Iowa is legislating its way to being a healthy state – look at all the number of public places where smoking is banned. This isn't a lot different, except there's no evidence I can get sick from second-hand sugar guzzling. If a person in New York must have a 16-ounce soda, nothing in the mayor's suggestion stops him or her from buying two 8-ounce drinks.

Beth Dalbey, second-hand sugar and corn syrup guzzling won't make you sick but will make you poorer as our insurance premiums go up and our deductibles get larger as obesity and Type 2 diabetes increase.

BTW, you can buy a 16-ounce soda or other presweetened drink in NYC, but you can't buy a container larger than 16 ozs.

I'd like to see a study showing that laws such as this decrease obesity. If we can't show that they even work, then the discussion of health vs. freedom is completely moot.

revdj, it would have to be a study over time. Soda sales were already down 24%. Anything that helps people think about the super-size me decisions they're making is good, I think. Maybe I'm biased, because I had one parent who was an athlete and ate right. The other was allergic to exercise and was chronically overweight. She refused to exercise, refused to lose weight, and refused to take her blood pressure pills. My father begged her to do something to help herself, but she wouldn't. She died at 69, and my dad, a former West Point cadet, paratrooper in New Guinea, boxer, amateur golf champion, and runner is still alive at 87. Mom would be 87 too if she'd lived. She died of congestive heart failure and a massive stroke.

Good for Gov. Branstad and for Iowans. The arrogant attitude reflected by Bloomberg and other elected officials undermines and disempowers the people. Iowans are very capable of making their own decisions when the free flow of information is available.

Iowa does not need to go down the road of a nanny state with soda rules or any other laws or regulations which deprive individuals of their freedom to pursue life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Iowa does need to clean its regulatory house and eliminate many unnecessary regulations which only impede and make more expensive for businesses to operate.

Joe Dygas, Iowans are not wise in their refusal to mandate helmets for motorcyclists, motorbikers, and bicyclists. You know what ER docs call motorcyclists who refuse to wear helmets?

"Organ donors."

Mr Albrecht summed it up perfectly. It really comes down to each individual taking control of his/her life and doing the right things. Just think of the implications of the Bloomberg proposal - we might not be able to buy a six pack of pop .... too much. And a jar of peanuts might be limited to 10 peanuts only - several ounces is too much. And a carton of a dozen eggs would , of course, have to be only 3. And, when you stop and fill your car up with gas ...... anything more than a gallon is WAY too much for any one individual. A sleeve of golf balls would only have one. A case of beer would be only 2. Sams Club would be the size of a typical Casey's because no one would need , or be able , to buy anything more than one or two of any given item, especially if they are going to eat it or drink it.

Kurt, Joe and Others: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what about laws governing seat belts, for example? Doesn't the government (us) have a vested interest in making sure people to the minimum amount necessary to stay healthy?

Its time for the government to stop attempting to protect us from ourselves and take care of larger issues.....If things are so wonderful in NYC that there legislators have time to address such trivial issues at the state level we should all look to them on how to balance budgets and keep taxes at an acceptable level, Obesity is obviously an issue in our country but regulating the size of a soft drink is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound......it might feel good but will not really do anything!

I agree with the Governor's statement of the choice of how healthy you live being up to the individual; however, I do not think that there is a place for soda in the schools and I think that access should be limited to children to some extent, maybe not legislatively, but limited somehow.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard lately. MDF, I agree - alas, being from NY originally, I can tell you that the government is in a financial tailspin and has been for some time. This kind of legislation is used to deflect attention away from the bigger problems of the state. Is this really what we want our legislators spending their time debating in Des Moines?

The main problem with sugar is calories, and most people already consume too many calories, thus leading them to become overweight with all the problems that can lead to. I'll never understand why people don't just drink diet pop.

Noe: I don't believe that anybody's making the argument that "sugar will kill you." I believe it's a fact, though, that excessive sugar can lead to all kinds of health problems.

Even though I don't drink it, by allowing our government to tell us what we are allowed to consume only sets a precedent for more future regulations and they know it. Once you accept this they will continue to add more restrictions to your life. Its amazing how many people are killed and lives ruined by alcohol but they allow people to buy big bottles of that. I guess it's more acceptable if there is something in it for them, that makes it OK. You can place a frog in a pan of cool water and then turn on the heat but the frog will not jump out as it gradually gets used to it and then it dies in the boiling water. Allowing this control will do the same thing to us.

Iowa has a track record of not legislating against farmers, corn = corn based sweeteners = farming income. Limiting drink sizes will never happen here, even if it were proven they were a main cause of obesity.

With all due respect to Michael Bloomberg, this will go down as his Bay of Pigs. Very dumb idea.

Our Government should not make laws to govern our consumtion of soda pop. Those who feel the need for a larger container will get around that by buying another somewhere else. The government cannot force people into eating or drinking healthier. That is a decision people have to make for themselves. Law or no law people will consume what then want when they want. We have laws against more harmful things like drinking and driving and people still do it.

I'm going to agree with Branstad on this one - the choice should be mine.

I believe the making of this law will just be a waste of time and money, soda is bad for us, we all know this already. So are cigarettes, did the government put a limit on how many packs of cigarettes a person could buy? No, they jacked up the prices and put higher taxes on them to discourage people from buying them. When it comes to soda, if they are going to put a limit to anything it should be to the amount of caffeine that is allowed per serving, because it is the caffeine addicted to soda and wanting to drink so much.
Limiting the amount of soda will not help the obesity rates of our country; this law will not make people choose to eat healthier or exercise regularly. If the government doesn't stop trying to put a ban on everything, we won't be a capitalist country for much longer.

Something needs to be done to curb the overwhelming rise of obesity in the US. It wasn't all that long ago that overweight adults & kids were the minority. Whether laws are put into place or taxes put on pop/soda/ junk food, our population continues to turn into walking time bombs. Just observe grocery checkout lines. Our society looks pathetic and food stamps are valid!I Serving portions have become king size. A 2 lb. burger? Indoor & outdoor smoking bans were enacted, yet less than 20% smoke. Taxes continue to be added on the minority. Helmet laws were created, yet less than 20% of Americans ride. 37% of motorcyle fatalities were wearing helmets. What about biicycle/horse riders? Statistics don't lie and intervention needs to be focused on the majority. Over 60% of American are overweight and we have become a society of overweight people with unhealthy diets, lack of excercise and burden on our healthcare system.Taxes or laws? Whatver it takes, SOMETHING needs to be down to slow this national epedemic and disgrace to our country. Wait till stats come out on negative long-term consumption of energy drinks!

Noe Kreddits, where did you get the idea that sugar doesn't kill people? We have an epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, which makes people more prone to foot and leg amputations, heart disease, and blindness. Sugar and high fructose corn syrup have been linked to a rise in obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes and high blood pressure are affecting teenagers now. It's time to get a handle on this nationwide epidemic.

torque, bravo! Love your comments and agree with every word.

The government is out of control, and this is just one more example. The more we allow government to do for us, the less we will be allowed to do for ourselves. Our children read a book, forget the title, in which students were required to wear supper protective gear to run and the track was spongy, because they might hurt themselves and it was unfair to others. Ditto for being required to take an emotional control pill every day. And if you didn't comply you were sent off to a work/concentration camp. Supposed to be teen sci-fi - but sounded too true to me!

Noe Kreddits is one angry moron. He probably sits in front of his computer all day in his "apartment" in mommy and daddy's basement. GET A JOB, FREELOADER!!!

CDC reports 35.7% of adults and 17% of kids 2-19 are obese and meanwhile there were $147 billion in medical care costs to treat obesity in 2008. If excess leads to obesity and obesity leads to higher health care cost for us all why should unhealthy habits be targeted same as smoking, drinking, gambling, pot, harder drugs?

Whatever happened to the ability of the individual to curtail his/her own intake of any substance or consumption of any item in excess?

Long ago, the government set limits on speed on public roads. That has not lead to motorists being in 100% compliance with government standards---in fact, as I understand it, "moving violations" are on the rise. While obesity affects about 1/3rd of the population, speeding affects nearly all of us as most of us live near public roads. Where's the out-cry there? (Hint: I'm being facetious here.)

But, I digress; my whole point is - what happened to personal volition? Have we all lost the ability to control ourselves? Have we all been lowered to virtually no standards? The whole notion that the individual cannot control himself / herself is a preposterous one.

I don't know how to dumb down my argument any more here folks.

Noe Kreddits, you've dumbed down your argument plenty.

Brian Morelli, you mean, why *shouldn't* we target unhealthy behaviors? I think that's what you mean, and I agree. Unhealthy behaviors like overeating, underexercising, speeding, not wearing a helmet, drinking too much, smoking at all, and other bad habits cost all of us a lot of money. I'll be damned if I'll pay for someone else's unhealthy habits twice: once in food stamps for junk food and again in Medicaid costs for additional health care for people who live on junk food and sugar.

Deb, in Japan, the government measures your waistline every year and fines you if it's too big. In reality, we all pay for uninsured patients whether we want to or not. Teaching hospitals take all comers, and when people can't pay their bills, we all pay a little more to cover those who can't pay. It's time to be honest about that and make sure that all of us are insured. Making participation mandatory is a way to insure that healthy young people and not just sick people are part of the insurance pool.

Latest Report on Cigarette Taxes:
As of January 1, 2012, the average state cigarette tax was $1.46 per pack, a hefty increase from the average of $1.18 just three years earlier and nearly ten times higher than it was a quarter century ago in 1983. In the last decade, 47 states and DC have raised cigarette taxes 105 times.
In New York City, cigarette taxes are $5.85 per pack, in Chicago they are $4.66 per pack.
These trends have slowed dramatically, however.
Key considerations include the use of taxes on tobacco users to fund general government and the fact that cigarette taxes are one of the most regressive ways to fund government programs (low-income earners are much more likely to be smokers).
Cigarette tax increases are often justified as a way of compensating society for costs imposed by smokers. However, nearly all the costs of smoking—health care, higher insurance premiums, lower productivity at work—are borne by smokers themselves.
The reality is that most states support cigarette tax increases because they want more revenue. This is precisely why high cigarette taxes are poor tax policy – they allow the majority to shift the costs of government programs onto the minority.
Higher cigarette taxes also mean more smuggling, as many states are learning.

Deb, society bears the cost of low-income smokers because many of them are on Medicaid or Medicare by the time smoking starts to kill them. Low-income smokers also stunt the growth of their children, contribute to the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and expose people to second-hand smoke. Bars aren't enforcing smoking rules so that smokers smoke away from the building, so the smoke wafts into where I'm trying to enjoy myself with friends. I'm fine with a sin tax. Anything to help force smokers to quit. My biology professor at Cornell U. told us that tobacco is more addictive than heroin and cocaine. Short hits encourage people to keep smoking. It's a dirty, disgusting habit.

Noe, read it and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?pagewanted=all

Lisa Duluth, thank you for coming up with the citations that Noe needed to educate herself about the epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

If I want a 32 ounce cola, what's to keep me from buying 2-3 12 ounce drinks? I consume the same amount, but get charged more. And does that extra money go to the government or to health care plans? No ho ho, my friends. Society still foots the bill for the obesity caused by my 2-3 sugary drinks at a setting while the beverage companies earn the extra money. This law won't curb the obesity problem, nor who bears the cost of it.

Now, education? Yeah, that might work. Seeing all those sugar cubes piled up next to the big gulp has certainly caused me to take notice and curb my consumption.

Hasn't the very raising of the ban on gigantic sugary drinks done more to help with education than practically anything else in the past several years?

I agree with Not so Skinny. Limiting the sale of sugary drinks will do nothing to help slow obesity. It requires self motivation and self control on the part of the individual. This law makes no sense. However, laws that require honest and truthful labeling and nutrition information.. ie, the total amount of sugar, carbs calories, etc in a 26, 24 or 32 oz bottle of soda (not just a portion of it) and an education campaign so that people can really understand what they are consuming and make informed decisions might go a lot further.

Lisa, I think it doesn't hurt to let people know one way or another that they're making unhealthy choices. Further, obese pregnant women are more likely to have autistic children.

Mother Jones magazine has a nice article in it that tells us that obesogens in certain plastics like BPA and BADGE make us fatter. It's best to avoid plastic bottles unless you know that they don't contain those obesogens.

This blog has been around for a while, looks like.

Why don't we go all the way and do this :

- limit the size of soda pops.
- also coffee can be no bigger than 12 oz.
- cars can be no bigger than a Ford Escape or Chevy Equinox
- houses are limited to 3 b.r.
- no more than 2 lanes wide for interstate highways, even in large metro areas like Mpls
- all t.v.'s shut off automatically at 9 p.m.
- no more king size beds - too big
- sleeve of golf balls is only one
- carton of eggs is max of 3
- no more Big Mac's , as a regular burger is large enough
- Sams warehouse can no longer sell anything but a package of one

Make sense ?

Kurt B., bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Deb Thornton, propaganda is boring (yawn). We've heard this song before, and only right-wing ideologues buy into it.

We don't need a soda/sugar ban. We need to eat healthy but the real focus should be on urban planning. Why? Take a look at how your city is designed. Can you easily and safely walk to where you want to shop? Or has your city allowed all the big box stores to be placed on the very edge of your city so you couldn't walk there even if you wanted to? We need to design our communities so we can easily add exercise into our daily activities and we accomplish two things at once: exercise + errands = healthy bodies and healthy communities. Then if we have a small amount of sugar it won't be any big deal.

Kate, +1 for your comment! I often wish that cities and towns were designed to be safe for bicycling and walking. Downtown Iowa City is safe for neither, although I bike downtown from my house at least once a week. I would never live in Coralville or North Liberty because there's far less urban planning for bicyclists and pedestrians in evidence there. Very early city planners did the best job of urban planning. We wouldn't have any beautiful buildings or safe areas to bike without them.

I voted no for limiting the size of sodas in Iowa because such a law would be a boon for Republicans, who love to stir the pot.

well they better limit beer then.branstead wrong,he dont care.look his son killed somedody dringing.soda dont kill.if people wants to drink it ,let them,thats what i think.