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.
@isaac
For once, I agree with you. When your belief in “lifestyle” choices trumps the actual “life” of people, maybe it is time to reconsider one’s worship of “lifestyle” choices. This is what was on the other thread from Alex. Solz’s commencement speech:
“Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Mr. Schulte,
I agree with you. Although, I wouldn’t be the first in line too make money off it though Bernays’ campaign. And I think truth > manipulation.
It made perfect sense to fine and tax tobacco for laying trillions of dollars of medical costs on everyone as they lied, promoted, and defended the rights of individuals to smoke themselves to death. Tobacco held that people have choices even the youth who, wanting to be cool, were sucked in by tobacco’s placing of how cool it is to smoke in films, media, advertising, etc., the most insidious perhaps connecting sports with smoking and going so far as to quote doctors as saying it is good for one’s health to smoke. No one is born with a craving to smoke. The tobacco industry develops this craving.
Sugar is not much different. The advertising that connects lifestyle with downing unlimited amounts of sugar in liquid form is no different than that of tobacco. The same is true with alcohol, especially beer.
The issue is not banning these products and perhaps not even banning the advertising of these products. The issue is connecting the cost to society to the products along with sufficient education regarding the toxins and poisons contained in these products. This is why we have government. Have you noticed how there are fewer ‘snake oil’ sales going on.
We have an FDA to protect the people from the so called entrepreneur who would sell anything and everything regardless of health threat. Sugar, tobacco, alcohol, etc are consumed and contain health threats. It is the responsibility of the government to educate the public regarding these poisons and the responsibility of each citizen to make the choice. However the costs should be covered by those that create the problems.
Trillions of dollars in tax revenue could be obtained by raising the price of crap through ‘crap taxes’. Those who now pay less than a dollar for a bottle of beer would not buy any less if the price was raised twenty or thirty percent. The same is true for the other garbage. If they did consume less, it would be for the best. If someone drinks so much that such and increase is a problem this illustrates a different issue, their problem, that we eventually pay for.
Mindless resistance to this under the banner of this or that perverted interpretation of the Constitution and these or those ‘rights’, is nothing more than the same rant that pokes its vacuous head out of the sand when the ranter is feeling insignificant. We are individuals but more so we live in a society that protects our individuality. Our first obligation is to that which protects us.
Mullah Issac
issac – I think we should start taxing the people who get the flu. They are a drain on our economy. We need the money back.
The group on here seems to praise (would probably counsel/represent) Edward Bernays in his “free speech” interests to make smoking look cool to women so he could make a few bucks while killing a bunch of women. Of course adults should be able to make their own decisions on high caloric drinks, get off us San Francisco! This does speak volumes about what type of freedom people are willing to stand up for…
“I don’t care that my government terrorizes people with drones or bombs nation-states where the majority of people are Muslims (7 for Obama), let me have my soda! and any other privilege that is unhealthy, because I’m an American and that’s how it is! Argggh!”
TJustice – I do not care if women use smoking as an appetite suppressant. I think you have the right to smoke where it does not bother other people.
“For his part, Supervisor Eric Mar wants to ban the spending of city money on soda.”
He is the hero of this story. Taxpayer money should not be spent on consumer products. Anything to pare back government waste. Why was the city spending money on soda? For civil service worker’s break rooms? Let them drink water from the faucet like everyone else.
Steg – next SF will want to limit the amount of tissues you can use to wipe.
Most people don’t know that sugar is addictive or that it frequently causes violent outbursts when consumed in large amounts (alcholic drinks are basically sugar).
It would be helpful to know how much sugar is in a food product and its glycemic index. Going sugar-free in soft drink isn’t an option either because most soft drinks use aspertame, a neurotoxin, as a sweetener. Kicking the soda habit is just as hard as kicking the nicotine habit. All it takes is one donut or one drink and you’re back on the stuff.
Good for San Francisco. Hope the labeling of sugar drinks spreads. Labels inform but still leave the decision up to the consumer.
It’s just me, but I weary of government offices talking down to me as if I were a child. Tell me something is bad for my health, that is information I can use, tell me I can’t have any of it, or read advertisements,…that is interference in my choices. If I have a whit of sense I’ll listen to the information relayed. I tend to ignore the suppression campaigns. Lately, for some reason I do not know, I have developed a distaste for overly sweet things, of all kinds. No government help required. Just age.
wondered
That’s fast approaching. The funny HBO show Silicon Valley hits this mindset hard. They have been skewering the vilification of smokers lately.
I have long wonder why SF does not decide the perfect BMI for everyone living there or visiting there and fine those who are over or under for visual pollution.
Jim, We have worked so hard on extending the life expectancy in this country we have neglected the discussion on the quality of life for those last several years. I don’t know about you, but given the choice of living a few extra years incontinent, drooling, etc. and going out a few years earlier vibrant, I will take the latter. And, I have to believe so will the vast majority of people. I take care of myself. I exercise religiously[love it and miss it when I can’t], eat right, don’t smoke, drink moderately, etc. But, I despise the mindset that we should have rules mandating good behavior. Educate people? YES. Dictate or control behavior? NO NO NO NO!
LOL!!
We all pay for healthy people living 15-20 years longer than they should. I think we should tax the healthy.
You answer speech W/ MORE SPEECH, not banning the speech you consider “bad or “wrong.”
You see in the first comment here just how liberals and mullahs are the same. They believe they have the righteous stance and that gives them the moral authority to control what you read, eat, and do. The convergence of liberal orthodoxy and radical Islam is palpable. It is not the religious right that is like radical Islam, it is the liberal left.
test… this works but not much else.
issac
It’s the dietary equivalent of… cap and trade.
issac
It’s the equivalent of the dietary… cap and trade.
Somehow the medical consequences of consumption choices needs to be communicated.
We all pay for the medical costs of people that consume too much garbage. Perhaps we should stop taxing cigarettes and forcing tobacco companies to warn consumers of the dangers of lung cancer.
Given the obesity problems in this country and the sources such as sodas at 250 calories a pop as well as more sugar than one needs, taxing and curtailing advertising is not a bad idea. It wasn’t too long ago that advertisers touted that tobacco was healthy. Get with the program JT. Get off your theoretical high horse.