I've even caught a few fish with cigarette butts in their stomachs
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:04PM
Instead of a 10 cent refund, how about a 100$ fine ( and i would love to see jail time too ) if you toss them onto the ground. It IS littering, which is illegal in most areas.
Most ( not all ) smokers i know have no respect for others around them, or the environment.
All that said i would be the last to say a person can't smoke due to rights and such, but please do it in your own home or car, not near me. Since i now live in a subdivision, I dont target practice in the back yard at 2am out of respect of my neighbors, you can do the same. ( i dont do it in my yard at all, but you get the point )
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:16PM
The deposit is probably easier to manage and cheaper for the society. We need less laws and court cases, not more. There is a reason several countries started legalizing weed, and it's not necessarily liberal mindset.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:14PM
<sarc Text="In this aspect, a large fine for murder is preferrable to a long, expensive, and often futile search for the criminal."/>
My point is that fines will create two parallel systems of laws; one for poor, and one for rich. The rich will become immune to punishment, as long as they have the money.
The main problem of the USA is that the country's laws are not enforced. Courts and prisons are nothing but one big revolving door. Nothing will improve until all criminals commit their crimes and are removed from the society for a very long time, up to infinity.
They want out earlier? No problem. Demonstrate Master's skills in science and technology in an area that you choose and that is wanted by employers. Take an exam, get asked something like this:
Write a compiler from this nonexistent language to this nonexistent hardware. Write an interpreter for this machine and a debugger; then implement the machine in VHDL and run it on this development board that we will provide. Solve a given problem of the industry (say, a travelling salesman) on this hardware and provide us with all the sources, compiled code, and everything. You have as long as you need to do that, but you will be locked up in a solitary confinement (an office) with all the necessary tools.
If the convict is ready and anxious to rejoin the society, he will leave on a level that won't require him to mug people for drug money. This is not easy for a barely literate person, but the modern society has no use for barely literate robbers. Life is not fair; but you will be given an opportunity to learn. Fail, and you won't get a second chance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday October 04 2015, @11:14PM
Instead of a 10 cent refund, how about a 100$ fine ( and i would love to see jail time too )
Really, jail time for littering? Wow, no wonder so many Americans are in prison, if that's the attitude their fellow citizens have. (I'm going to go right on and assume that you're American).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Monday October 05 2015, @04:04AM
The original minimal fines for littering pretty much got rid of the problem right off. When I was a kid, it was normal to toss trash out of car windows, and every ditch was full of garbage. Along came the $10 fine somewhere in the 1960s, and the problem vanished overnight. The only remaining "litterers" were those surreptitiously disposing of a large quantity of trash (funny how that evolved concurrent with municipal dumps ending "free trash" days)... so the fines were escalated. The problem shrank again. But legislators always feel that burning need to prove that they're "doing something" ...so the fines have continued to escalate.
I watched the fines crawl from $10 to $50 to $100 to $500, and last I looked in California the fine was $1000.
In Oregon, it's $6,250. For littering. (Tried to find one of the signs, but, effing changes to google maps...)
For comparison, in CA the fine for assault is $1000, and for assault on a police officer, $5000.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by penguinoid on Monday October 05 2015, @06:22AM
Community service picking up litter would be a much more appropriate punishment.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by timbojones on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:23PM
http://green-butts.com/ [green-butts.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @02:48PM
There seems to be an implicit assumption that soda is bad somehow. Citation please? Or is this just another of those "if it gives you pleasure it must be wicked" mental malfunctions?
Soda drinker for decades, excellent health here.
Oh maybe you mean the sugar ones? Well of course! But it's not the soda, it's the sugar. Which, by the way, can also be found in your precious fruit juice.
And paying $1.75 for bottled water from a vending machine when you can get perfectly good water from the faucet? Absurd! That's a pretty good example of hooking kids on a harmful habit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @02:59PM
The acids and sugars that are in many drinks are not 'good' for you. Debatable if its 'bad', assuming moderation.
Many of the artificial sweeteners cause a lot of people issues. ( like headaches )
(Score: 2) by kadal on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:07PM
Are there non sugary sodas?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:11PM
There are diet sodas, but they use one of several engineered sugar substitutes, dubious from the perspective of both obesity and general human health.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:52PM
Sugar substitutes have zero carbs. Carbs are the reason people get fat. Sugar substitutes do not cause people to become fat.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Sunday October 04 2015, @09:12PM
Actually, there is evidence to the contrary. The fake sugar is apparently convincing enough to trick the body into storing the real sugars in your bloodstream as fat and then when the expected calories don't appear, you get hungry. Hunger is a leading cause of consuming food.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:30PM
If you define soda as something involving cola nut flavors, to balance its bitterness against the acidity of the carbonation you need a sugar. So its like asking if there is a sugar free frosting, yes you could just use whipped butter or crisco, but probably not.
If you define soda as something you drink out of a bottle that is flavored water, there are a couple heath food store things that some variation or another on vitamin added water or oral rehydration fluid (not gatorade which has tons of sugar and it basically non-carbonated soda/fruit juice)
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:36PM
Yes. [huffpost.com] There is even sugar-free flavored carbonated water. Also, most "Diet" colas are sugar-free, sweetened with some other crap.
Flavored carbonated water -- even without sugar -- is quite acidic and not great for your teeth. Sugar flavored soda is way worse: a good science project for kids involves dropping some of their baby teeth in a glass of Coke; they dissolve to nothing in a week.
(Score: 1) by Marco2G on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:21PM
The problem is that we seem to be unable to take things in healthy measures. A soda once in a while isn't a problem. However, when it's the only thing a kid consumes all thay long, then it does become a problem. Consuming that much sugar daily just isn't healthy.
One can of pop every few days doesn't hurt.
Of course, bottled water is an idiocy in and of itself. I guess it is more understandable in the parts of the world where tap water is unclean or needs to be treated with chlorine. In Switzerland, tap water has higher quality than bottled water, so...
Also, I find it hilarious that this woman has the last name 'Nestle' in this context.
(Score: 1) by Marco2G on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:23PM
I'd like to add that a cigarette or any other tobacco product every few days wouldn't be a problem either. But 40 of them daily sure are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @02:00AM
The problem is that for many people including myself the one in every few days quickly becomes one every day, then two and before the first month has passed back at a pack a day. I've stayed clean of tobacco for two months now. I've quit numerous times. One time even for two years. The average time I manage to stay clean is around 3 weeks, so I'm doing very well now and feeling very good about it. Don't underestimate the addictiveness of nicotine, it's a formidable opponent, you can't win.
(Score: 1) by Marco2G on Monday October 05 2015, @11:42AM
You're right but that's not at all what I was saying ;). I commented on the amount not how hard it is to remain at that dosage.
Some people deal better with addictive substances (including sugar) than others. If you notice that you cannot control the amount, you'd better stop altogether, if you can. So much is true. However, if someone can control his intake, there's no reason to make them feel bad about themself.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Sunday October 04 2015, @08:48PM
Of course, bottled water is an idiocy in and of itself
At the college where I teach, the water fountains have a fitting specifically made to refill your water bottle. You can use your plastic bottle until it gets grungy, and if you lose it, so what...
(Score: 1) by Marco2G on Monday October 05 2015, @11:40AM
If you lose it it becomes non-decomposing garbage somewhere but likely not where you want to have it.
Also, plastic containers suck for food and beverages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @09:30PM
Our tap water tastes like... well, it tastes like the smell of a sewer. Even a charcoal filter didn't help, so we go through 2 cases of bottled water per month. No way around it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @09:13AM
Same here in Denmark. Doesn't prevent people from buying the stupid bottles. At work I think we buy them a pallet at a time, maybe half a pallet - and that's for a 10 person company.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:24PM
First - America has a problem with obesity. There is no "zero calorie" soda. They all contribute to obesity.
Second - the food colorings used in soda, like food coloring in many other foods, have been linked to ADD/ADHD. No "proven" cause and effect, but clinical evidence is abundant that children who consume these food colorings have more problems than children who do no.
Third - sugar in fruit juices is an entirely different sugar than found in sweetened drinks. Whether the distributor is using corn syrup or cane sugar, it is an unhealthy choice. Natural fruit juices are a healthier choice.
Fourth - the acids found in soda are unhealthy. It's not a question of making the stomach more acid, but it's a matter of the wrong kind of acidity. I don't believe the stomach can be "to acidic", but the proper acidity is changed by acidic drinks.
With all of that said - despite the fact that I think soda to be pretty stupid, I can't stand the assholes who want to dictate whether you can drink it, how much, or how often. Unless you're spending my money, I don't give a damn what you drink.
What I do resent, in regards to soda, is the mega-mass marketing of soda. All day, every day, impressionable young minds are exposed to advertising which indocrinates them to believe that soda is the only choice. It's "Coke or Pepsi", never "Water, juice, or soda". I could argue that water is the healthiest choice, others would argue that juice is the healthiest choice - no one can make a good argument that soda is the healthiest.
I agree that paying for water in a bottle is pretty damned stupid. WTF? It's like paying someone for bottled air. Why would you do it?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:37PM
There is no "zero calorie" soda.
How do you figure? All those products labeled Calories: 0... they just slipped by the FDA somehow?
They all contribute to obesity.
Odd, then, that I'm not obese, or even anywhere close.
have been linked to ADD/ADHD.
Citation?
No "proven" cause and effect
OK then, never mind about the citation.
Whether the distributor is using corn syrup or cane sugar, it is an unhealthy choice. Natural fruit juices are a healthier choice.
You missed "no sugar" which was the point of the post to which you replied.
Oh by the way -- corn and sugar cane are not natural? What are you smoking? Though, I guess it is harmless, right, since it is natural?
the acids found in soda are unhealthy
Citation? And again, then why am I healthy?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:01PM
The unhealthy acid bit is in reference to citric and phosphoric acid in most fruit juices and colas being very bad for the teeth, long term. So for better luck, go google up those specific terms rather than "acid is bad" or whatever.
Fructose is a good solid punch to the liver, its almost as hard to metabolize as alcohol although it doesn't get you high, so LOL at the "food babe" level science of "fruit juice is natural and healthy". No its pretty much crap, just not quite as bad as Mt Dew. Consumed occasionally as semi-solid fruit, the juice in fruit isn't as unhealthy because the fiber dramatically slows adsorption rates plus the acids in the fruit can't corrode your teeth if they're in the center of an orange or whatever and therefore never contact your teeth.
Its interesting to speculate on some kind of healthy canned drink that isn't just bottled water. Some electrolytes would be handy, a modest amount of salt. Maybe some vitamins. If you liked paying $1 for a bottled water, you'll love the $3 health food store vitamin water products that are relatively pH neutral so no dental erosion and are more or less pedialyte rehydration formula remarketed for adults.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:44PM
> Some electrolytes would be handy, a modest amount of salt.
Salt is an electrolyte. In fact, all that bullshit marketing about electrolytes isn't about much more than a little sodium in the drink.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:06PM
> How do you figure? All those products labeled Calories: 0... they just slipped by the FDA somehow?
The FDA lets companies round down. If the total calories per serving is less than 50, then they round to 5 calorie increments. So each serving in a 0-calorie soda can have 2.49 calories and still be labeled as zero calories. They also say that anything less than 5 calories qualifies for "calorie free" labeling. I"m not sure what that means.
But runaway isn't smart enough to know all that. Even if he did know that, a 5 calorie soda contributes to obesity in the same way the potted plant in the corner contributes to the oxygen I breathe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:13PM
H probably means zero calorie sodas contribute to obesity by causing spike in insulin (some info [mercola.com]).
(Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:46PM
Here's an excerpt from their make file:
SCNR :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by naubol on Sunday October 04 2015, @06:12PM
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.13376/abstract;jsessionid=45C4F3344AA5322725252D6C2035FC3B.f01t02 [wiley.com]
You're a sample of one.
Correlation may not be causation, but demonstrating correlation can be somewhat persuasive.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:19PM
Citation? And again, then why am I healthy?
Denial?
(Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:58PM
Isn't it all glucose, fructose and sucrose anyways? Cane sugar is mainly sucrose, corn syrup is a mix of glucose and fructose, and some quick research shows fruits are generally a mix of all three.
Chemicals don't care if the process that made them was "alive" or not. Fructose is pentahydroxyhexanone, whether it was made by apples, by corn, or synthesized in a lab from base carbohydrates.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:26PM
some quick research shows fruits are generally a mix of all three.
Much like table salt is a compound of sodium and chlorine, sucrose IS glucose and fructose in an exact 1:1 ratio. So chop a sucrose molecule in half in your stomach wall and you get one glucose and one fructose. Cane sugar is 100% sucrose aka exactly 50:50 glucose/fructose.
I don't know why biochemically speaking plants like to stockpile excess sugars in sucrose form, maybe its just less reactive or some random thing. Its just "what plants do". You're kinda stacking two things in the place of one, and its a bigger less reactive molecule...
Glucose is cool, it drops right into the citric acid cycle to generate ATP. Right from your gut to every cell in your body, more or less, without much in between.
Fructose is a good swift kick in the liver and makes life rather hard on that organ. It goes to a considerable effort to crack it into something useful to the body, the end results are eventually in the fatty acid / triglycerides path and into the glucose cycle. There's a peculiar cirrhosis of the liver that can develop from too much fructose intake.
Its possible to shove excess glucose into the triglycerides path, but fructose automatically dumps it in the path as part of normal metabolism. So if consumed in excess its probably not terribly good for weight loss or cardiovascular health.
Fructose does have one cool feature which is if your guts are ravaged out already and you've got diabetes or pre-diabetes then fructose tastes super sweet and has a low glycemic index, so after your guts are messed up, its probably the "best" sweetener, yet before your guts are broken its probably the worst sweetener, which is kind of weird but true symmetry.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:47PM
If you get down to the nitty gritty, all foods are equal. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, right? So, if I get a lump of charcoal and some water for your dinner, you're all set?
Sugar cane isn't all that unhealthy. Give it to a kid, and he's got to work at munching up the sugar, and at the same time, he's getting a tiny bit of nutritional value from it. All in all, he can't consume an awful lot of energy in a day's time, even if he's got a truckload of the stuff. Processed granulated sugar, on the other hand, permits the kid to consume ten times the energy he needs all day long, in a single sitting.
Corn syrup? That's a relatively healthy starch that is effectively predigested, leaving behind chains of sugars. Like the granulated sugar, all the extra nutrition has been stripped away, leaving only calories. Corn syrup is composed of several sugars, actually, but even the longest chains are broken down pretty quickly in the digestive system. Lots of energy, no nutrition, same as granulated sugar.
Fruit juices have both short and long chain sugar, but they have a lot of nutrition in them as well.
Artificial sweeteners? I've never found one that is fit to eat. A lot of people, including my wife, have tried to sneak it into my diet. I have always detected them. They taste like - what else? Chemicals. Even as a little kid, my mother couldnt' sneak sacharine into my food. People have to be trained to like it. Kinda like alcohol - kids don't like their first taste of alcohol, they train themselves to like the stuff.
While the sweetener might be "zero calorie", the rest of the ingredients aren't necessarily zero calorie. Let's return to corn syrup, as an example. Corn syrup has 53 grams of carbohydrates, but only 29 grams of sugar. Why the discrepancy? Well - "sugar" refers to short chain sugars. But corn syrup contains long chain sugars as well. Thanks to a play on semantics, corn syrup manufacturers get to claim that they only have 29 grams of sugar - but in fact, you're consuming 53 grams of sugar with each serving.
Knowing that, I look at those "zero calorie" drinks, and wonder, "Just how many calories ARE THERE?" as well as "What is the cost of "low calorie?"
http://foodbabe.com/2013/01/25/coca-colas-low-calorie-beverages-will-kill-you-before-they-solve-obesity/ [foodbabe.com]
"That’s right – consuming artificial sweeteners actually increases your appetite."
"You’ll find crystalline fructose in Vitamin Water Zero, which is made from (genetically modified) corn starch which is 20% sweeter than sugar. Fructose is processed by the body differently than other sugars – and is linked to fatty liver disease, cirrhosis, coronary arterial disease and obesity."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:05PM
They taste like - what else? Chemicals.
Protip: water is a chemical.
You're starting to sound like a health-food-as-a-religion missionary rather than someone with factual knowledge.
I look at those "zero calorie" drinks, and wonder, "Just how many calories ARE THERE?"
Hmmm, that's a toughie. Let's see if we can work it out.
(0 + 0) * 0 + (0 * 0) - 0 - (0 * 0)
Starting to look like it might be zero.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:49PM
Some experimenters reported that fructose added to various beverages at various temperatures was 77% to 136% sweeter than sucrose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2758952 [nih.gov]
When soda makers disclose the energy content of their drinks, they can write a smaller number for the calories, without reducing the sweetness, if they use fructose rather than sucrose.
In the US, corn production is heavily subsidized. I speculate that it may have to do with fact that the Iowa primaries are held early, in election years.
Sucrose, on the other hand, is subject to regulations that tend to increase its price to about twice that on the world market:
http://www.atr.org/sugar-policy-sweet-economy-a7127 [atr.org]
Ton for ton, fructose is about twice as sweet and (in the US) costs about half as much, so it yields around four times as much bang for the buck.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Monday October 05 2015, @06:37AM
Fructose may be the same chemical when in high fructose corn syrup as it is in a fruit, but the fruit (not fruit juice) also contains fiber which slows the absorption of sugar into your bloodstream.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:22PM
As for table sugar, you know that it is extracted from plant matter right? It isn't like it's some exotic compound whipped up by DuPont. Table sugar is about 50/50 glucose and fructose, the same as many juices. And you realize that fructose, which many juices have an excess of over white sugar, is a pretty bad actor right? Fruit juice is soda -- squeezing all the sweet sap out of a sugar cane is no different than squeezing all the sweet sap out of a bunch of grapes (aside from the fact that there's more sugar in grape juice than soda). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/juice-as-bad-as-soda-docs-say/ [cbsnews.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/whole-fruit-juice-diabetes-risk [theguardian.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/fruit-sugar-versus-white-sugar_n_3497795.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:27PM
Juice isn't really the healthiest choice, because the best stuff in fruit is not in fruit juice. It's better than soda, but not by as much as you might think. The drinks that are legitimately healthy for everybody over age 1 or so, provided none of them are to excess: water, tea, beer, wine, milk. (For under age 1, it's an even shorter list: Breast milk, water, in that order.)
That said, the right solution to the problem of soda and other products that are bad in excess is not a heavy-handed ban or limits on the size of drinks (darn you, Michael Bloomberg!) but: 1. A public education campaign. 2. Remove soda from schools. 3. Ban advertising on TV. That had the desired effect for tobacco, there's no reason to think it couldn't work for soda.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:32PM
3. Ban advertising on TV.
Unconstitutional.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Sunday October 04 2015, @09:01PM
Liggett and Myers wish you'd tipped them off to that sooner.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday October 05 2015, @07:01AM
If banning tits on TV is constitutional, then how can banning ads be unconstitutional?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @12:44AM
Tits are only banned on free-to-air broadcast TV.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:40PM
When I was at CERN the Europeans all thought I was insane for drinking tap water.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:46PM
Whenever Europeans think I'm insane, I know I'm very likely on the right track.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:40PM
- woman went hiking in the mountains. The American soon drank up all his water; the Europeans brought none. Eventually they happened upon a cafe that was kept supplied with a four-wheel drive but had nothing to drink; they shared a single giant omelet and a variety of stinky cheese.
Eventually we happened upon some firefighting water. I lapsed behind on some pretense then gulped it down.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:10PM
Some of us worry about contaminants introduced between the reservoir and the faucet or drinking fountain, especially in older buildings, which is why bottled water vendors do such a good business.
From here: [oxfordjournals.org]
If treatment is not optimized, unwanted residues of chemicals used in water treatment can also cause contamination, and give rise to sediments in water pipes. Contamination during water distribution may arise from materials such as iron, which can corrode to release iron oxides, or from ingress of pollutants into the distribution system. Diffusion through plastic pipes can occur, for example when oil is spilt on the surrounding soil, giving rise to taste and odour problems. Contamination can also take place in consumers’ premises from materials used in plumbing, such as lead or copper, or from the back-flow of liquids into the distribution system as a consequence of improper connections. Such contaminants can be either chemical or microbiological.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:37PM
- Wars.
All the bullets in the ground, see.
Iron Oxide is not likely to be a problem but reduced iron is profoundly toxic. It's also a vital nutrient but you require very very little of it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Sunday October 04 2015, @02:56PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:29PM
Not banned, just stigmatized
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday October 05 2015, @03:14AM
... will they have to pry them from your cold (dead-) drunk hands?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:01PM
If I'm eating out and the restaurant doesn't serve coffee, I usually look for either (hot) black tea or unsweetened ice tea.
Among chain FF restaurants, Chick-fil-a and some McDonald's serve unsweetened ice tea.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:39PM
I've never understood why vendors insist on selling sweet tea. You can put sugar into unsweetened tea, but you can't take the sugar out of sweetened tea.
/ unsweetened tea drinker here
// hate sweet tea
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 04 2015, @09:30PM
Because the already cold unsweetened tea doesn't dissolve the sugar properly. Of course, some places so over-sweeten the tea that they might as well steep the bags in corn syrup...
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday October 05 2015, @01:35AM
thank you, the poster you responded to is obviously not from the south...
as a transplanted northerner, took a while to catch on, but sweetea (one word) is the regional drink, not moonshine...
i don't care what the chemical reactions are, adding sugar to already brewed cold, unsweet tea, is NOT the same as sweetea, simply ain't...
when going south, got to get into virginia before they start to understand that...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 05 2015, @12:41PM
Yeah, sweetea does seem to still be a southern thing. It's an interesting evolution. Many years ago, it was icetea (still one word) and was just presumed to be sweet but too many non-native restaurants were passing a packet of sugar and unsweetened tea as icetea, so it's called sweetea now.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday October 04 2015, @11:14PM
Over the last 8 years I think DQ has gone back and forth several times between having sweetened and/or unsweetened iced tea. I think it also depends what region of the country you're in (Wisconsin, we have Pepsi products; when I visited St. Louis a month ago they had Coke).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Bill Evans on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:24PM
You can take my root beer when you pry it out of my cold dead hand.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:37PM
Many workplaces ... have similarly prohibited their sale.
Never heard of such a thing. Maybe a typo? I'm familiar with schools banning soda machines usually some anti-capitalist rant about corruption and so on. And I'm sure the school district employees fall under the workplaces that have banned soda list. Also excluding workplaces that simply don't have vending machines. But I'm interested specifically in any private companies banning soda, I've never heard of such a thing. I would assume they ban sugar in coffee or honey in tea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:51PM
Agreed. I don't doubt that there is a company here and there who have done it in order to set or shape their image, or perhaps small companies run by people who feel very strongly about it, but I would like to hear of any significant number of private companies that have done this. First off, it would have to be a company that is large enough to support having vending machines.
It is true, at least here on the East Coast, to see school districts and local governments do this. I also don't have any issue with it. I don't buy into the "nanny State" criers that there is somehow some inherent right to have sugary drinks available in vending machines, or to have vending machines at all. If a State House or school system doesn't want them in vending machines on their properties, I don't see what the issue is. Personally, I don't see why a school should have vending machines in the first place. When it is done with a little too much exuberance, then it gets silly, such as when the ban is too widely written to cover things like vendors set up at events like a County Fair.
(Score: 2) by WildWombat on Sunday October 04 2015, @06:15PM
Kaiser Permanente has no sugary sodas in their vending machines.
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:43PM
They're not banning soda; they're prohibiting its sale, by e.g. getting rid of their vending machines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @06:34PM
I've seen schools ban this, such as mine 20 years ago, because it was unhealthy.
Maybe they were not yet touched by interest groups yet.
They did have a few working vending machines in the area where after-school sports were, the refreshment area I guess, sold with other concession stand items.
As a student, I had the option of water and a variety of fruit flavored drinks that had vitamin fortified contents.
It was never perceived as such as an anti-capitalistic effort--but I have heard of there being tampon machines in some schools that advertise various products besides the content of the tampon machines. I guess it is hard to gloriously promote the use of such things in a consumery trendy fashion, unlike nicotine and caffiene.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:45AM
God I am going to sound old here.
But in my day they had vending machines which were turned off during school hours. However, you were not allowed to drink it in the halls, at lunch, or in class, or be seen carrying it around. They were basically there for game days. There was 0 reason to get one. The previous schools I went to hand no vending machines. If you were caught with a soda they confiscated it. Go back to that if you feel it is 'killing our kids'. This is not that difficult. When I read about kids getting soda at lunch. I thought 'lucky bastards'. I got either water or milk and an optional chocolate milk on Friday if I did not have any demerits.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:44PM
for about 30 years. It cost well over $100k in dental work during that time. Ten years ago I stopped drinking soda and started drinking bottled water, I lost 40lbs and dental costs are few and far between. Now there's energy drinks (Monster) that not only rot your teeth, but has also caused heart attacks in young people.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday October 05 2015, @12:03AM
I think that part of the problem is that there isn't that much variety in drinks, especially non-alcoholic drinks.
There's water, the big one. Has no taste. The next two biggest are tea and coffee. Tea doesn't have a lot of taste either (depending on the tea, and almost zero adoption in the US anyway). Coffee is bitter (frappucino-likes notwithstanding). Then there's fruit juice and soda. Most of those (frappucino-likes, fruit juice, soda, sweetened tea) are sugar-based, which is what makes them unhealthy and also rots your teeth as a bonus.
So you're left with water, unsweetened tea, and black coffee. Yeah. Oh, there's milk too, I guess.
Solution, legalize underage consumption of alcohol or diluted alcohol?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:22AM
Coffee is only bitter when the water was too hot. Try a coffee press with just under boiling water. And stop buying cheap coffee, get some whole beans and a grinder.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday October 05 2015, @02:13AM
When I grew up it was milk with every meal. Pretty much everyone I knew did the same (as far as I knew). Soda was a luxury to us kids, only available on rare occasions. I think soda became a bad thing when they started replacing sugar with high fructose corn syrup in most sodas. It also seems the rise in drinking soda and the rise in obesity rates started about that time as well.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Monday October 05 2015, @07:24AM
Soda was a luxury to us kids, only available on rare occasions. I think soda became a bad thing when they started replacing sugar with high fructose corn syrup in most sodas.
Nope! High fructose corn syrup is basically the same thing as sucrose, healthwise. Soda became a bad thing when it stopped being a luxury.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.