NorCal State Senator Proposes Warning Labels For Sodas, Sugary Drinks
CBS SF Bay (con't)
Affordable Care Act Updates: CBSSanFrancisco.com/ACA
Health News & Information: CBSSanFrancisco.com/Health
Alleged Shoplifter Nicknamed ‘El Mustachio The Magician’ Arrested At Santa Cruz Costco
Notorious Ex-Cocaine Kingpin George Jung Out of Prison, Living In San Francisco
Wild Weather: Lightning, Hail Strike Napa, Heavy Rain In North Bay
San Francisco Uber Driver Charged With Attacking Passenger With Hammer
SACRAMENTO (CBS SF) – A Northern California state senator is introducing a bill to put warning labels on sodas and other sugary drinks sold in the state.
State Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) said in a statement his bill, SB 1000, would be the nation’s first legislation requiring warning labels on sugary drinks. “As with tobacco and alcohol warnings, this legislation will give Californians essential information they need to make healthier choices,” Monning said.
If passed, the bill would place a warning on the front of all beverage containers with added sugar that have 75 or more calories per 12 ounces. The label would read: STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.
A number of studies have linked excess sugar in one’s diet with chronic conditions such as obesity and diabetes.
In the most recent study, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found added sugar is also associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even with people who are not overweight.
The beverage industry is expected to battle SB 1000 as it has other efforts to tax sodas or limit the sizes of sugary beverages. The American Beverage Association has said such restrictions will not necessarily lead to a healthier population and consumers should be able to decide for themselves their sugar intake.
San Francisco supervisors are working on a measure for the November ballot that would impose a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks sold in the city.
A similar proposal was rejected by Richmond voters in 2012.