SF supervisors OK warning labels on sugary drinks

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed some of the strongest laws in the country to regulate soda and other sugary beverages Tuesday, rejecting arguments by the soda industry that its beverages should be treated no differently than cake, doughnuts and other sugary food.

The board unanimously passed three pieces of legislation: A first of its kind in the country measure to require warning labels on new soda advertising on city billboards, buses, transit shelters, posters and stadiums. The label would read, “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.” Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the legislation.

In addition, the board passed legislation by Supervisor Malia Cohen banning soda advertising on city property, and Supervisor Eric Mar banning the spending of city money on soda.

“This is round two of San Francisco versus big soda,” Mar said.

Read more: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/SF-supervisors-OK-warning-labels-on-sugary-drinks-6317157.php?t=00b0bf7b91f294ee0d&cmpid=twitter-premium

[jmowreader]

1. They're saying Big Cake and Big Donut should also have to label their foods?

It's pretty apparent that if they don't want their product treated differently from other sugary foods, they'd be just hunky-dory with the Board of Supervisors also requiring the manufacturers of those things to label them with the same warning.

[Major Nikon]

3. It should be the same for any simple carbohydrate

Why should crackers and white rice be exempt?

[yeoman6987]

6. I don't like this

The problem I have with this is that some governor is now going to say that food stamps cannot be used for any food with a warning label. Mark my words. It will happen as it did with cigarettes. It's already happening in some states. I never had food stamps but I would be upset if those rules were in place regardless of my personal situation. It's going to happen sooner then we think.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. and many fellow liberals would support some of that

which also bothers me. We must admit the health nazi's are strong on our side and they love to fat shame.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I would be lost without the government telling me what not to eat.

SF Board of Supervisors needs to get over themselves.

[alp227]

7. Being an informed consumer is bad?

Are you sure you're on the right message board?

[Major Nikon]

8. Where does that argument end?

If we are going to label all food products that might contribute to various diseases in that name of consumer information, I'm not sure there'd be much left without a label.

[Travis_0004]

9. how stupid do you have to be to not know that coke is bad for you?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Why don't you phrase that a bit stronger and see how it goes.

Being an informed consumer does not mean the government slapping warning labels on every item of food that might not be good for you if consumed in mass quantities.

And being a Democrat is not necessarily equivalent to being incapable of independent thought or believing that the best government is the most government.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. or inject into your body?

[Buzz Clik]

17. If you're asking if I think ALL drugs should be legalized...

... I do.

[BlueJazz]

4. I'm glad they did this. Candy bars are labeled. Now it's time for liquid candy to be required...

...to list the crap in them.

[Jamaal510]

5. I'm surprised

they didn't label every food that has fat in it with that warning sign. Next I guess they'll want to put pictures of obese people on junk food in order to scare people even more (as if we're incapable of making our own informed food choices). There's nothing wrong with eating junk food as long as it is done in moderation (as part of a balanced diet), and as long as a person gets daily exercise.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. I hate that more fat shaming is done by other liberals

that goes either unnoticed at the least, and applauded at worst.

[Travis_0004]

10. Here is what coke should do.

I would call up Pepsi, and other companies and refuse to make the labels. Without the labels coke and Pepsi would not be sold at all within 2 months. I guarantee you people would complain and they would strike down the law very quickly.

I just wish coke had the guts to do it, but I'm sure they will comply.

[BigDemVoter]

11. I'm waiting for the insults to start flying about the "nanny state."

But in reality, there is no cooler city in the USA.

[Archae]

12. This is the food version of schools' "zero tolerance."

A way for bureaucrats to look like they are doing something about a problem, when the "solution" only annoys at best.

"This soda has a bad label on it, so I'm gonna go drink milk instead!" Yeah right.

Meanwhile nothing changes, and nothing gets solved.