See THIS is why soda needs a warning label. Or an IQ test.
“Thirty eight grams of sugar?!” my son yelled as he swatted the drink out of his brother’s hand. “I will not let this demon death drink of high-fructose horrors will not claim you!!!” And with that he did some air karate, some pirouettes, and a bow before chucking the thing in the trash. We make quite the impression at the mall food court, let me tell you.
(Evidence #2: Same mall, different night. My children, some of their friends and I all sit down next to a table full of hipster teenagers. Hipster boy says, “Whoa how many are there?” Just as I’m answering “eight” Son #3 spontaneously goes from firmly seated on his bench to fallen on the floor, head first. So I corrected myself, “Seven.” Hipster stares at my kid shrimping around his feet and says, “Whoa do they just, like, do that sometimes?” And of course I answer, “Yes, just ask your mother.”)
Anyhow. Excessive use of drama not withstanding, I was entertained by my kid “saving” his brother from high blood sugar. (His brother was not entertained as he’d purchased the drink with his own money. Don’t worry, we fixed it.) Because apparently my son isn’t the only one who feels compelled to warn other people about the nutritional void that are fizzy drinks. In fact, the whole state of California may soon take a page out of my son’s book as last week a law was proposed that all sodas and other sugar-sweetened drinks sold in California would be required to carry warning labels. The bill’s backers cite the war on obesity, writing,
Under the bill, all beverage containers with added sweeteners that have 75 calories or more per 12 ounces must carry a label that reads: State of California Safety Warning: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. The requirement would effectively apply to any sugar-sweetened bottled and canned sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, vitamin water and iced teas.
While I admire the sentiment – I have no love for soda pop, never drink it, don’t miss it and wouldn’t care if it was banned all together (not trying to be high and mighty here as heaven knows I love sugar in all its non-liquid forms) – I see several immediate problems with this.
1. Nobody reads labels on soda pop. Unless you’re me. And even then you only need to read them once because they’re all basically the same concoction of water, 15 kinds of sugar and colors and flavorings. Sometimes there are fun bonuses like caffeine or vitamins or artificial sweeteners.
2. Does anyone really think soda isn’t bad for them? You’d have to be more clueless than a Miley Cyrus concert to have missed the memo that pop isn’t great for you. People don’t drink it because they think it’s health food, they drink it because it’s delicious. When cigarettes first got their surgeon general’s warning labels in 1966 I think many people legitimately didn’t know how bad tobacco was for them. Not so with soda.
3. The problem isn’t the soda, it’s the sugar (or sugar substitute). The bill says that “a growing body of research has identified sugary drinks as the biggest contributors to added, empty calories in the American diet, and as a major culprit in a range of costly health problems associated with being overweight” and while I don’t doubt such studies exist but is soda really the biggest problem? From my reading of the research, obesity and overweight are rather complicated conditions with many factors and causes of which sugar is generally the most commonly cited culprit. So are these bill makers just trying to make a point by singling out soda or should we expect labels on candy, sports drinks, Pez dispensers, Katy Perry and other things that are sweet enough to make your teeth hurt?
(On second thought, maybe we should have a warning label on Katy Perry – I can’t stop singing Dark Horse but have you seen that video? HAVE YOU?? It makes Kanye and Kim’s video look sane. She sets it in “Memphis, Egypt”! And yet I giggle every time that dog comes on the screen. And when she eats the Flaming Hot Cheetos. And when she turns a dude into a diamond grill. And makes a pyramid out of Twinkies. Someone help me.)
4. It’s not a controlled substance. The SFGate reports that “if passed, caloric drinks would join tobacco and alcohol products in carrying health warning labels in California, the nation’s most populous state and a legislative trend-setter.” First off, California? I’d like you to meet New York. They did the whole trying to ban soda through legislation thing first and it didn’t go so well. You two should discuss this over coffee (black, of course). Second, while I personally do think sugar can be as addicting as other substances like drugs and alcohol, the truth is that the effects of such addiction are different and it’s not a controlled substance.
5. Doesn’t the “dental decay” piece seem kind of antithetical? This isn’t really a criticism but seriously, after obesity and diabetes, we’re going to try and scare people with an ouchie tooth? Although I think it would be more ironic were the labeling to become law here in Colorado where we just legalized pot. There’s a pop-pot joke in here that I’m too tired to find.
All of that said, there are some pros to this bill. “This is about education,” said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which supports the measure along with the California Medical Association and other state health groups. (Although if we’re talking about education, how about taking soda and sports drinks out of schools?) I’m all for more education on health. Of course then you get into the tricky question of who gets to decide what “healthy” is.
In addition, some studies have shown that “There is clear evidence that tobacco package health warnings increase consumers’ knowledge about the health consequences of tobacco use” and that the warning messages “contribute to changing consumers’ attitudes towards tobacco use as well as changing consumers’ behaviour.” So if the warnings are effective for tobacco perhaps they will be useful for soda as well? Also, printing a label on a can doesn’t seem to be particularly difficult, costly or invasive so what could it hurt? (Other than the soda companies’ bottom lines?)
What do you think about the proposed labels – good for reminding people of the long-term health consequences of a Coke or just another interference of the nanny state? Would a “junk food” tax on soda and other goodies be better in your opinion?
You story about your son and the soda reminded me…
One of my best friends growing up started smoking. I used to kick the cigarette out of his mouth.
“…the only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you druther not.” was Mark Twain’s take on the situation.
So clearly…some understanding of what is bad for us has been around…
…a long time.
This plan…this “Safety Warning” reminds me of a quote by Jonathan Swift: “How haughtily he cocks his nose to tell what every schoolboy knows.”
Very few do not know the long term health consequences. This is not news.
Its California! Where then are the warning labels for: “Don’t dive headfirst into an empty pool.”
This doing something to look like they are doing something.
Only not.
(and it doesn’t cost them anything or make anybody lose too many votes)
Excellent point Charlotte, this is NOT a controlled substance. Thus the junk food tax would seem a bit much as well.
And…
Colorado…pot smoking…
…gives new meaning to that song…
“Colorado my home sweet home…hear yourself laugh and you laugh a lot more…
…gives a man confidence holler’n in the mountains…
Hmmm.
“Don’t dive headfirst into an empty pool.”
Wait. Other states DON’T have these warnings?! No, I’m not trying to be funny. I’ve never lived outside of CA (and rarely leave the state), but there are idiotic signs like that everywhere, and I just assumed it was nation-wide . . .?
“The lawyer’s son wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps, so he went to law school and graduated with honors. Then he went home to join his father’s firm.
At the end of his first day at work, he rushed into his father’s office and said, “Father, father! In one day I broke the Smith case that you’ve been working on for so long!”
His father yelled, “You idiot! We’ve been living on the funding of that case for ten years!””
Hence there are more “idiotic signs like that” where there are more lawyers.
Lawsuits.
Yes, other states have those signs too–often because California is such a huge market. Companies required to put a warning label on to sells something in California don’t create separate packaging–we all get the warning.
All of our hoses say, “this product contains a substance known by the state of California to cause reproductive problems . . . ” or something along those lines.
Urgh. Another reason I’m slightly embarrassed to live in California. The state that thinks it’s populace is too stupid to know soda is bad for you. We have some kind of war on sugar going on right now in our state, at least. I keep seeing these ads from “First Five California” saying that “juice has too much sugar; give your child milk or water instead!”
These irritate the crap out of me. Juice? Juice boxes are now public enemy #1 in our state? Really?! No mention of soda, or that gross “fruit” punch that ends up in lunch boxes. If you’re dumb enough to give your kid nothing but juice, you may be dumb enough to give them nothing but milk, too, and I honestly don’t think drinking several glasses of milk a day is any better than several glasses of juice. I think some dairy companies are donating heavily to certain campaigns. I suppose I hate the soda label campaign less because it’s at least targeting something worth removing from your diet.
Oh, we’ve also banned plastic bags in most of the state. But you’re not allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon so we’re still more free than most, right? Right!?
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SODA
I’ll play the devil’s advocate and say I think that the label law should pass. Yes, I know soda is bad for me, but I can easily “forget” it when I want to drink one. I think that if I had to make the conscious decision that, yes, I know this is not good for me, but I’m going to drink it anyway, that would be a deterrent. Also, I think that I would be embarrassed to be the woman checking out with a soda that everyone knows – there’s a big label right on the bottle – is going to increase my risk of all sorts of bad stuff.
Ouch! I hurt myself rolling my eyes.
So it’s only sugary DRINKS that need a warning label about how nutritionally void they are? No labels on CANDY or COOKIES?
Here’s a better idea than putting warning labels on pop.
Take that money and funnel it into a nutrition program in the public schools. Teach the wee children all the ins and outs of food labels and how to properly feed their bodies. The story of your son’s slapping the pop out of his brother’s hand proves that if children are taught things they will freely share them with others. So the kids will take the good info home to the parents and slowly eating habits will change. Note, I said SLOWLY. Sadly, slow and steady is the only way to win this race. Banning things only makes people rebel and makes the banned item more desirable (prohibition, anyone?).
At the same time, funnel the “label all the things” money into revamping the entire food system in our country. Hmm, maybe if corn wasn’t king we wouldn’t have so much corn syrup in every processed food product? Oh, there is so so much wrong with our food system in this country, the “label all the things” money would be like pitching a penny into a fountain but at least it would be something. And it would point us all at the real problem instead of slapping a band aid on a hang nail while ignoring the gushing head wound.
Oh, and there are “contents under pressure” warnings on pop already. I remember (many moons ago) when they first added them and laughing the first time I saw it.
You’ll shoot your eye out, indeed.
I work for a service that provides a nutrition education programme in schools/health centres/childrens centres just like this. Three one hour lessons, a week apart. Free. We work from toddlers right up the age range.
So I have good data on impact it has on behaviour and health outcomes. It’s nothing. Nil. Nada.
We also offer a one to one education programme for all kids (plus parents and siblings) who have had teeth out in hospital. So that’s kids whose diet has been sufficiently poor that they’ve had pain and infection, a hospital admission, and a general anaesthetic to have teeth out. Targeted guidance, with a specialist. Free.
Guess the attendance rate? 5-10%.
Bottom line, you can only change behaviour if people want to change. Most don’t. Sadly. Some can’t make the link between current behaviour and future consequences (“I like smoking, I’ll worry about cancer when I’m old.”) And no amount of warning labels or education programmes will change that.
Here’s an idea. Leave. Us. Alone!!! Sheesh. I don’t want or, frankly, need to be told soda, cigarettes, french fries, etc etc etc are bad for me. I have voluntarily stopped drinking soda, eating fries, and all sugar is banned from my kitchen. However. One day this week I was hungry. Had no lunch packed. And I went to McD. (no fries or soda, but still…) If I make a decision and that decision is to eat/drink something that is not healthy for me, BUG OUT. Yes, my tummy hurt. (for like HOURS!) But I don’t need the government to regulate it for me. Grrrrr.
I think that many, many people (probably none of whom would be reading this blog) actually do not know that soda is bad for them–or may have sort of heard something in school once but still drink it every day, possibly as the only drink in their fridge. Before the attempted large soda ban in NYC, there was an effort to take soda off the list of food stamp approved items (it also failed), because obesity rates–especially childhood obesity–are particularly correlated to drinking sweet drinks among that population. So…I don’t think labels are going to change MUCH, and it likely won’t change behaviors among the suburban middle class, but I think it’s possible that they could help someone.
What?! You mean to tell me a can of water mixed with sugar and chemicals that I can’t pronounce isn’t healthy? Wow. Next you’re going to tell me that Madonna’s smooth 50+ year old face is not that smooth just from drinking lots if water.
I find the notion of warning labels idiotic and think an educational campaign would produce more change. I find it somewhat embarrassing all the warnings in the U.S. and think they only serve to make us look like a bunch of litigious morons. Whatever happened to common sense and personal responsibility? I know standing in the middle of the highway could be bad for my health just like I know soda isn’t a health food. I don’t need signs.
I am all about junk food taxes. Not only does it provide incentives for people to buy non-soda, it rakes in more money to promote various state needs. We need to lower the price of healthy things or else jack up the price of unhealthy things to try to fix our bogus incentive system.
I can see both sides. And believe it or not, there are people out there that do not realize soda isn’t good for you. I know a mom who gave her toddler Sprite in his sippy, not because she was a horrible, evil mom, but because she was grossly ignorant about healthy food choices. The county extension program gently stepped in and offered her classes on nutrition, which she gratefully took. I think a lot of people are just not as cool with researching topics as many here are. In fact, many people go through their lives blindly doing things the way their family did them with no thought that it might not be the only way. Would warning labels on soda help? Probably not, but if it doesn’t cost anything, why not. I think it’s funny that they’re trying to scare people with cavities, too. It’s like telling kids not to play with matches ’cause then you might run out of matches…Terrifying.
All UK figures, because that’s where I work, but we’re talking about a disease process which causes pain, infection, swelling, distress for parent and child, loss of sleep and time off school, and can lead to developmental delay due to failure to eat. Which effects around a third of five year olds. For which around 30,000 children a year have hospital treatment under general anaesthetic, and many many more have treatment awake which they are likely to find distressing. About which 15% of adults are sufficiently phobic they will endure ongoing pain and distress – sometimes for years – rather than seek care. Which causes cosmetic damage (your smile is the first thing people see) which can damage self-confidence to the point some will not leave the house.
And which is caused by diet, and is almost entirely preventable.
Honestly, terrifying is exactly the right word. The first time you take all the teeth out of a two year old, terrifying doesn’t cover it; heartbreaking is closer.
The difficulty is coming up with a solution given how ubiquitous sugary foods and drinks are. But labelling foods, “this product can cause cavities” might help, because most parents assume that fruit juice, fruit flavoured drinks, fruit snacks, smoothies or childrens yogurts are healthy (after all, the labels say “natural” and “organic” and “contains real fruit”) and don’t realise the harm these foods can cause.
A junk food tax would make more sense. To me a label is just silly.
Most people know it’s bad for you. And really, a little won’t kill you…it’s not poison or anything. I just wonder if it’s a way for governing bodies and health officials to wash their hands of people being unhealthy by saying “We told them! It’s in writing now what more can we do?”
I am torn. I don’t need something reminding me what is in foods. I am very aware of what I am consuming. However, some people aren’t… I wish fresh fruit and veggies were as cheap as soda. What if we switched it up… Soda is $2.99 a lb and apples are 50 cents a pound???
If only we could do that and still allow the farmers a decent living it would be perfect!
Good point, joemama! In a perfect world, right???
obviously not. Them californians are batshit crazy.
First off…they still have soda machines in schools? They haven’t allowed soda machines in school cafeterias for as long as I can remember here in Upstate NY…at least 20+ YEARS! Not sure about energy drinks as I would sooner have major surgery than step foot in a school cafeteria at lunch time, but that is a whole other thing. (Tho there was a soda machine in the teachers lounge where kids weren’t allowed…if you’re an adult you get to make your own decision.) As for warning labels…some people do NOT know that soda isn’t healthy, but educating them would be a wiser use of resources that labels. Cigarettes have labels but I still see pregnant women and kids smoking them…so labels don’t necessarily accomplish anything.
On a side note…you also can’t pump your own gas in NJ. Cracks me up every time we are there!!!
I’m with Megan…let’s make junk foods super expensive and grass fed, free roaming and anything grown w/o pesticides, given antibiotics or GM cheap! I bet more people would eat healthy! (Tho sadly cigarettes keep going up and people still smoke…that is sad!)
I’m all for adults making informed decisions. And, yes, there are people who don’t know how bad soda is. BUT…
I think there comes a point when we have to inform people, then let them do their thing. I honestly don’t know if labeling soda will actually inform anyone who doesn’t already know. It’s like the warning labels on bags of peanuts that say “Caution: Contains Nuts.” Yeah, thank you.
I like the idea of using that money to actually teach folks, especially kids, about good nutrition. And maybe, dare I say it, create subsidies for low-income folks who can’t always afford fresh produce and organic food.
And, yes, I live in California.
Oh! Y’know what soda IS good for! Science! Toss a Mentos into a bottle of the stuff, stand back, and watch what happens!
I don’t like soda, so I’ll just have 12 oz of healthy Dannon plain, fat free, yogurt.
24 gm of sugar instead of the 30 in Coca-Cola.
I can feel the fat just falling off of me just thinking about it.
This is always going to be a tricky issue.
It seems to me like the tobacco argument of the 50’s and 60’s. There was a time where cigarettes were advertised as helping you feel good, and making you strong etc. Now we know that big tobacco had been making the products more addictive, and pushing them in more quantity to younger and younger users.
Every bit of legislation to control smoking, and all anti smoking research was fought with billions of dollars. The John Grisham book the Run Away Jury gave an interesting insight here.
Parallel this to the sugar companies of today. Rising levels of obesity, more and more diabetics. Scientists and Nutritionists know the cause. More sugar, in the diet. But they are being undermined through research from the big sugar companies, corn growers etc.
It will take 20 years to change, but it will slowly!
what about the natural juices? they all contain 10% or higher sugar naturally. we have regulations that requires them to meet certain brix or sugar levels, while this is bill limits those sugar added beverages to only about 5.25% to have only 75 calories in 12 oz. If these beverages are bad for teeth and causes diabetes or obesity, what about those natural juices?
If this bill is passed it will promote the use of artificial sweeteners to give the right sweetness and this is probably going to lead into another warning.. soon our food labels will be meaningless.
what causes tooth decay is the acid from the beverage, as well as the acid from microbial fermentation of sugar in the mouth during inactivity or sleeping , or from the lack of mouth hygiene.. etc. Not rinsing or brushing the teeth is the cause; sugar is not the only one that turns into acid when fermented. sugar is not any worse than simple carbs for people with diabetes.
This is a wonderful article, Given so much info in it,
These type of articles keeps the users interest in the website,
and keep on sharing more … good luck.