Just the government telling us what to do
Absolute not. The sugar content is already on the bottle. Why another label? Just government telling us what to do and not do. We have too many government regulations, and it is high time the American people be responsible to choose what to drink and what not to drink.
I grew up in the 1930s and '40s, and we never heard from the government as to what to eat and drink.
Let's take our lives back from government regulations and make wise choices as to what we put into our bodies.
Robert V. Beaudreau
Useless label on soda isn't the proper answer
We don't need warning labels on our food, whether sugary drinks, alcohol, ice cream, breakfast cereal, or any of the other hundreds of foods that contain sugar.
This is the typical knee-jerk reaction of incompetent politicians who feel compelled to do something, no matter how useless. The infamous Proposition 65 label is a good example of California's propensity for feckless laws.
There are many causes of obesity, and we should not squander our money on labels that no one will read and that address only a minor contributor to obesity. Instead, let's put our money into educating people about the many causes of obesity.
Better yet, let's provide an incentive for obese people to take responsibility to educate themselves and lose weight by charging them a premium for health insurance.
Instead of putting warning labels on food, let's put labels in voter pamphlets to warn them about the creeping nanny state that continually insults our intelligence.
Such labels won't make us healthy
Senate Bill 1000 is misleading and confusing.
Let's look at the facts: According to government data, consumption of soda, fruit drinks and sports drinks declined from 1999 to 2010. During that same time frame, however, the rate of diabetes increased. If consumption of sweetened beverages is down and diabetes is up, then the warning labels are misleading the public.
This bill creates as much confusion as information. For instance, milk-based products such as frappuccinos, mochas and milkshakes would not be required to carry the label, even though some of these products contain as much -- or more -- sugar than a soda and even more calories, plus fat.
Warning labels on beverages won't improve the health of Californians. A more appropriate role for government is to provide information to the public about balancing calories and physical activity, not target some foods or beverages over others.
James M. Fox
Conflicting values impair our choices
If our conventional attitude sought to do things with equal consideration for the interests of all concerned residents and visitors, then issuing warnings about the health risks associated with overindulging in sugary drinks would be an obvious boon toward securing a healthier society. But sadly, there is that "if."
Two conflicting values remain more tenaciously embraced by our culture. One of these values is that the business interests of large corporate entities in the beverage and sick-care industries would be jeopardized were the above action successfully instituted. That wouldn't be fair to those poor owners, now would it?
The sense of entitlement continually pitched to us through the industries' advertising campaigns would be seriously challenged, recommending that we change our personal habits rather than simply rely upon the so-called benefits and short-term pleasures associated with their products and services.
No wonder we find ourselves so conflicted, thus making the choice to do the wise thing such a difficult matter.
State should require warning labels
California should require warning labels to be placed on sugary juices that contain more than 20 grams of sugar per 8-ounce serving.
Of the juices I have in my refrigerator, V-8 contains 7 grams; orange, 14 grams; lemonade, 26 grams; apple, 28 grams; and cranberry, 30 grams.
Adult shoppers generally know that sodas contain about 40 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving, but they are unaware that most juice drinks contain as high a concentration of sugar. Juices and sodas high in sugar contribute to obesity and diabetes, both of which are health risks in our society.
This is a good question for the sugar industry
This question: "Should the state require warning labels to be placed on sugary drinks?" ought to be addressed to the sugar industry and their lobbyists.
After all, through their influence, they have managed to convince us what they put in their drinks are good for us.