Comments on: San Francisco Soda Ban

By: Aldrich

Aldrich — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:21:22 +0000

Hey! Don’t you use Facebook? I’d want to follow you if that would be ok. I’m surely taking pleasure in your website and expect new blogposts.

By: Desk Antiques

Desk Antiques — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:17:34 +0000

the great thing about stevia is that it is also tooth friendly like xylitol sweeteners”~:

By: ieatveg

ieatveg — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:21:47 +0000

I think the move by Newsom is difficult to evaluate. If he’s going to eliminate the connivence of getting a soda, what does that really do to promote health? Personally, i don’t think it doesn’t do much good to remove soda but not candy, chocolate bars, or any of the other snack food that’s bad for you, and in the vending machine right next to the sodas. I also would like to see a more encouraging approach from the mayor that rewards and/or encourages the demonstration of a healthy life-style of our city’s employees.

no-ele-friday: maybe on fridays he could turn the power to all city-elevators off (joke).

By: Lyle

Lyle — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:34:51 +0000

Just Say No to government subsidies. These include:
1) Corn Subsidies
2) Beef Subsidies

Would we even have hfcs without corn subsidies? Probably not. Would we have $2, Antibiotic ridden, feed lot raised, multi-cow patty, Big Macs without beef AND corn subsidies? No.

By: vegeater

vegeater — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:08:59 +0000

And, here’s another thought: in my opinion, Newsom is stopping doing a very important thing — allowing the government to subsidize soda. I don’t think that the government should tell us what types of food/beverages we are allowed to consume. But I do think that the government should not subsidize products that promote ill-health and ultimately raise its/our healthcare costs.

In my opinion, what Newsom is trying to do is save the city money on long-term healthcare costs for city employees who work on city property by not subsidizing (i.e. conveniently providing its employees with) products that we know promote obesity. Obesity raises healthcare costs. He is not banning sodas from government buildings or making soda illegal. He’s just not subsidizing soda. Hopefully that will ultimately translate into saved taxpayer dollars. It’s quite an old-school conservative move if you think about it. I bet Ron Paul would approve.

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:54:34 +0000

I see what he’s trying to do and I can even admire the Mother Mayor for doing so, however, it’s survival of the fittest in my opinion. Why punish the fit girl who might want a Dr. Pepper from the city vending machine twice a year when Burger King is closed?

I truly love this blog!

By: Aurelia

Aurelia — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:47:28 +0000

Amazing! I’m jealous of your city.

By: vegeater

vegeater — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:29:59 +0000

Here’s something my friend Katie said:

“Hmm? That is interesting. We should call him Mother Mayor and we should all pretend we’re minors and can’t make decisions for ourselves. This kind of thing is a double edge sword in my opinion. It’s nice to want to keep people healthy -… I am all about organic and Anti-crap in our food, but to dictate what people can or cannot drink on PUBLIC property is just too Big Brother for me.”

I hear that. But, remember: He’s not “dictating what people can or can’t drink” on city property. He’s merely changing what the city itself offers in its vending machines. If you want a Dr. Pepper, you can go to Burger King and get one and drink it anywhere you want.