In the ongoing war against obesity, the state of California is taking an interesting tack: a new bill proposes that warning labels be added to sodas and other sugary drinks. A full 3/4ths of California voters support the measure, although there have been the inevitable cries of "nanny state" from those who oppose the measure.
The proposed warning label is an alternative to increasing the tax on soda, but some people feel that a tax - although it can help discourage people from buying sodas - will just put more money in the pockets of random government agencies, so what good would that do?
The warning label would presumably be similar to the warnings on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, alerting people to the obesity risks of drinking soda. I have to say that these warning labels sound pretty useless to me. And that's coming from someone who has completely cut out sugar from her diet in the last year. I am vehemently anti-sugar, but I also used to be a smoker, and I can tell you how much good the warning labels on cigarettes are: pretty much zero.
I doubt it will come as a surprise to anyone to learn that their can of Pepsi has a lot of sugar in it. And I doubt that anyone would be deterred from drinking a Pepsi if they saw a warning label on the can. One argument is that the target audience for the warning labels is children, but surely even kids know that sodas have sugar? (If not, then I'm not sure a warning label is going to help.)
I understand the need to do something about our obesity epidemic, but putting a warning label on soda seems useless. Worse than useless, in that people who vote for it will then sit back and think "Aha, we have solved the problem," rather than continuing to push for better - albeit more difficult - solutions to this issue.
Image courtesy Flickr/pinprick
1 comments