It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Soda Cans May Soon Have Warnings Like Cigarette Packs.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Michael Jacobson, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration. He is requesting that warning labels be put on soft drinks just as they are with tobacco products.
Richard Martin, spokesman for the grocery manufacturer has countered Jacobson stating, "Requiring warning labels on food that is perfectly safe is a waste of everyone's time."
 



www.cbsnews.com
Soft drinks that are packed with sugar could get warning labels just like cigarettes and alcohol if an advocacy group gets its way.

This is no joke, Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), tells The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.

"Absolutely serious," he says. "Americans are drowning in soda pop - teenagers, in particular. The average teenage boy is consuming two cans of soda pop a day. The industry spends over $500 million each year promoting the sale of these worthless products. The U.S. government's dietary guidelines for Americans have urged people to consume less sweetened beverages. But the government doesn't do anything."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


With staggering statistics on Diabetes and obesity I can understand the CSPI wanting to take action against sugar loaded soft drinks. Most of this soft drink problem lies with children. Adult consumption is decreasing while children's consumption is on the rise. studys show boys between 13 and 18 drinking an average 2 cans of pop a day.

Are young people going to pay attention to warnings on pop cans? Probably not.
Instead of doing this, I believe that they should focus their attention on educating parents on not training their kids to drink soft drinks all the time.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.nytimes.com




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
What a waste of time.

As the person who submitted this article said:


Are young people going to pay attention to warnings on pop cans? Probably not.


NO they will not!

What a bunch of babies! It amazes me how people think that the rest of society is a bunch of uneducated idiots who can't make decisions for themselves.

We already have a law requiring the content of such foods to be printed. The sugar content of soda is printed directly on the can. Any literate person can read them before drinking the product.

Why the heck does it have to be the government's job to print warnings on sugar?

Maybe the government should put warnings by all windows that says "throwing yourself out this window can be hazardous".

People make their own decisions. We must be straightforward rather than misleading and print the content of the product. At that point it is the consumer's job to decide. Not the government's.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
You have got to be kidding. Of all the things to worry about in this world. Sugar?? Sure I understand the wieght issue. Better to have the kids drinking soda than booze. You cant ban everything.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What the hell is going on here???? seriously, people need to use a little common sense.

what's next, Hamburgers, candy bars, popcorn, beer, sugar, chocolate, ice cream, hotdogs, chips, canned foods, etc...etc.....

My Grandfather literally died from drinking soda.....he drank like 24 sams choice colas a day and doctors told him to quit that it was very bad for his heart and it would somehow (I dont know the reason or science so dont ask) cause a heart attack or stroke or whatever....about a year later he died. He knew the risk and a damn label on a can isnt gonna stop someone from drinking soda.......

Sheesh, freakin Idiots!!!!



[edit on 14/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I found a really good editorial about this.


www.nysun.com
Warning: Reading This May...

New York Sun Editorial
July 14, 2005

If you plan to drink a soda while reading this editorial, be warned: "To help protect your waistline and your teeth, consider drinking diet sodas or water." Insulting your intelligence? That's one of the rotating health notices the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based lobbying group, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration yesterday to require on non-diet soda cans. Another suggested warning is "The U.S. Government recommends that you drink less (non-diet) soda to help prevent weight gain, tooth decay, and other health problems."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If this goes through where will it end?
Warnings on beer: drinking this product may cause you to become drunk.
Warnings on coffee: drinking this product may cause you to become run to the toilet.
Warnings on chocolate bars: eating this product may cause you to break out in zits..

The writer of the editorial is right. This does insult our intelligence.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Have to agree with everyone else here, what's the use?

Remember when this came out?




It doesn't get plainer than that.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I have been told, that by TODAYS FDA standerds.........SUGAR would be labled a 'poison' and not allowed into our food. That refinined sugar was 'invented' and brought into our everyday food stuffs, long before the FDA standerds in use today.
Thats something to think about.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I bet most of you aint parents. My kids love pop. I tell them its bad for them all the time. I wouldnt mind having something on the label that tells em that.


Think about this.....One can of pop...12 TABLESPOONS of sugar. Go get an empty can and fill it with 12 tablespoons. Thats a lot of sugar.


And chew on this......Caffeine isnt regulated. Its just another ingrediant. Meaning, when sales are sluggish they cut back on how they add, our little headaches increase and we buy more. Thats caffeine their doin it with. Im all for warnings. They should put it on alcohol as well.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Yeah spliff been a parent for 15 years and I'm telling you the kids couldn't care less for warnings on a can. Is it sweet? Do I want it? Those are the only 2 questions they're about to answer. That's why they're useless.

The only reason I can see for the warnings is as a legal "out" when "it" hits the fan.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   


I bet most of you aint parents. My kids love pop. I tell them its bad for them all the time. I wouldnt mind having something on the label that tells em that.

Spliff, does your child need a label in order for he/she to know that sodas are "bad" or whatever?

Should we put labels on all McDonald's wrappers.....this food makes you a fat-body

Or on lolly pops and jolly ranchers...this shat screws up your teeth

I think not.....you answered your own question, kids know that sodas are bad, parents tell them, they know it from the dentist and teachers....it's one of them common sense things that does not require a label in order for people to know....they just know.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Oh ya, I feel ya. But its nice to have something to point to and say--"Look! I aint makin this sh-t up!" Just like smokes. You shoulda seen their faces when I told them the 12 tablespoon thing.

And even if its a legal ass covering measure, great. Warn us. Then noone can say "I didnt know!!"

I voted yes on this story, cuz I pretty much vote that on anyone who takes the time to post. But really this isnt that news worthy. The should put warnings on as many things as possible that need warnings. I bet theres alot we would find out.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
SportyMB--

Its called "back-up". Its something more than me being mean and telling them "no". I can point to the label and have some back up. Besides, if the craps bad and dangerous, they should have to tell ya.

Gas is flammable. Everyone knows that. Not everyone knows that the litttle cans you fill up with them are static charged and can ignite, but guess what. Go to a gas station and the warnings are everywhere.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   


And even if its a legal covering measure, great. Warn us. Then noone can say "I didnt know!!"

OK Spliff, I see your point now......Intrepid too, about the when "it" hits the fan thing....that's cool. So when the people try to sue cause sodas made them fat or whatever...then coke and pepsi can be like "See, I warned ya".....

OK, Im now in favor of this


[edit on 14/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Lol, I almost fell over laughing when I saw this. We slap labels on everything to warn people, but they dont do any good. It might seem like a joke but really we should start removing the warning labels, let a few million of the short-chromosomed morons out there drop dead, it wont hurt the rest of the world any. People need their caffine, its what keeps most of us awake at that desk so that we get the check that keeps the landlord at bay and food in the fridge.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
SportyMB,

Thats why I love ATS. Enlightenment.

I dont want the government telling me what I can and cant eat, smoke or drink. But I do what the money grubbing companies that make that crap to tell me whats in it, and how it may adversly affect me or mine.

The whole thing with the caffeine manipulation should be illegal. And if beer companies were made to print: "WARNING! Continual abuse of this product may cause mental/physical abuse, may cost you your family, job and home and make you kill someone" I'd smile.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I just find it ironic that with all the palava about sugar, none of the activists seem the slight bit concerned about the preservatives and colourings in soda.

Anyway. Can we not just use our common sense? We know that refined sugar is bad for us. I realise my experience might not be common, but my parents used to just tell me "no" when we asked for sugary candies or sodas. When I was a kid, my siblings and I shared limited pocket money - we couldn't afford to buy sodas unless our parents contributed, and they simply wouldn't do so....sure, it was a hard way to learn, but we just got used to not drinking it. And the habit passed on to us - all offspring have grown up without a taste for sugary sodas.

Shouldn't we, as parents, have the same kind of input as to what we allow our kids to eat and drink?

Ah, I just don't know. I appreciate the legal protection side of it, absolutely - I suppose it just irks me that we need these labels at all, when it just seems like common sense. You know?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Ok, ok on a lighter note....

The best warnings I could find..

On a Sear's hairdryer:
"Do not use while sleeping."
(Gee that's the only time I have to work on my hair.)

On a bag of Fritos: "You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside."
(The shoplifter's special)

On a bar of Dial soap: "Directions: Use like regular soap."
(And that would be how ...?)

On some Swanson frozen dinners:
"Serving suggestion: Defrost."
(But its "just" a suggestion)

On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom):
"Do not turn upside down."
(Too late!)

On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding:
"Product will be hot after heating."
(And you thought . . .)

On packaging for a Rowenta iron:
"Do not iron clothes on body."
(But wouldn't this save me more time?)

On Boot's Children Cough Medicine:
"Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication."
(We could do a lot to reduce the rate of construction accidents if we could just get those 5-year-olds with head colds off those forklifts.)

On Nytol Sleep Aid:
"Warning: May cause drowsiness."
(One would hope.)

On most brands of Christmas lights:
"For indoor or outdoor use only."
(As opposed to what?)

On a Japanese food processor:
"Not to be used for the other use."
(I gotta admit, I'm curious.)

On Sainsbury's peanuts:
"Warning: contains nuts."
(Talk about a news flash.)

On an American Airlines packet of nuts:
"Instructions: Open packet, eat nuts."
( Step 3: Fly Delta.)

On a child's superman costume:
"Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly."
(Oh, that’s right! Destroy all our childhood dreams!)



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Legal issues. You never know when a spun judge is going to do something that a regular shmo would say, "What? You didn't get it"?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   


I suppose it just irks me that we need these labels at all, when it just seems like common sense. You know?

TF..me too, it pisses me off that this has to be done. But it always happens, some slick redneck attorney and his trailer trash (no offense to anyone) client are gonna sue and win millions cause they got fat and have been drinking RC Cola for the past 20 years.....nevermind the fact that he sits up at home all day and watches TV and drinks beer...people want money and people are bringing themselves to all time LOWS everyday to make that happen.

These people deserve nothing. If a little label will make sure they get nothing, then Im all in favor.

sporty

EDIT: "YES" vote from me

[edit on 14/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Almost a full page and this isn't "confirmed". Vote folks, one way or the other please.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join