If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8142308


(Fox News)   California proposes warning labels on soda. Apparently consuming large amounts of sugar while breathing polluted air and driving on congested roads could be bad for your health   (foxnews.com) divider line 146
    More: Asinine, human services, warning labels, American Beverage Association, soft drinks  
•       •       •

573 clicks; Favorite

146 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-15 10:50:20 AM
Democratic Sen. William Monning's bill proposed Thursday would require the warning on the front of all beverage containers with added sweeteners that have 75 or more calories in every 12 ounces.

This will lead to a lawsuit based on the arbitrary distinction between added sugars and non-added sugars. Orange juice (according to the Internet) has about 150 calories per 12 ounces.

New York's big soda ban fell to a similar attack. Similar products were treated differently, undermining the claimed justification for the regulation.
 
2014-02-15 12:11:02 PM
Because brown people drink soda.
 
2014-02-15 12:12:26 PM
What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?
 
2014-02-15 12:13:50 PM
Again?!

and...

Welcome to the club, fatties.
-Smoker
 
2014-02-15 12:13:51 PM

ZAZ: Democratic Sen. William Monning's bill proposed Thursday would require the warning on the front of all beverage containers with added sweeteners that have 75 or more calories in every 12 ounces.

This will lead to a lawsuit based on the arbitrary distinction between added sugars and non-added sugars. Orange juice (according to the Internet) has about 150 calories per 12 ounces.

New York's big soda ban fell to a similar attack. Similar products were treated differently, undermining the claimed justification for the regulation.


If big ag can't genetically engineer oranges with natural aspartame, I don't know what their scientists are being paid for...
 
2014-02-15 12:14:56 PM

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to make your ass look like a garbage bag full of cottage cheese.

 
2014-02-15 12:16:02 PM

iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?


Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.
 
2014-02-15 12:17:59 PM
I wonder if a 12-ounce steak has more than 75 calories?
 
2014-02-15 12:20:26 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.


But enough about hipsters.
 
2014-02-15 12:21:36 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.


Everyone who hates California is free to leave and/or never visit. The weather sucks and there's nothing to do, anyway.
 
2014-02-15 12:21:56 PM
Polluted air? In California? Tell us more about the old days, subby.
 
2014-02-15 12:24:20 PM

mikebdoss: Everyone who hates California is free to leave and/or never visit. The weather sucks and there's nothing to do, anyway.

 
2014-02-15 12:24:34 PM
Also, can you tell me one California law that doesn't let me live to a "nonconformist nature" if I'm so inclined? In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.
 
2014-02-15 12:25:07 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.


With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.
 
2014-02-15 12:25:37 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.


I'm starting to think this entire state being controlled by one political party thing may be a bad thing. It doesn't seem to matter which party it is, either.
 
2014-02-15 12:25:53 PM

mikebdoss: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

Everyone who hates California is free to leave and/or never visit. The weather sucks and there's nothing to do, anyway.


Works for me. Just stop exporting your nonsense out of the state and we promise we'll never even mention you again.
 
2014-02-15 12:25:57 PM
What's wrong with warning labels?
 
2014-02-15 12:29:55 PM

mikebdoss: Also, can you tell me one California law that doesn't let me live to a "nonconformist nature" if I'm so inclined? In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.


Have you heard of Washington and Colorado?  They've been in the news lately.
 
2014-02-15 12:30:22 PM

uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.


You are essentially arguing that your body belongs to the state. Perhaps there is an amendment or two we can repeal to make it easier for people like you.
 
2014-02-15 12:30:23 PM

iheartscotch: I'm starting to think this entire state being controlled by one political party thing may be a bad thing. It doesn't seem to matter which party it is, either.


I guess that depends on one's priorities.  Which is scarier, warning labels on soda or the persecution of homosexuals, minorities, women, the young, the old, the middle aged, the sick, the healthy, the poor, the middle class, the blonde, the brunette, the handicapped, the free, the brave, the yoga-panted, and the hoodie wearing?
 
2014-02-15 12:30:30 PM

uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.


Yeah, you wouldn't want the cogs to become inefficient....

/ Waaaay too obvious

// 2/10
 
2014-02-15 12:31:00 PM

thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?


Who doesn't know that sodas with sugar in them will make you fat?

The reason for warning labels on anything is to protect you from something. The implication is that a) people are too stupid to know what they're doing, b) you need protection from something, and c) whatever it is with the warning label on it is inherently dangerous. None of those are true.
 
2014-02-15 12:31:32 PM

rkiller1: mikebdoss: Also, can you tell me one California law that doesn't let me live to a "nonconformist nature" if I'm so inclined? In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.

Have you heard of Washington and Colorado?  They've been in the news lately.


Your right to get high is social progress? Man are you shallow
 
2014-02-15 12:31:33 PM

thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?


Well in a drink they are clearly a choking hazard.
 
2014-02-15 12:33:29 PM

Carousel Beast: uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.

You are essentially arguing that your body belongs to the state. Perhaps there is an amendment or two we can repeal to make it easier for people like you.


If they spend money on your problems that you could have prevented (money is finite) that leaves less for others. Is that not true? You don't that this is a moral issue?
 
2014-02-15 12:33:39 PM

thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?


You don't understand, it's California. Therefore everything they do is crazy fruit and nut nanny state jackboot conformity.

Because everyone has an opinion on this state, especially if they've never been here.

I don't see how more information hurts anyone.
 
2014-02-15 12:33:40 PM

mikebdoss: In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.


Measured in busybody regulation?
 
2014-02-15 12:34:09 PM
Orange juice, apple juice, grape juice, cranberry juice, whole milk, etc all have far more than 75 calories per 12 oz.  The calories in those juices come from sugar (with the milk, it's fat).  The sugar in juices is not magically different from the sugar in soda.

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. There's some credence to the idea that a calorie consumed from food results in less over-consumption than one consumed by drinking.  However, when comparing soda to juice, there is no such distinction, and the net effect of consumption is the same.

These studies show correlation between soda consumption and these health issues because soda is significantly cheaper than juices.  If the prices were equal, and all the demographics suddenly switched from coke to apple juice, the net effect on these health issues would be nothing.
 
2014-02-15 12:34:19 PM
So, let them print their warning labels.  It's all for public health and welfare and the benevolent soft drink industry will absorb the cost of printing the new labels.
 
2014-02-15 12:34:37 PM
This is why I stick to beer.
 
2014-02-15 12:36:15 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?

Who doesn't know that sodas with sugar in them will make you fat?

The reason for warning labels on anything is to protect you from something. The implication is that a) people are too stupid to know what they're doing, b) you need protection from something, and c) whatever it is with the warning label on it is inherently dangerous. None of those are true.


What's wrong with warning labels?
 
2014-02-15 12:36:56 PM

uber humper: With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health.


A forecast that was ridiculed as a "slippery-slope" argument not terribly long ago.
 
2014-02-15 12:37:27 PM

uber humper: If they spend money on your problems that you could have prevented (money is finite) that leaves less for others. Is that not true? You don't that this is a moral issue?


Nope. Just because you impose a system does not mean that everybody must conform to your expectations of them for your benefit. If you don't want people to have a choice, just say so.
 
2014-02-15 12:38:10 PM

thamike: Adolf Oliver Nipples: thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?

Who doesn't know that sodas with sugar in them will make you fat?

The reason for warning labels on anything is to protect you from something. The implication is that a) people are too stupid to know what they're doing, b) you need protection from something, and c) whatever it is with the warning label on it is inherently dangerous. None of those are true.

What's wrong with warning labels?


Did I stutter?
 
2014-02-15 12:39:36 PM

iheartscotch: uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.

Yeah, you wouldn't want the cogs to become inefficient....

/ Waaaay too obvious

// 2/10


You're stealing money from others if you don't take care of yourself.


not trolling. How is that wrong?  Look at the cost of type 2 diabetes to the medicade and medicare system

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/august/19/diabetes-cost -f t.aspx 3 years old.  It's more now
 
2014-02-15 12:39:51 PM

rkiller1: mikebdoss: Also, can you tell me one California law that doesn't let me live to a "nonconformist nature" if I'm so inclined? In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.

Have you heard of Washington and Colorado?  They've been in the news lately.


MOST other states. CA will have a ballet initiative to legalize recreational pot this year, and we were the very first state to legalize medical pot. We're on the way on this issue too.
 
2014-02-15 12:39:54 PM
I use a SodaStream with an adapter that allows me to use a standard paintball tank (CO2 refills for $4 versus $15). A lot of people get freaked out when they read the tank's California warning, which talks about how dangerously toxic the tank is to your health. Of course, this is referring to the minor lead content in the valve, and the latex paint on the outside of the tank (including the warning itself!), and doesn't specify that, in order to be toxic and deadly to you, you'd have to lick the valve (a lot), or eat the paint from the outside of the tank.

That doesn't stop some people from trying to "warn" the rest of us that we're using "toxic" CO2 if we use a paintball tank instead of the more-expensive, proprietary Soda Club tanks.  I've never had a problem. The thing works beautifully, and saves me a ton of money.

The point here is that California would put a warning label on EVERYTHING if they could. They overreact. Yes, there are some toxic elements in the construction of some things, but unless you're a complete moron who plans to eat peeled-off paint or lick lead-containing brass parts, it's sort of useless.

It makes me wonder how retarded the average Californian must be, if they need this sort of protection. I think even the U.K. avoids this sort of babying.
 
2014-02-15 12:40:23 PM

mikebdoss: Also, can you tell me one California law that doesn't let me live to a "nonconformist nature" if I'm so inclined? In case you haven't noticed, California tends to be ahead of most other states in terms of social progress.


Define "ahead".
 
2014-02-15 12:40:34 PM

thamike: iheartscotch: I'm starting to think this entire state being controlled by one political party thing may be a bad thing. It doesn't seem to matter which party it is, either.

I guess that depends on one's priorities.  Which is scarier, warning labels on soda or the persecution of homosexuals, minorities, women, the young, the old, the middle aged, the sick, the healthy, the poor, the middle class, the blonde, the brunette, the handicapped, the free, the brave, the yoga-panted, and the hoodie wearing?


I find it disconcerting that the state of California thinks that its own citizens can't make informed choices and feels that they have to lay out additional facts and figures. That implies that the state of California thinks that its citizens have less mental capacity than a child.
 
2014-02-15 12:41:12 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: thamike: Adolf Oliver Nipples: thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?

Who doesn't know that sodas with sugar in them will make you fat?

The reason for warning labels on anything is to protect you from something. The implication is that a) people are too stupid to know what they're doing, b) you need protection from something, and c) whatever it is with the warning label on it is inherently dangerous. None of those are true.

What's wrong with warning labels?

Did I stutter?


What's a gill?
 
2014-02-15 12:43:44 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?

Who doesn't know that sodas with sugar in them will make you fat?

The reason for warning labels on anything is to protect you from something. The implication is that a) people are too stupid to know what they're doing, b) you need protection from something, and c) whatever it is with the warning label on it is inherently dangerous. None of those are true.


Really?  You're going with the "people aren't, as a whole, morons who actively participate in and contribute to things that aren't very good for them" argument?  Have you met many Americans?

Even so, arguing against warning labels is arguing against informed consumerism.  Why do you hate informed consumers, and therefore America?
 
2014-02-15 12:44:41 PM

uber humper: You're stealing money from others if you don't take care of yourself.


What's next?

i1.ytimg.com
Bend lower!  You're not trying!  Anyone under 45 is perfectly capable of touching his toes.
 
2014-02-15 12:45:27 PM

iheartscotch: I find it disconcerting that the state of California thinks that its own citizens can't make informed choices and feels that they have to lay out additional facts and figures. That implies that the state of California thinks that its citizens have less mental capacity than a child.


It's just a warning label.  Whatever personal slight you feel it implies is irrelevant to the its existence or lack thereof.

What's the worst that could happen?  Somebody says, "Maybe i shouldn't consume this thing?"  Break out the flintlocks, we're under attack.
 
2014-02-15 12:46:11 PM

Belias: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. There's some credence to the idea that a calorie consumed from food results in less over-consumption than one consumed by drinking.  However, when comparing soda to juice, there is no such distinction, and the net effect of consumption is the same.


Nutritionally speaking not so much, or dead wrong, whichever you prefer

Empty calories are empty calories
 
2014-02-15 12:46:47 PM

thamike: What's wrong with warning labels?


Believe it or not, there's people out there that will call this "Fat Shaming" and will equate it to the Holocaust.
 
2014-02-15 12:49:05 PM

uber humper: iheartscotch: uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.

Yeah, you wouldn't want the cogs to become inefficient....

/ Waaaay too obvious

// 2/10

You're stealing money from others if you don't take care of yourself.


not trolling. How is that wrong?  Look at the cost of type 2 diabetes to the medicade and medicare system

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/august/19/diabetes-cost -f t.aspx 3 years old.  It's more now


You're saying that my health is everybody's business? You're saying that everyone has a vested interest in my health?

Great, let's throw medical privacy out the window! After all, everybody has a vested interest in everybody else's health. I should totally know that my neighbor is the one sucking up all of the healthcare dollars.
 
2014-02-15 12:49:17 PM
Hah. My mom is still dealing with the lung problems from growing up in 50s and 60s L.A.
 
2014-02-15 12:49:22 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: uber humper: If they spend money on your problems that you could have prevented (money is finite) that leaves less for others. Is that not true? You don't that this is a moral issue?

Nope. Just because you impose a system does not mean that everybody must conform to your expectations of them for your benefit. If you don't want people to have a choice, just say so.


People's decisions puts the entire system in peril.  I'm not sure how you cannot expect peolpe to make good decisions.

Health and Human Services is already about 25% of the federal budget and is growing.
 
2014-02-15 12:51:28 PM

iheartscotch: uber humper: iheartscotch: uber humper: Adolf Oliver Nipples: iheartscotch: What's next? A warning that water is wet? Some floaties if you order the soup?

Welcome to California, where everybody knows better than you what you should be doing, and if they don't like it you shouldn't either.

For a state that used to pride itself on its laid-back nonconformist nature, they sure do seem hell-bent on making everybody conform.

With a publically subsidized health care system, your health is not just your health. You have a moral, and should be a legal, responsibility to take care of yourself the best your can. The state spending money on your type 2 diabetes is taking money away from people who have maladies that they could not have prevented.  Destroying you health is no different than destroying a public building, with publicly subsidized healthcare.

Yeah, you wouldn't want the cogs to become inefficient....

/ Waaaay too obvious

// 2/10

You're stealing money from others if you don't take care of yourself.


not trolling. How is that wrong?  Look at the cost of type 2 diabetes to the medicade and medicare system

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/august/19/diabetes-cost -f t.aspx 3 years old.  It's more now

You're saying that my health is everybody's business? You're saying that everyone has a vested interest in my health?

Great, let's throw medical privacy out the window! After all, everybody has a vested interest in everybody else's health. I should totally know that my neighbor is the one sucking up all of the healthcare dollars.


Over 50% of the health expenditures in the US are preventable.
 
2014-02-15 12:51:45 PM
Well, it's good to know that:
-L.A. now has an efficient transit system so they can cut down on all that smog (and drive-by's)
-San Fran has affordable housing
-the gangs have all gone away
-CA eliminated their debt and deficit, etc.

And now CA can actually concentrate on the real problems like people drinking that thur sody pop.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report