Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the saving-you-from-yourself dept.

California lawmakers on Thursday advanced the last major surviving bill in a package aimed at reducing consumption of sodas, approving a measure that would require health warning labels on sugary drinks.

The measure by Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) received a bare majority of votes even though some Democrats withheld votes while others in the majority party joined Republicans in opposition.

The latest action follows this year’s shelving of measures that would have put a tax on soda and banned “Big Gulp”-style sodas in an effort to address health risks including obesity and diabetes that are posed by sugary drinks.

“They represent the single leading source of increased bad calories that are being promoted in our communities and pushed on communities of color,” Monning said during the floor debate, citing a “national epidemic” of diabetes.

The label on container would say: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) may contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.”

[...] The American Beverage Assn. opposed the bill with a strong push by lobbyists and while making major political contributions to state lawmakers.

The industry argued that the bill and its health impact claims went too far.

“There are already more effective ways to help people manage their overall sugar consumption rather than through mandatory and misleading messages,” said Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the American Beverage Assn.

[...] Legislators are also still considering a bill that would bar the soda industry from offering subsidies including discount coupons that encourage soda consumption.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:11PM (5 children)

    S'truth. They really should skip warning labels and bans and just assign everyone a minder with a button to their shock collar already to follow them around all day and tell them what's not on the approved life choices list.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Funny=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:29PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:29PM (#848906)

    California. Where you're encouraged to puff a peter, but condemned for puffing a cigaretts.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:23PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:23PM (#848966) Journal

    They really should skip warning labels and bans and just assign everyone a minder

    Use the New York principle: skip the warning label, and simply regulate the soft drink size.

    Simple and efficient.

    Now we would then create and fund a new department of soft drink protection, with a dedicated unit that researches and determines appropriate soft drink sizes and revises the law up or down annually with the current safe soft drink size. Regulations would be enacted such that soft drink manufacturers have to be inspected and audited to ensure their soft drink packaging is of the appropriate size. After conducting the audits and being certified, they would submit the certificate of soft drink size compliance, along with required paperwork and fees, to the department of soft drink size.

    One of the first items of business would be to conduct meetings and studies to determine what exactly a soft drink is.

    The government could then compile and publish information showing how this year's new soft drink maximum size is so much better for you, regardless of whether it increased or decreased.

    The fees taken in by this new department could be given to politicians volunteering to support and expand this new program and ensure regulatory compliance by all soft drink manufacturers.

    For the public safety, research grants could be funded to conduct studies on new possible harms from soft drinks that are too large or too small. And this could introduce the possibility of a mandated minimum soft drink size as well. Along with provisions to ensure that people drink at least the minimum daily requirement. Studies for harms caused by non compliance might be profuse sweating, baldness, and impotence -- which would lead to questioning whether the correct amount of soft drink is being consumed by Mr. Ballmer.

    This should definitely be enacted in all states.

    A suitably funded federal department could work to harmonize the patchwork of regulations from the various states.

    It seems like a simple, effective solution anyone could agree with.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.