Calif. Lawmaker Plans Hearings on Soda-Obesity Link

[Dos Equis]

The state is broke and they're having hearings on this nonsense? 

Calif. Lawmaker Plans Hearings on Soda-Obesity Link

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:15 AM

LOS ANGELES -- The California lawmaker who spearheaded a high-profile anti-obesity effort across the country's most populous state is now training his sights on sugar-sweetened drinks.

Sen. Alex Padilla, who led a campaign requiring big restaurant chains to disclose calories in meals, said on Thursday he planned to hold hearings in November on the link between soda consumption and obesity.

The announcement from Padilla — who chairs the California Senate's Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes — coincides with the release of a study that shows nearly two-thirds of children aged 12 to 17 gulp down at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily.

According to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 62 percent of children aged 12 to 17, and 41 percent of children aged 2 to 11, drink at least one sugar-sweetened beverage a day.

"I don't think that most parents truly appreciate the role soda pop has in causing weight gain," Padilla said. "It is unfortunate that soda is actually cheaper than milk and even bottled water in many instances."

California was the first state to pass menu labeling rules and has been among the pioneers of public health initiatives such as bans on artery-clogging trans-fats in restaurant cuisine and on soda sales in public schools.

Experts say the U.S. obesity epidemic has turned into a public health crisis and overweight adolescents are starting to suffer problems that used to plague mainly middle-aged adults — early heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

SHARP CUTBACK RECOMMENDED

The American Heart Association in August took on the $115 billion soft drink industry, recommending that Americans cut back dramatically on sugar and singling out soft drinks as the top source of "discretionary" sugar calories.

The group said women should eat no more than 100 calories of added processed sugar per day, or six teaspoons (25 grams), while most men should keep it to just 150 calories or nine teaspoons (37.5 grams).

To put that in perspective, one 12-ounce can of soda can contain as much as 13 teaspoons (54.6 grams) of sugar, often in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

That's more than half the total 22 teaspoons (90 grams) or 355 calories of added sugar consumed by the average American each day, according to a 2004 government survey.

Being overweight costs, experts say.

Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States, or an estimated $147 billion annually. Health experts increasingly are calling for taxes on soft drinks and other sweetened beverages to offset medical costs and fund public health efforts.

"If we are serious about curbing the obesity epidemic, we have to start with the biggest culprit," said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.

The American Beverage Association has opposed efforts to tax soda and other beverages. An industry group called Americans Against Food Taxes — whose backers include soft drink maker PepsiCo Inc, the American Beverage Association, the Corn Refiners Association and McDonald's Corp — has taken to the airwaves with anti-tax advertisements.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/soda_obesity_link/2009/09/17/261177.html

[Kazan]

They are just trying to justify taxing something

[BM OUT]

The state is broke and they're having hearings on this nonsense? 

Calif. Lawmaker Plans Hearings on Soda-Obesity Link

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:15 AM

LOS ANGELES -- The California lawmaker who spearheaded a high-profile anti-obesity effort across the country's most populous state is now training his sights on sugar-sweetened drinks.

Sen. Alex Padilla, who led a campaign requiring big restaurant chains to disclose calories in meals, said on Thursday he planned to hold hearings in November on the link between soda consumption and obesity.

The announcement from Padilla — who chairs the California Senate's Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes — coincides with the release of a study that shows nearly two-thirds of children aged 12 to 17 gulp down at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily.

According to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 62 percent of children aged 12 to 17, and 41 percent of children aged 2 to 11, drink at least one sugar-sweetened beverage a day.

"I don't think that most parents truly appreciate the role soda pop has in causing weight gain," Padilla said. "It is unfortunate that soda is actually cheaper than milk and even bottled water in many instances."

California was the first state to pass menu labeling rules and has been among the pioneers of public health initiatives such as bans on artery-clogging trans-fats in restaurant cuisine and on soda sales in public schools.

Experts say the U.S. obesity epidemic has turned into a public health crisis and overweight adolescents are starting to suffer problems that used to plague mainly middle-aged adults — early heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

SHARP CUTBACK RECOMMENDED

The American Heart Association in August took on the $115 billion soft drink industry, recommending that Americans cut back dramatically on sugar and singling out soft drinks as the top source of "discretionary" sugar calories.

The group said women should eat no more than 100 calories of added processed sugar per day, or six teaspoons (25 grams), while most men should keep it to just 150 calories or nine teaspoons (37.5 grams).

To put that in perspective, one 12-ounce can of soda can contain as much as 13 teaspoons (54.6 grams) of sugar, often in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

That's more than half the total 22 teaspoons (90 grams) or 355 calories of added sugar consumed by the average American each day, according to a 2004 government survey.

Being overweight costs, experts say.

Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States, or an estimated $147 billion annually. Health experts increasingly are calling for taxes on soft drinks and other sweetened beverages to offset medical costs and fund public health efforts.

"If we are serious about curbing the obesity epidemic, we have to start with the biggest culprit," said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.

The American Beverage Association has opposed efforts to tax soda and other beverages. An industry group called Americans Against Food Taxes — whose backers include soft drink maker PepsiCo Inc, the American Beverage Association, the Corn Refiners Association and McDonald's Corp — has taken to the airwaves with anti-tax advertisements.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/soda_obesity_link/2009/09/17/261177.html

If I want to drink soda I dam sure will drink it.Once again the government sticking their noses in others buisiness.If they want to get to the bottom of obesity they should ask fat fuckers like Sen. Dick Durbin.

[kcballer]

I have no problem whatsoever with informing people about the dangers of drinking soda.  In fact i think it's great i don't think they will take away soda Billy just inform people of the risks involved with drinking too much. 

[240 is Back]

on a MACRO level - not a personal one as a guy who likes drinking mountain dew now and then...

If you can make apples cheaper and soda more costly, over a period of years you will have a population with a lot less diabetes and heart disease.  This will lower healthcare costs for everyone.

They tax ciggs because smokers screw up healthcare costs for all of us. Why not tax the foods that cause mucho health problems?  Look at the average overweight welfare case with diabetes at 30, weighing 310 pounds, looking at 30+ years of social security and free govt health care because she stuffed her fat face with candy and pastries every day.  This tax would prevent some of that.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I have no problem whatsoever with informing people about the dangers of drinking soda.  In fact i think it's great i don't think they will take away soda Billy just inform people of the risks involved with drinking too much. 

I bet you'll think it's great when the contemplate telling people when and how many times they can fart in a day.

[Kazan]

on a MACRO level - not a personal one as a guy who likes drinking mountain dew now and then...

If you can make apples cheaper and soda more costly, over a period of years you will have a population with a lot less diabetes and heart disease.  This will lower healthcare costs for everyone.

They tax ciggs because smokers screw up healthcare costs for all of us. Why not tax the foods that cause mucho health problems?  Look at the average overweight welfare case with diabetes at 30, weighing 310 pounds, looking at 30+ years of social security and free govt health care because she stuffed her fat face with candy and pastries every day.  This tax would prevent some of that.

No it won't people are going to eat and drink what they want, big brother taxing it isn't going to mean shit. Like I said this is just trying to justify taxing something.

There is a thing called personal responsibility

[Kazan]

I bet you'll think it's great when the contemplate telling people when and how many times they can fart in a day.

You probabaly aren't that far off, I read something about the FDA wanting to classify CO2 as a pollutant. Hmmm guess we will eventually get taxed on how many times we exhale each day.

[240 is Back]

No it won't people are going to eat and drink what they want, big brother taxing it isn't going to mean shit.

In a nation of 310,000,000 people...

Raising the price of a can of soda by a few cents WILL have a larger effect over the course of years.  It'll be virtually immeasurable in most homes right now, but in the bigger picture, it will mean X amount of soda doesn't sell.  And Y amount of people won't take in those sugar calories.

I'm sure we all know people who smoke a little less because the price of smokes keeps going u.

[Kazan]

In a nation of 310,000,000 people...

Raising the price of a can of soda by a few cents WILL have a larger effect over the course of years.  It'll be virtually immeasurable in most homes right now, but in the bigger picture, it will mean X amount of soda doesn't sell.  And Y amount of people won't take in those sugar calories.

I'm sure we all know people who smoke a little less because the price of smokes keeps going u.

All you are doing is justifing the government taxing us more, good job. If soda is so fucking bad where is the FDA? Why isn't it being pulled off the shelves as we speak? Everyone knows if you drink a 12 pack of coke a day you are going to be a fat fucker, common sense.

[BM OUT]

on a MACRO level - not a personal one as a guy who likes drinking mountain dew now and then...

If you can make apples cheaper and soda more costly, over a period of years you will have a population with a lot less diabetes and heart disease.  This will lower healthcare costs for everyone.

They tax ciggs because smokers screw up healthcare costs for all of us. Why not tax the foods that cause mucho health problems?  Look at the average overweight welfare case with diabetes at 30, weighing 310 pounds, looking at 30+ years of social security and free govt health care because she stuffed her fat face with candy and pastries every day.  This tax would prevent some of that.

They taxed the hell out of cigarettes has that dropped the cost of health care by even ONE penny?Apparently not because the costs go up every year and we are in the middle of a national debate on how to bring down costs.So,much like everything the government does,the tax has failed.

Now,if you tax soda NO ONE will drink less soda.People want what they want.Personally I don't drink soda,so a tax on that wont effect me at all.However,do I want some lib idiot telling me what I can and cant eat,or what I should weigh?I competed in bodybuilding in June,I was on stage at 5'9 225.According the BMI index I was still about 50lbs overweight yet my bodyfat was 4%.If I dropped another 50 Id be dead.So the government is going to come in tell me I need to loose weight,or I pay more on health care,tell me what I can eat.Totally outrageous.

[MM2K]

The problem is that they are wasting time on something that should be common sense to people. People should already know that too many sodas will make them fat. They need to spend the vast majority of thier time figuring out how to get out of the budget mess they are in.

[Kazan]

They taxed the hell out of cigarettes has that dropped the cost of health care by even ONE penny?Apparently not because the costs go up every year and we are in the middle of a national debate on how to bring down costs.So,much like everything the government does,the tax has failed.

Now,if you tax soda NO ONE will drink less soda.People want what they want.Personally I don't drink soda,so a tax on that wont effect me at all.However,do I want some lib idiot telling me what I can and cant eat,or what I should weigh?I competed in bodybuilding in June,I was on stage at 5'9 225.According the BMI index I was still about 50lbs overweight yet my bodyfat was 4%.If I dropped another 50 Id be dead.So the government is going to come in tell me I need to loose weight,or I pay more on health care,tell me what I can eat.Totally outrageous.

People are so blinded by the bullshit they can't see what is really happening. Whenever the government wants to tax something or pass some fucked up bill they are doing for your own good. In the article they immediatly start talking about the children, another big fucking warning signal. How long has soda been around? since around 1900, and now all of the sudden it is the worst thing since small pox, but they aren't going to pull it off the shelves, the FDA isn't calling it unsafe, no they are going to add a tax to it. What a bunch off bullshit, and some are so fucking brain washed that they willing accept this shit.

[Skip8282]

In a nation of 310,000,000 people...

Raising the price of a can of soda by a few cents WILL have a larger effect over the course of years.  It'll be virtually immeasurable in most homes right now, but in the bigger picture, it will mean X amount of soda doesn't sell.  And Y amount of people won't take in those sugar calories.

I'm sure we all know people who smoke a little less because the price of smokes keeps going u.

The increase will be so small that most won't notice but it's going to stop people from buying it?  The scary thing is I really believe that makes sense to you. 


It's not going to work, it's just a money grab.

[kcballer]

I think a two pronged approach is necessary.

1.  Create a tax on such drinks and use that money.  It doesn't take away peoples right to choose at all.  They just have to pay for it.

2.  The money created from the tax is used to inform children and adults of the risks associated with high sugar drinks and diets. 

People can still choose to do what they want drink soda or not.  You have as much right to do with your body as you wish, just as the government has as much right to tax goods as they wish.   

[240 is Back]

They taxed the hell out of cigarettes has that dropped the cost of health care by even ONE penny?Apparently not

There has been a lot written about how the sin tax has resulting in plummeting cigarette sales.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=did+sin+tax+affect+cigarette+sales&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

If less people smoke, less people will get cancer.  I don't think that's deniable.  Unless you still believe cigs are harmless.

[Hugo Chavez]

They are just trying to justify taxing something

exactly.

[Bindare_Dundat]

There has been a lot written about how the sin tax has resulting in plummeting cigarette sales.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=did+sin+tax+affect+cigarette+sales&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

If less people smoke, less people will get cancer.  I don't think that's deniable.  Unless you still believe cigs are harmless.

I think cigarette use going down is a result of better education. I think the only reason the taxes on cigs go up sis because less people are smoking these days so they raise the tax on it to be able to collect an equal amount.

If it's not just about being able to collect money, why don't they classify cigarettes in the same category as cocaine or heroin, (it doesn't have one single solitary health benefit, it causes cancer and ultimately a high Chance of death) if they care so much about our well being?

[Bindare_Dundat]

just as the government has as much right to tax goods as they wish.   

There is little hope for you.

[Kazan]

I think a two pronged approach is necessary.

1.  Create a tax on such drinks and use that money.  It doesn't take away peoples right to choose at all.  They just have to pay for it.

2.  The money created from the tax is used to inform children and adults of the risks associated with high sugar drinks and diets. 

People can still choose to do what they want drink soda or not.  You have as much right to do with your body as you wish, just as the government has as much right to tax goods as they wish.   

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Thats what happened last time a government thought they had the right to just tax good as they pleased

[kcballer]

There is little hope for you.

No no there is little help for you.  Believing you can live in a country and not contribute anything to anyone other than yourself.  It's called society if you don't want to pay taxes and be governed by elected officials - MOVE

[kcballer]

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Thats what happened last time a government thought they had the right to just tax good as they pleased

They can tax as they please, you have a democratic right to protest as well as vote in new people whom you agree with.  It's a pretty simple system. 

[Kazan]

They can tax as they please, you have a democratic right to protest as well as vote in new people whom you agree with.  It's a pretty simple system. 

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States........


How does taxing soda provide for the common defense or the Welfare of the Union?

[kcballer]

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States........


How does taxing soda provide for the common defense or the Welfare of the Union?

Welfare - health - too much soda = decrease in health.  simple. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

If they want to get to the bottom of obesity they should ask fat fuckers like Sen. Dick Durbin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHHA