Over 16,550,683 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
The proposed mandate, now pending in the state Assembly, comes as states across the country grapple with the costs -- human and financial -- of obesity and other diseases related to the American diet.*I honestly have no comment for this..it's just..wow*
Sharon Akabas, a professor at Columbia University's Institute of Human Nutrition, told state lawmakers Monday that labels could discourage the consumption of products linked to a long list of harmful and expensive health conditions. Akabas was one of several public health experts to voice support for the legislation at the hearing held in New York City.
"My hope would be that it would be a national label," she said.*Not going to solve the problem*
The labels -- which would resemble those on cigarette packs -- would go on cans and bottles of regular soda, juices, teas and other beverages sweetened with sugar.*Not for anything, I get what they are trying to do, but you have to look at the big picture, of what something this small would do for our future. Maybe ten to twenty years from now, they will start to ban something as simple as gum because if you chew to much it will put too much pressure on your jaw. Sounds dumb right. But if you sit and think, something small like this, can get bigger and next thing you know you are in the book 1984*
Retailers and beverage companies oppose the idea. Maston Sansom of the Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a grocery store trade group, said manufacturers and retailers shouldn't have to contend with confusing labeling requirements that vary by state. And he questioned why sugar-sweetened beverages were being singled out when candy or other unhealthy foods were not. *Bingo...why just the drinks?*
"It's such a complicated issue," he said. "There needs to be more focus on education as opposed to just singling out this one product."*Absolutely, education is the most important factor, ignorance and the lack of knowledge of history will come back and bit us on the ass*
The measure faces significant challenges in the Legislature, particularly in the Republican-controlled Senate. Critics at Monday's hearing said it's naive to think labels on soda will prevent overindulgence.*Why did they have to state, "particularly in the Republican-controlled Senate"? This has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrates, etc. This has to do with voting for the right person to office that has a brain*
"We have warning labels on alcoholic beverages, but apparently old and young alike aren't getting the message," said Assemblyman Andrew Raia, a Long Island Republican.*Well said*
Similar labeling rules have been proposed, but so far not passed, in California and Vermont. Other states have also looked at special taxes on sugar, but so far only one city -- Berkeley, California -- has imposed such a tax.*Really, we need a special tax on sugar, really?*
A ban on supersize sugary drinks proposed in New York City was struck down by the courts.*I read up on this when this issue was proposed. I live in the US, I believe in our constitution and our rights. Once you let something small get past because someone wants to make their mark and can't see past what it will do tomorrow, scares me.*
I've made my comments, I'm sure some will not see or feel the same way, but that is ok. I don't like to blog or talk politcal that much because I feel that it is one topic that can get really heated.
xoxoxox to all that agree and don't agree.
