Warning labels coming for soft drinks in California

021314-sugarydrink-bill

Tobacco tactics are alive and well in California, where they have passed a state law requiring warning labels on sugary drinks.

They are coming for your products, wait until some health jihadist decides the ingredients of your product are bad.

First they came for tobacco now they are coming for sugar. Wait until they require plain packaging of soft drinks as well…don’t laugh it has already been proposed.

I wonder if the Coca-Cola Company now realises its  error in not supporting tobacco companies as their intellectual property rights were awarded by the health jihadists?

Similar to warnings on cigarettes or alcoholic beverages, sugary drinks in California could soon see labels advising consumers about health risk as well.

A bill that would require such warning labels on sodas and other drinks with added sugar passed in the California Senate Thursday and will move on to the state Assembly and later to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

“Liquid sugar is a significant and unique driver of obesity, preventable diabetes, and tooth decay,” Democratic state senator and author of the bill Bill Monning said, according to Reuters. “Some people accuse this [bill] of nanny governing and yet it is the government that’s responsible to protect the public health and safety of its people.”

If the bill is signed into law, the label would read, “Drinking beverages with added sugar contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay,” KFSN-TV reported. It would be required on drinks that have added sweeteners and are 75 or more calories per 12-ounce serving.

Many have come out in support of the warning labels.

University of Liverpool public health professor Simon Capewell called the labeling idea an ”interesting natural experiment” that “may offer an effective new strategy to complement existing, potentially powerful interventions like marketing bans and sugary drinks duties,” Medical Daily reported.

Rhonda Hansen, a California who told KFSN she lost 140 pounds by cutting out soda, said she thinks “there should be labels on everything on what’s everything.”

Conversely, Zackary Hansen said he doesn’t think such a label is necessary.

“People have known for many years that it’s unhealthy so why now do you have to put a label on it. When it’s something already known and discussed,” Hansen told the news station.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Russell Belding

    Looks like a good label. Maybe it will cause someone to think again before having their 7th Coke of the day. The label educates. It may help reduce the burden of diabetes in communities prone to it. Maybe it will reduce the need for more public funds for health care? Its worth the experiment.

    • Yeah…maybe so, but when it doesn’t they will then push for plain packaging.

      • OneTrack

        And then they will push for a sugar tax. Oh, thats right, they already are.

    • Sunshine

      Anybody who is drinking coke daily probably doesn’t care about what’s on the label.

      • Sunshine

        Education hasn’t worked so far.

  • dyannt

    I don’t believe in plain packaging. Brand names can denote quality as against some plain packaged fly-by-nighters who have nothing to lose.
    However, i’d like to see bolder labels of the ingredients that the health industry is worried about.
    e.g This beverage contains 30% sugar.
    To try and read the small print on the current labels takes a greater magnification than my current spectacles can cope with.

  • Jafa_Gazza

    Do they sell hand guns with a warning saying ” Putting a bullet in here and firing at someone head can seriously affect their health”? Muppets.

    • OneTrack

      They should. Some people just need to be told these things.

  • Jafa_Gazza

    Tell the nanny state to FO. We know that smoking is bad. We know that too much sugar is bad. We know too much salt is bad.

    But hey…at the end of the day it is YOUR choice what you stick in your mouth.

    • Russell Belding

      It is the person’s choice. It is also our (collective) choice to provide health care for those in trouble. I would rather see funds spent elsewhere than on those who drink sugar and get diabetes. A partial solution is to dissuade on sugar consumption. So we have a trade-off situation. Which way shall we go?

      • Jafa_Gazza

        You eat too much sugar and don’t exercise…you will get fat. What exactly is your point? The Government should tell you every day what you should eat? How much exercise you should take? And if you dont’ comply? Then what? What is the punishment? This is New Zealand…NOT North Korea.

        • Russell Belding

          What is my point? We collectively provide provide health care and no or low cost to those in need of it. For example, treating diabetes, which is partly caused by consuming too much sugar. By discouraging excessive sugar consumption we can shift funds to more deserving cases. Warning labels can help. Do your best not to drag this comment into North Korea or state control over behavior.

          • Jafa_Gazza

            “For example, treating diabetes, which is partly caused by consuming too much sugar. By discouraging excessive sugar consumption we can shift funds to more deserving cases”

            Partly caused…By discouraging… WE can shift funds to more deserving causes,

            Right. Who are “WE”

            Define “Partly…” and how that component needs to have millions thrown at it..and to who?

            ..”Shift funds” Where are these funds? Who owns them?

            “More deserving causes..”…Well who makes THAT judgement? Treating Diabetes is more important than………What?

          • Russell Belding

            Seems to me you are too argumentative Jafa_Gazza. Maybe not worth the time in discussion … Anyhow I’ll answer one question. Who is the “we” I referred to? We as a nation state through our elected representatives and their appointees spend resources made available by our taxes. In the cases you and I are talking about the spenders are in the Minister of Health’s office and in District Health Boards. These resources fund health care actions such as treating diabetes. If diabetes were less prevalent these funds could be shifted to other areas. The smarter we as a nation state are in discouraging addictive behaviors such as smoking and consuming sugar the more resources we have to spend on other heath care actions. There are many things that could be done to discourage addictive behavior without infringing on freedoms. Alerting consumers to danger is one. We are in trade-off territory. Consider the trade-off between the freedom to drive fast and enforced speed limits. Ponder for a while the responsibilities we have to each other.

          • Jafa_Gazza

            Thank you for clearing up the questions I posed,,,sort of, So, If I get this right you answered one question…then smeared the answer to cover the others. All I ask is..who has the money…and who judges what gets spent where (from our taxes)..to tell people they shouldnt eat sugar because these { Insert disease or condition here} is worth more of our dollars.

            People will decide what they chuck in their mouth. And this is to do with economics, cultire and lifestyle I guess. Preaching to people is just a bloke standing on a soapbox in Newmarket,

            This is not an issue for you to preach, It is an issue that is at best contentious….but is best ingrained into the culture(s) of people.

            Damming and slamming views will change nothing.

            While I agree with your points…and I do mostly…the way forward is not to stupefy people with current propaganda.

            The answer is not legislative doctrine. It is in education.

          • Russell Belding

            Thanks for this reply.
            A simpler reply from me is this. You and I and others through out taxes are wasting buckets of dollars on treating persons with diabetes who harm themselves by drinking too much sugar. Lets reduce this cost. I do not regard label warnings are infringing any freedoms we enjoy. I also like having cops patrol highways to help prevent drunks crashing into me.

          • Jafa_Gazza

            I’m sorry that you see my retort as “argumentative” and “not worth” the time….. So …you have all the ( in your view unquestionable) answers? Really?

            Please, Messiah, tell us poor people what we should eat and say..

          • Russell Belding

            I’m done.

  • thor42

    Maybe they should put warning labels on voting papers –

    “WARNING – VOTING FOR A LEFT-WING PARTY IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR COUNTRY’S ECONOMIC HEALTH”.

    • Russell Belding

      Yes it is.

    • Pete

      Terminal in some cases!

  • Pete

    Q – How many Californians does it take to change a lightbulb??
    A – 7, 1 to change the bulb, and 6 to “share the experience man”

  • Pete

    Q -How do you castrate a man from California?
    A -kick his boyfreind in the jaw !

    • Jafa_Gazza

      Ouch.

  • Francis Heke

    “What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those of you who are having a little moral dilemma in your head about how to answer that question, I’ll answer it for you. None of your business. Take that to the bank, cash it and go on a vacation out of my life.”

    – The late American comedian Bill Hicks

  • Francis Heke

    “What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those of you who are having a little moral dilemma in your head about how to answer that question, I’ll answer it for you. None of your business. Take that to the bank, cash it and go on a vacation out of my life”.

    – The late American comedian Bill Hicks

    • Jafa_Gazza

      h but – we have so many people telling you that you are wrong…because you dont fit their views or subscribe to the “greater good” of humanity…like riding horses in Auckland and only eating vegetables.

  • Sunshine

    Actually in NZ they are coming for the people who buy the products. Prof Cliona thinks she can make the government $40 million dollars by her targeted food pricing policies for a 20% saturated fat tax, 20% salt tax, 20%soda tax, and wait for it – 20% greenhouse gas tax.
    The 40 million even allows for the decreased purchases after the tax is introduced.

    • Jafa_Gazza

      So this is what we are coming to? Let the people have choice…but we will tax their choices according to a schedule of “damage” that we can …get money from…and thus condition the consumption habit?

      • Sunshine

        No, I think they are aiming for eradication on sugar sweetened beverages and for everyone to eat manufactured plant oil foods.

        • OneTrack

          No, I think they are aiming for the eradication of big, successful American companies which represent a severe challenge to their ideology.

    • Jafa_Gazza

      I really thought that I lived in New Zealand… not North Korea.

  • Sunshine

    Look I, think we have an over supply of crap food that is cheap and not enough real whole food at reasonable prices or people who have the motivation to produce their own food.
    As a society, we are losing the skills that enable healthy eating – gardening, cooking, budgeting and nutrition knowledge. It’s not just about eradicating the fast food and everything will be ok.

  • Trần Sơn Hải

    Look, sugar is the real killer, so is tobacco. Research after research have shown that undeniable fact. After decades wrongly accusing saturated fat for obesity and diabetes, now the nutritionists are correcting their error in the least invasive way possible, which is to print a warning label on soft drink bottles. No tax raised, no sugar banned, really no harm done with those lables. Why are you against this?

    • Sunshine

      Mainstream nutrition has not changed their stance on saturated fat – it’s still the enemy, even though there is a body of evidence to say they got it so wrong back in the early 70s.

      • Trần Sơn Hải

        Regardless, sugar is proven to be the bad boy, and now they’re trying to limit it. What’s so wrong in that? And what’s so wrong in attacking tobacco? Why are you guys against this?

        • It comes down to the principle that we don’t want the government to tell us what we can and can not do. It should be up to individuals to decide when they want a coke, and when they want a carrot juice.

          • Trần Sơn Hải

            Most individuals don’t know the danger of sugar, but when they get obese it is the state’s responsibility to help, using tax money from people who are not ignorant like them. I don’t want my tax be spent like that.If you ask the government to stop telling you about those dangerous food, It’s only fair if at the same time you withdraw from public health fund and be 100% responsible for your obesity.

          • I’ve got no problem with being responsible for my health. I carry health insurance. My facial surgery, vasectomy and gall bladder removal were all done by me paying for it. I haven’t had any procedures performed care of the tax payer.

          • Trần Sơn Hải

            Good on you. If you can convince all New Zealanders to follow your example, I’ll completely agree with you that warning labels are not necessary. People should eat/drink/smoke themselves to their grave if need to, as long as my tax wouldn’t be paid to fix their problems.

          • The point is nobody is forced to eat anything, and business shouldn’t be forced to alter packaging or place their business further from the road, and so on, based on fat or sugar content.

            It isn’t a level playing field.

            Choose to eat healthy. Teach your children.

            But don’t come and mess in my life and my business with your busy-body intentions. You may think you’re coming from a place of good, but we’ve been told not to eat eggs, we’ve been told spinach is full of iron and we’ve been told that fat is the enemy. All debunked.

            Sugar is the new Global Warming. This is all politics.

            Leave people alone to make choices in their own life and don’t hamstring one business over another simply because you have a personal problem with them.

            By all means lobby, educate and vote with your feet. But leave it out of legislation. What’s next? Someone will want something you DON’T agree with, and then what?

            Back to basic principles: education, free will, compassion.

            Not laws, taxation, coercion.

          • Trần Sơn Hải

            Global Warming is politics, sugar is not. Unlike man-made global warming, there is not a single scientific paper that says sugar is not causing obesity. If you don’t rely on science to debate, all you have is conspiracy theories. I can’t debate a conspiracy theorist, so you win. End of story.
            P/S If I can vote on this topic, I’ll vote to ban all sugary beverage, so yeah, not everybody agrees with your “freedom of choice” logic.

          • You need to stay out of people’s lives buddy. I am an alcoholic. Dry over 4 years now. But you don’t see me going on a crusade trying to save everyone else from themselves.

            Your vote is to make sure you make the right choices for yourself, and to educate your children (who may reject your notions also)

            Nobody forces sugar on anyone, just like nobody forces alcohol on me.

            True freedom means the freedom to make mistakes.

            And you conveniently ignored the fact that once the vehicle of what you want to see happen is in place, and then they come for something you do not agree with, your arguments are suddenly null and void.

            Stay out of people’s lives. You have no idea what’s right and wrong. “Surveys show” different things all the time.

            Personal responsibility, education, compassion.

          • Trần Sơn Hải

            As I said, I don’t want to get involved in people’s life, as long as my tax money is not spent to cure their sicknesses. But because people like you fail to convince the government to stop using my tax money to fund obesity/diabetes treatments, it is my obligation to get in people’s life and tell them to eat responsibly. End of story.

          • Sunshine

            Yeah there is

          • Trần Sơn Hải

            Enlighten me, then.

          • Sunshine

            Although carrot juice pretty high in sugar too ;)

  • Sunshine

    My take is the real killer is the incorrect nutritional advice of the last 30-40 years.
    Yep, added sugar is the killer, just as tobacco is but I think that anti tobacco tactics is the wrong approach to changing the populations obsession to stuffing crap in their mouths. Tobacco is one item, sugar is virtually in everything.
    In NZ there is the aim to have a tax on sugar, starting with soda (carbonated beverages). Personally, I don’t care if that happens because I don’t drink much of the stuff and I have brought up my family to understand that things like coke, juice etc are for occasional use and why that is so. But, really, shouldn’t we be addressing the availability overall. Do we really need towns with main streets of shop after shop after shop of fast food and crap choices of food. Where is the push for reasonably priced real flavoursome whole natural foods with natural sugars and all their fats that humans are meant to eat the majority of the time.
    The fat debate and sugar connection should be addressed together so that we get correct population information that let’s people know to eat real food (fat and all) which you need to be satiated. The last 40 years the directive to eat low fat and avoid saturated fat has done nothing to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and obesity.
    Yes we have less deaths due to CVD but that is due to reduction in smoking, the introduction (drug pushing) of statins, and better healthcare overall. BUT the numbers of people who are overweight, obese, have diabetes or CVD has increased.
    When the fat was taken away, sugar replaced it .
    If we take away the sugar, and it does need to be reduced, what takes it place?

    • It’s very simple. Have a balanced diet and do regular exercise.

      NOTHING is new.

      If you have a mince ball, some mashed spuds and veges, you’ll be fine. Stir fried veges with rice. Fine. A lamb roast with roasted veges. Fine.

      NOTHING is new.

      All this comes about by industry and political lobbyists troughing tax payer dollars to push certain positions.

      Go talk to a doctor, and they tell you to eat a balanced meal and exercise.

      How has this ever changed?

      • Sunshine

        Couldn’t agree more!

33%