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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:51PM (7 children)
Too many warning labels on products, and no one reads them. California could reduce the number of labels drastically by labeling the people instead. The label could be very simple: "Warning, living is known to result in certain death".
/s
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:29PM (3 children)
California. Where you're encouraged to puff a peter, but condemned for puffing a cigaretts.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:31PM
Puffing is old skool. [vice.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:21PM (1 child)
Puffing peters doesn't hurt anyone. Exposure to carcinogenic smoke, does.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:40PM
Au contraire. Herpes in the mouth hurts like a motherfucker.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:23PM
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.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:31PM
They are like banner ads.
This is just politicians pretending to do something.
Lots of posturing, back patting and money wasted for nothing.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:32PM (7 children)
Letting food stamps pay for this along with other junk food. There are no excuses. WIC can limit what is purchased, why can't food stamps?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:56PM (4 children)
You've obviously never been poor. They can and do have limits to what food stamps will buy. They're just shitty limits. Like you can buy a bottle of Coke but not a fountain Coke. You can buy a microwave burrito but you can't heat it up until after it's been paid for. It's really fucking stupid and arbitrary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:36PM (2 children)
A fountain drink and a preheated burrito are both foods that have been "prepared" by someone before you pay for them, they fall into the same category as getting a big mac or happy meal legally.
The rule in most states is that food stamps can't be used to buy food that has been prepared/cooked by someone else. I don't remember the justification for it being like that but I remember it made sense when I heard it.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:48PM (1 child)
The justification is that if it can buy prepared foods (which tend to be more expensive), then there is no way to stop recipients from blowing their Food Stamps at McDonalds.
Interestingly enough there is a part of this same law that allows you to receive a cash benefit (other than TANF) instead of foodstamps if you can demonstrate that you have no way to prepare or store food.
I've always wondered why homeless people especially families don't take advantage of that, because the alternative tends to be to sell the foodstamps for pennies on the dollar in order to be able to eat or buy diapers or whatever.
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:59PM
Things must be pretty desperate if people are eating diapers.
(I never was pedantic about splitting infinitives, but the common practice of splitting them makes an ambiguity here that sounds rather disgusting... Or a comma could help...)
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:06PM
I only ever see people buy soda, potato chips and microwave dinners with food stamps.
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:52PM (1 child)
Can't buy beer, wine or spirits with it either. Seems it would be trivial to just add soda to that list. But the thing is, for some of these kids that sugary soda might be the only calories they get that day. Not every family on foodstamps is like this, but growing up I knew kids who's parents would trade the bulk of their family's foodstamps for alcohol, drugs, tobacco what have you. Soda pop might be the only thing the parent would bother to buy that month, and so if the parents were too high to head to the foodbank, the kids might only have soda for calories that day.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:55PM
I preferred getting commodities back when I was a wee little kid and we were poor as dirt. The big blocks of cheese they gave out were my favorite cheese right up until last year when I discovered bacon horseradish cheddar.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:46PM (13 children)
I don't necessarily agree with this law......but......how in the hell is the above warning misleading? That's a 100% accurate statement.
Piss off lobbyist scum!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:54PM (12 children)
Devils advocate. Isn't that sugar? So shouldn't this warning go on anything that has sugar in it? Isn't that the misleading point, that it makes it seem like ONLY pop/soda/coke with added sugar is the problem?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:14PM (8 children)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:20PM (3 children)
That's only because it's the only food item that's measured in liters.
(Score: 3, Informative) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:07PM (2 children)
Semantics. He could have said "tons" and it would have had the same meaning. It was a figure of speech, meant to emphasize that those products are over-consumed. The units of measure are not what's relevant here.
Even on the Internet, where nuance and sarcasm in particular are hard to convey, you should have comprehended that.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:01PM (1 child)
See, I took it as a joke. I doubt it was intended to be otherwise. Why get angry?
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:55PM
I'm not particularly angry, but I don't think it was meant as a set-up line and it wasn't a particularly funny joke... if it was intended as such. Does anything mean anything any more? I guess it depends on what your definition of definition is, as if any of this matters much anyway.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:53PM (3 children)
Soda is designed to be as addictive as possible and sugar is part of this.
a 12 OZ drink with 20 and 30 grams of sugar? I've never met a soda addict who could explain what 20 grams of sugar means.
I've watched this crap make family old before their days and heard every excuse in the world why their health problems were not the result of 2lt of coke a day. That shit was 60-99 cents.
It was also a real fucking joy dealing with the associated junky-like mood swings from this shit. Like dealing with a smoker who can't smoke except at least most addicts recognize when they're grouchy and feigning. Soda addicts have done nothing wrong... they're good people so if they're being an asshole it's someone else's fault
(Score: 3, Informative) by exaeta on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:29PM (1 child)
Contrary to some medically unsound but popular beliefs, sugar is not a drug.
While consumption of excessive amounts of sugar can definitely lead to health issues, a single can of soda does not actually have all that much calories. It's the very large soda drinks that get people. Would you get fat if you consumed 64 Fl Oz of potatoes every meal? Probably. In that regard, it's the caloric quantity, rather than the "added sugar" that makes it dangerous.
There are also no studies comparing equivalent consumption of not-added sugars, e.g. apple juice, that I'm aware of. I'm going to assume the effect will be the same, the carbonic acid shouldn't be making you fat.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:31PM
I'd have to see the Simpsons episode before passing final judgement on this one.
Aren't most hash-brown/french-fry type products basically pureed potatoes reformed into sticks? I've been wondering about that recently.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:02PM
It's not so much the juice, as it is the way it's delivered. OK, there's HFCS vs. real sugar. Coke used to be real sugar in 6.5 oz. bottles. Themz was the good ol' days.
When I was still drinking the stuff, 12 oz. cans were standard. Already too much, but tolerable and I'd drink the whole thing and crush a trail in the Appalachians so it was not a problem.
Then they started having nothing but 20 oz. bottles, and at the end of a hike I'd be like... dang, I don't want to waste this but it's too much. Somehow the bulb went on for me.
I pretty much stopped drinking the stuff around that time. Somehow, I was lucky enough to be the kind of person that knew something wasn't right about it all.
I'm with you. Not everybody has the make-up to face off against a marketing machine that favors gluttons and say "no". I don't want prohibition. It's already legal, but like that other vice that's recently begun to trend legal, "legalize and tax", because it's obviously a vice.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:08PM (2 children)
Solution: stop bundling the sugar into the soda.
Sell the sugar separately and allow the end user to add as much as they could possibly ever want, to customize it to their individual taste.
Now the soda no longer needs a warning label.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:12PM
You guys could also stop subsidising the sugar industry to the tune of $4 billion per year. [marketwatch.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:15PM
I know this is sarcasm, but I actually think it's got a good point. People are used to soda being ridiculously sweet, so they expect it. I personally almost never drink soda, because it tastes so awful and incredibly sweet that I find it revolting.
There are sodas (mostly premium ones) that contain a lot less sugar, and I don't mind them as much. But all mainstream soda in the U.S. is ridiculously sweet. I think consumers don't have a choice and they're used to it.
Compare to the practice of iced "sweet tea" in the Southeastern U.S. People there are used to it, but I find it disgustingly sweet. In the North, many people just drink unsweetened iced tea and aren't bothered by the lack of sugar. (Some do in the South too... Hence I learned how to order a 'half and half" tea to get something that's not quite as disgustingly sweet, though still way too sweet for me to drink regularly.)
People are used to sweetness patterns, but would they really choose to make drinks as sweet if they weren't raised on such things? But breaking the cemented public taste is hard. I once tried a few years back at a gas station to find a less sweet iced tea drink when I stopped on the road, so I looked at labels and looked for lower amounts of sugar and calories... And found one, advertised with less sugar. Until I tasted it, and almost spit it out because it was so sweet -- turns out they replaced over half the sugar with sucralose, which I saw when I read the label more carefully.
I for one would welcome the ability to choose to sweeten my drinks much less than what most companies sell.
(Score: 3, Touché) by looorg on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:06PM (3 children)
How tiny will the warning be or are they making the cans bigger?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:08PM
They'll put it on a sticker, like they do with the ingredients of Mexican Coke.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:06PM (1 child)
It doesn't matter how tiny most of the warnings are as long as there is one warning large enough to read . . .
WARNING this product packaging contains many micro printed warning messages in case you are interested.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:10PM
Yup. Just like this [me.me].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:16PM
I just hope they can read...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:36PM (9 children)
Can't take care of themselves, can they?
Better mind the Russians [newyorker.com]...
*sheesh!* Fucking racist bullshit!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:17PM (8 children)
I'd say "people of Walmart" need labels. Obesity due to poor diet cuts across the racial spectrum.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:06PM (1 child)
Racially, it's fairly evenly distributed. [kff.org]
If we're looking for correlations, living in a Red state has a much stronger relationship.
State Obesity Rates [menshealth.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:56PM
Yeah, well, the racist bullshit is right there in the summary:
And I'm being hammered for pointing it out. The moderators are becoming real assholes... or maybe it's the "Russiagaters" lashing out at the mockery. We all know how sensitive they are over their big loss. Who knows, who cares? It discredits the system.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:12PM (5 children)
The number of calories people end up drinking (especially from soda) really is mind boggling. Given that a 12 oz coke has the equivalent of almost 10 teaspoons of sugar, and I see people in line at the super market buying the shit like some staple part of their diet in containers about 2-1/2 feet tall...for the love of God anyway...and all that on top of diets that are otherwise horrific as well. It's actually stunning that obesity isn't far worse than it is. I generally drink none of my calories, drinking nothing but my own tap water (well water) and black coffee except on rare occasions.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:50PM
I'm similar, only ever drinking water and tea, usually straight but sometimes with some stevia or a dash of heavy cream in it. It's amazing how satisfying one teaspoon of that in a big cup of tea is.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:04PM (2 children)
I look back to when I was a kid and we were allowed 1 bottle of Pop Shoppe pop per 2-3 days; now people drink it by the dumpster-full.
People need to get a grip and drink more water.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @02:38AM
Water? what, like from the toilet?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday May 31 2019, @09:01PM
Same here. We rarely had any Coke around and when we did it was those little 8 oz. glass bottles that were about all there was at the time. Basically it was treated like the liquid candy it is.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:08PM
That's what pisses me off about this. Not *every* drink is loaded with sugar. There's talk about getting rid of the 48oz BigGulp sizes, which is way too fucking much after getting rid of the 64, and the glorious 128. Lipton ice tea, fresh brewed, in a 48oz cup full of ice on a hot summer day? Fuck yes.
Ohhh, and Coke Zero has no sugar in it. Same with diet stuff, except you'll get cancer instead of diabetes.
Are we actually talking about the Real Sugar drinks becoming popular again? I stopped drinking soda for what seems like a few decades now since they switched to HFCS. Which is it that they're complaining about again?
Meanwhile, it gets harder and harder for me to get a large sugar free drink.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:19PM (4 children)
So they use the word "may" because they're not really sure about the link between sugary drinks and obesity and tooth decay. But when it comes to climate change, they are sure that CO2 is bad? The mind boggles.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:49PM (2 children)
They are sure of the links. But, there might be a particular subset of instances where it does not apply: such as people that have one coke a month, people genetically protected against one or more of these these effects, reduced incidence of tooth decay if the drinker spends 2 minutes brushing their teeth after each can they imbibe, etc. That is why they say ‘may’, not because the links are speculative or unsupported for the general case.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:28PM (1 child)
I appreciate the explanation, but don't follow the logic. The statement "Sugary drinks cause obesity and tooth decay" already does not imply that everyone who drinks them will suffer those effects. People will read the word "may" as meaning that the opposite may also be true, i.e. sugary drinks may not cause obesity and tooth decay. Putting this label on Coke bottles will make people less certain of the negative effects.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:45PM
You make an excellent point. But, there's probably some legal ruling somewhere where a definite statement like "x causes y" must be true in all cases otherwise it'll be challenged in court on those grounds and end up getting watered down (like this) or removed completely. This is the basis of so much legal shenaniganism, lawsuits and 'marketing speak', that it's probably anathema to the people writing those warnings to make definitive statements that aren't loaded with preemptive weasel words.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @11:08AM
That's because you lack understanding.
Regular consumption of sugary drinks may cause obesity and tooth decay in many individuals but some individuals won't be affected.
Regular consumption of sugary drinks by a target human population will increase rates of obesity and tooth decay within that target population.
Climate change won't be a net negative for everyone. Some people would benefit.
Rising sea levels are unlikely to affect most people alive today. It'll take about 80 years to go up by 100cm. Most of us will be dead long before that.
Increases in strong storms on the other hand will affect a lot more people in the near future, and are likely already happening due to climate change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:27PM (1 child)
tsia
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @05:20AM
>> should be a picture of a fat woman
By any chance, do you happen to work in marketing for Gillette? [archive.fo]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:55PM (1 child)
Carbonated soft drinks are full of *gasp* CO2. Just let the folks in California know that each can they open contributes to climate change and they'll be banning it like it was known to cause cancer or something.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:34PM
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:28PM
Now we see the special interests [youtube.com] behind this initiative. Just follow the saccharides and trail of decay, and you'll eventually get to the trooth.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:38PM (1 child)
Why is the government trying to decide what I do to MY body? Get out of my fat lined uterus. Being fat is attractive, there is no need to body shame either.
Serious note: There should be no laws determining what you can and cannot do to your own body. The government should step in when you start harming another person's body by your actions. Can tell them it's bad and wrong, but you cannot force them to do what you think is in their best interest. People have agency. They get to decide how fat they get.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:57PM
This is not about forcing anyone to do anything (except accurately label).
This is about letting people know that this product will lead to fattening up, diabetes, and tooth decay should you be wanting those things.
This way you can safely avoid all the other drinks/foods without this label. You can then go out and buy only the products that will plump you up until you can't fit through the front door of your house (at which point you can have them delivered).
It's truly a win for all the proud boombas of California.