It is no secret on this blog that I am a critic of efforts to ban fatty foods and sugary drinks as with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ill-considered campaign in New York. San Francisco attempted the same paternalistic legislation in imposing a tax on such drinks — only to have voters reject the measure. Undeterred, the Land Use Committee in San Francisco is considering a host of proposals to label sodas or bar advertisements. I remain opposed to such measures as punishing people for lifestyle choices. While the city would not oppose any number of life style choices, it will not tolerate citizens who disregard the city’s view of healthy living.
The city ma now require soda ads on buses, billboards and other city surfaces to carry statement “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”
The State Senate has been considering a similar warning for individual bottles and cans of sugar-sweetened drinks sold in California.
Supervisor Scott Wiener has been leading the effort on the ad ban while Supervisor Malia Cohen proposed banning soda advertising on city property.
For his part, Supervisor Eric Mar wants to ban the spending of city money on soda. It is all part of condemning and harassing the choices people make in terms of what they eat or drink. It is highly ironic in a city that championed the concept of alternative lifestyles is now leading the effort to limit or punish choices that it deems unhealthy.
The result of these warnings is little more than textual overload. People are increasingly tuning out such warnings like those vocal warnings of risks of television ads. Having a warning box on a Coke ad is likely to do little to actually combat consumption. It will however do wonders for politicians who want to show that they are leading campaigns against bad choices. Of course, there will be no warnings on the local Ghirardelli Chocolate Company products or the host of high fat cuisines that make the city such an attraction for tourists. So you get a lecture and made a tax on your soda, but not that huge slice of chocolate cake that comes with it. Likewise, you might not be able to buy a Coke but you can have that high-caloric Mojito.
Ironically, without such nanny state legislation, soda consumption is actually falling. It is the market that is changing with an assortment of alternative drinks.
I have no problem (and support) educational programs and banning sodas at schools. However, adults should not be harassed over such choices, particularly when you are doing nothing about higher caloric drinks and foods. Ultimately, adults should and will make their own decisions on the priorities in the lives. Even if one accepts that a city should punish those making bad choices, it should at least be consistent in dealing with all high sugar foods and drinks.
46 thoughts on “San Francisco Considers New Labeling Requirements and Advertising Bans On Sugary Drinks”
infected weenies!…did you say weenies?!!!!….LOL!…Squeeky you are really pushing the ‘wry wit” today….FUNNY STUFF!…infected weenies!….LOL!
Make know mistake, those sugary drinks are gooood!…Americans love these drinks…heck, I love hot cereal, but never do I eat UNSWEETENED cold cereal!…YUCK!…I do enjoy Honeycomb, Lucky Charm’s, Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles and good ol’ Cap ‘N Crunch!…the great american Way!
First Amendment 2.0
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of “BUSINESS,” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
They thought you knew.
Freedom and Free Enterprise assume the admonishment: Caveat Emptor.
We’re all adults here.
“We all pay for the medical costs of people that consume too much garbage.”
Why do we all pay in FREE America.
Why are Americans FORCED to pay another person’s bills.
I don’t see that anywhere in the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It sounds like the “blessings of liberty” have been withdrawn.
It sounds like the government isn’t limited to security and infrastructure.
It sounds like a dictator is dictating.
If you take private property from party A and give private property to party B, it is public property.
Was that the practice in 1789 when the founding documents were implemented?
If government, under the founding documents, was unlimited and could do anything, including redistribute
and control industry, why did Karl Marx feel any need whatsoever to write the Communist Manifesto?
Issac said …
No one is born with a craving to smoke.
Nope. In the 7th grade I was influenced by the gangster types (called “hoodlums” in those days) who smoked Luckies or Camels and kept their packs rolled up in to their left tee shirt sleeves. Had to be cool ya’ know. 🙂
Dang…55+ years of smoking later I got lung cancer, twice. Both times so far are re-missed, via stereotactic radiation, and nothing but scar tissue. No tobacco company sold me diddly squat…didn’t have a TV until high school….then I was sent away and no TV once again. By college I was a Camels’ Old Timer 🙁
Isaac, “Have you noticed how there are fewer ‘snake oil’ sales going on. ”
Have you noticed how many diets are touted? How about wrinkle creams? Erectile dysfunction cures? The snake oils have just morphed into what currently ails us. 🙂
Beldar “dumb smoker” is an oxymoron? An oxymoron is where two contradictory terms are used together, e.g. the fair and unbiased FOX “news”. I consider “dumb smoker to be a truism.
My comments about old people are facetious Squeeky, but you know that. Argumentum absurdism.
Ban high school wrestling programs, seems dangerous on many levels.😬
Apparently, some people don’t realize that people can’t keep themselves from getting old. But, to be blunt, people can keep from letting strangers and friends stick their infected weenies into their rear ends.
Yep. Here are some stats on HIV in San Francisco. Where 1 in 4 (25%) of gay men are HIV positive:
Almost 10,000 of the idiots there have full blown AIDS. Sodomy—the gift that keeps on giving.
Actually on rehab units in nursing homes, there are plenty of younger folks too, let their families take care of them, no spreading of MRSA amongst the younger nursing home rehab patients allowed!
Well Paul, maybe we should close down all the nursing homes and make their children take care of their aged parents. Can’t be too vigilant.
Inga – you were the one pointing out the problem with MRSA and gyms, which I had not heard.
Well educate yourself Paul.
Paul – there will be no squares to spare!
Let the statists and control freaks show their colors. The tighter their grip, the more star systems slip through their fingers… Those star systems would be thinking individuals and their families, relocating to a different state, city, wherever. I hear America is nice. I think I’m going to move there, someday.
Maybe ban gyms, I hear that MRSA is a big problem there. All that sharing of sweat….
Inga – the biggest problem with MRSA is nursing homes.
HPV is rampant, maybe Texas is right to force immunizations? Seems like something a freedom loving state like Texas would fight against though.
Maybe they should ban promiscuity among heterosexuals too. Chastity belts for the ladies and saltpeter for the gents. Although I’ve heard saltpeter doesn’t work. Maybe forced hormonal therapy? Perhaps they should ban sharing needles to shoot drugs, oops nevermind, that’s already banned. Yet AIDS is still spread that way.
Squeeky – at least some of the bath houses are still open.
Hopefully, they will next ban the Gay Bathhouses, and various gay sex clubs. That is the kind of thing that really scares the “free lifestyle” folks. Every one of those idiots that get HIV costs about $4,000 per month and more to the taxpayers. Heck, that would be free rent for five or six poor families.
Next they will ban advertisements for cigarettes. Dumb smokers need ads to help them make choices. Sorry “dumb smoker” is an oxymoron.
Comments are closed.