Current Events > California introduces bill banning soda and juice from kids meals

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sephiroth1288 posted...

FreshSushi posted...

literally a nation of mcribs

BUT MUH FREEDAM

parents haven't known what's best for their kids ever

But the government does, m i rite

I don't see you crying when the government spends billions on bombing the Middle East without asking us.
---

Caution999 posted...

What a pointless bill. It still gives the power for parents to supersede the order, making this a complete waste of time.

At more cost. It's no longer bundled, it's ala-cart. It's basically a tax in everything but name. And taxation can be a useful public health tool. See cigarettes.

I agree it probably isn't enough, but legislating pro-social behavior is tricky. You have your hardline traditionalists who are against it from a liberty standpoint and they're not wrong, but there is also this prevailing thought that we're all independent actors with consequences that are solely our own and that simply isn't true in a society.

These things indirectly ripple like a wave in almost unforeseeable manners. Obesity is a large burden on our healthcare system and a large part of our current costs are effects of these ripples. When people default their bills, the burden is shouldered on the providers and hospitals, etc. This gets passed on to the rest who can pay, which is unfair to them. And begets this positive feedback cycle.

Something as simple as a soda tax will discourge some use, but not entirely prevent it. You're still free to drink it, but it's less accessible to indulge in excess unless you're well-off but by then you have some protective effects against some risk factors of obesity for other unrelated reasons that the access isn't as troublesome (on a population scale, not necessarily the individual).

But something like this probably doesn't make the soda prohibitively expensive. The tax on cigarettes is steep enough that people at least think twice, especially before even beginning the habit, and even if they are addicted they don't have the ridiculous 120 pack year history of the first generation of chain smokers.
---

not the juice :(
---

So the default drink just isn't soda, not banning anyone from just requesting a soda with it. Why is this a big deal?

Sephiroth1288 posted...

FreshSushi posted...

literally a nation of mcribs

BUT MUH FREEDAM

parents haven't known what's best for their kids ever

But the government does, m i rite

The bill is supported by the right people
---

Raikuro posted...

So the default drink just isn't soda, not banning anyone from just requesting a soda with it. Why is this a big deal?

Why do something if it isn't a big deal? The passage of laws implies somewhat of a deal.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

FreshSushi posted...

literally a nation of mcribs

BUT MUH FREEDAM

parents haven't known what's best for their kids ever

But the government does, m i rite

This is kind of disingenuous, because, yeah, on some level they do.

A parent is limited to their own experiences, education level, and socioeconomic class. A government has infinitely more resources such that they have top experts on employ and thinktanks can come up with guidelines that are more evidenced based.

Parents, as a generalized whole, will make more intuitive decisions. Be susceptible to marketing, propaganda, emotional influences. Things that are part of the human experience and not necessarily bad things, but difficult to make informed decisions. Especially outside of our areas of expertise. Much in this way, a paternal government theoretically can make better decisions than parents can for their kids. The vaccine "controversy" is a great example. Leave parents to their own devices and they make decisions that are worse for them, even if their intentions are good.

Honestly, as someone in medicine, our profession is a lot more paternalistic than we'd like to admit, but for good reason. You can't expect non-experts to make informed decisions off of a tl;dr without the full context of a careers worth of experience and knowledge of an entire discipline. If we did everything patients wanted 100% in every circumstance, there would be a lot more worse outcomes. It's not a bad thing to defer to people with more expertise in something than you. It's the cornerstone of a fucking society...
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

FreshSushi posted...

literally a nation of mcribs

BUT MUH FREEDAM

parents haven't known what's best for their kids ever

But the government does, m i rite

I don't see you crying when the government spends billions on bombing the Middle East without asking us.

Actually I did. Did you miss my complaints about Obamas drone fetish?

Anyway, the government is not your parent. Spending money on the military is in their purview, not telling kids they can't have sodas in their happy meal.
---

maniaxe613 posted...

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

The healthier choice is water...

Which is free.

You see this in pediatrics a lot. New parents have this notion that fruit juices are healthier than other drink options. Many of them have as much or more sugar than soda. They think the addition of a juice adds something to one's health. In reality, our society is not wanting in calories like our cavemen ancestors. Our issue is too many calories for our lifestyles so rarely is the addition of any sort of caloric option a "healthy" alternative.

You see this with adult patients too. They think things like fruits are healthy and so they make no changes to their 3,000-4,000 calorie diet and then add on some bananas or grapes. And wonder why they don't lose weight. The fruit isn't what is inherently healthy. It's replacing that with something else that makes the relative proportion "healthier." But depending on the fruit, the sugar content is misleadingly high still, so again, the "healthier" option is still keeping to what they eat, just a lot less of it.

This isn't a video game where eating something gives you a power up. We're not vitamin deficient in most circumstances. It's calories.
---

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Anyway, the government is not your parent. Spending money on the military is in their purview, not telling kids they can't have sodas in their happy meal.

How do you feel about cigarette taxes?
---

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

This is kind of disingenuous, because, yeah, on some level they do.

A parent is limited to their own experiences, education level, and socioeconomic class. A government has infinitely more resources such that they have top experts on employ and thinktanks can come up with guidelines that are more evidenced based.

And the best they can come up with is a plan that can be easily circumvented by simply ordering a soda separately or by the restaurant simply not referring to the item as a "kids" meal.

Those experts in those think tanks must have some amazingly high IQs to come up with this plan!
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Anyway, the government is not your parent. Spending money on the military is in their purview, not telling kids they can't have sodas in their happy meal.

How do you feel about cigarette taxes?

Also dumb.
---

This is for our future. A society with mostly unhealthy inhabitants is doomed to collapse.
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.
---

edededdy posted...

BlameAnesthesia posted...

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.

last i checked, children already cant buy alcohol.
---

MwarriorHiei posted...

edededdy posted...

BlameAnesthesia posted...

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.

last i checked, children already cant buy alcohol.

alcohol impacts the health of adults negatively therefore it should be banned using Californias shit tier logic
---

does any place have alcohol as the default beverage for a meal? Or do you have to always specifically order it with your food?

I'm torn. On one hand, this definitely robs people of some of their choice and has the government acting as a nanny. That's part of why Trump's moronic Harvest Boxes were such a disastrous idea and deservedly got ridiculed.

On the other, obesity is an epidemic in this country. Childhood obesity is especially prevalent. Obesity in childhood sets up for a lifetime of bad habits (portion control, sugar intake, etc.) and ultimately makes it more difficult for them to be healthy as adults.

The fact that the parents can just buy a soda anyway seems like a good compromise. It helps mitigate people just mindlessly feeding their kids gallons of soda, but lets them have it as a treat.

It's similar to how many people just snack on junk food if they have it in their house. I'm guilty of it too; if I have chips in the pantry, I'll just eat them when I'm bored. Intervening for children is honestly for the greater good.

Californians so stupid they need the government tell them how to raise their kids.
---

ManBeast462 posted...

Californians so stupid they need the government tell them how to raise their kids.

Your parents could have used the help.
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

Milk literally has more fat than juice

Unless theyre going to force skim milk now

Lol california

fat doesnt necessarily make you fat. sugar will.
---

edededdy posted...

MwarriorHiei posted...

edededdy posted...

BlameAnesthesia posted...

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.

last i checked, children already cant buy alcohol.

alcohol impacts the health of adults negatively therefore it should be banned using Californias shit tier logic

Do you disagree that the state should intervene for the benefit of a child?

Consider also that children don't have the mental capacity to understand the addictive qualities of sugary drinks. Adults do have the mental capacity to do this with alcohol. Children's brains just literally aren't fully formed yet and they can't comprehend long-term consequences.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

And the best they can come up with is a plan that can be easily circumvented by simply ordering a soda separately or by the restaurant simply not referring to the item as a "kids" meal.

Those experts in those think tanks must have some amazingly high IQs to come up with this plan!

The intention of the plan wasn't "aha, if we ban them in kids meals there is no way to go around the ban by buying a regular soda! Foolproof!" You'd have to be autistic to take it that literally.

It's a tax. You can't bundle the sodas with a meal. It costs more to include soda in the meal. This won't discourage most of its use, but might discourage some. it's a small effect that might not be noticed on the individual level, but you may see differences in the population level. It's basic public health. Joke about those "experts with high IQs" but this really goes against your intuitive sense of how these things work and isn't something directly observable. It's measured over a population. The next step is demonstrating that the intervention, which produced a measurable change, led to a good outcome. This is still what is up for debate and saying one way or the other is being arrogant and using emotion rather than reason.

The alternative is legislating more heavy-handedly, which will upset far more people and be less likely to succeed politically. You'd have to be really thick to ignore this.
---

edededdy posted...

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.

It's a false dichotomy to assume a ban is the only option.

Prohibition failed. Taxation worked to cut down on cigarette usage. Any attempts to moderate alcohol usage would logically go the taxation route.

Either way, it's not like you can address literally every unhealthy thing on the planet in a single bill. The presence or absence of something else perceived to be bad does not detract from a bill that tries to curtail excess soda consumption. It's completely empty calories with very high sugar content. It is independently a bad thing and the reaction a lot of people have to soda taxes goes to show that a lot of us are addicted to soda and refuse to admit it. The reactionary responses are not unlike drug addicts.
---

What a pointless bill. It still gives the power for parents to supersede the order, making this a complete waste of time.

That being said, is this where were headed as a society? Where the parent no longer knows whats best for their child?

Bro, I don't wanna like be all logical and shit but what you just said is a tautology.

First off, the state is giving power for the parents to decide what's best. Two, they're simply resetting the default to a healthier choice because childhood obesity is a rampant problem with severe impacts down the road.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

I'm torn. On one hand, this definitely robs people of some of their choice and has the government acting as a nanny. That's part of why Trump's moronic Harvest Boxes were such a disastrous idea and deservedly got ridiculed.

On the other, obesity is an epidemic in this country. Childhood obesity is especially prevalent. Obesity in childhood sets up for a lifetime of bad habits (portion control, sugar intake, etc.) and ultimately makes it more difficult for them to be healthy as adults.

The fact that the parents can just buy a soda anyway seems like a good compromise. It helps mitigate people just mindlessly feeding their kids gallons of soda, but lets them have it as a treat.

It's similar to how many people just snack on junk food if they have it in their house. I'm guilty of it too; if I have chips in the pantry, I'll just eat them when I'm bored. Intervening for children is honestly for the greater good.

Thank you for the reasoned assessment. I think you're right in that the easily circumvented bill does little to impede on one's sense of personal liberty, while also simultaneously behaving like a very minor tax. It will help cut down a small amount. It's a band-aid, for sure.

I think society will always struggle with paternalism. We value independence, but the vast majority of us are not capable of making the best decisions for ourselves. On some level, this is a value judgement as to what the "best" outcome is. Nevertheless, it's equally silly to ignore the consequences of one's individual actions if it affects others, no matter how indirectly. Case in point--obesity epidemic.
---

Letting your child become obese is borderline child abuse.
---

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Dash_Harber posted...

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.

That's a good point too.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.

... and by incentivizing people to choose healthier options, you are making that the default option.

Tmaster148 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.

I like this
---

corn syrup is poison
---

It's a good idea. In place of juice, give them an orange or another small piece of fruit.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

FreshSushi posted...

literally a nation of mcribs

BUT MUH FREEDAM

parents haven't known what's best for their kids ever

But the government does, m i rite

I don't see you crying when the government spends billions on bombing the Middle East without asking us.

Actually I did. Did you miss my complaints about Obamas drone fetish?

Anyway, the government is not your parent. Spending money on the military is in their purview, not telling kids they can't have sodas in their happy meal.

According to who? Who's the government god that declared that military is the one thing government can do?

I think you're confusing individual feelings on how a certain government should operate with some universal decree on how the nebulous concept of government is "supposed" to work. I don't even really disagree with you (for once) about this being a stupid law, but stop confusing opinions with some sort of fact of nature.
---

Caution999 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.

I like this

But that's literally what they're doing with this law.
---

thank you daddy nannystate for making all of my decisions for me
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

Thank you for the reasoned assessment. I think you're right in that the easily circumvented bill does little to impede on one's sense of personal liberty, while also simultaneously behaving like a very minor tax. It will help cut down a small amount. It's a band-aid, for sure.

I think society will always struggle with paternalism. We value independence, but the vast majority of us are not capable of making the best decisions for ourselves. On some level, this is a value judgement as to what the "best" outcome is. Nevertheless, it's equally silly to ignore the consequences of one's individual actions if it affects others, no matter how indirectly. Case in point--obesity epidemic.

Thank you. I think almost every decision is a value judgment on what is "best," and there is rarely an objectively optimal solution. Some people might think that allowing milk as the default drink is unhealthy due to its fat content. That perception could even be argued to be the result of previous government overreach that resulted in a generation of consumers believing that any fat is to be avoided. I shudder when I see people get "fat free" versions of products; they're usually chock full of sugar and salt to make up for the lack of fat.

On the subject of juice: it wouldn't be nearly so bad if people got the no sugar added varieties and watered it down when serving it to their kids. It's still not super healthy, but it's better than the alternative. Also, personally, I find that most fruit juices are too sweet without a little dilution.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Lil_Bit83 posted...

SparkClark posted...

Better idea would be to require restaurants to offer a healthy option for kids meals.

Which is why they also offer applejuice and milk as an alternative.

apple juice is just as sugar filled as soda, though.

some restaurants offer those alternatives to soda/juice, but do all of them? probably not.

the effective thing to do here would be to force restaurants to present the healthy alternative and possibly even list the nutrition info of the drink choices on the menu.

Again. Its the parents choice not the state's. McDonald's has been offering juice and milk from prior pressure to make kids meals healthier, as well as fruit. Not every family goes and stuffs there face at fast food restaraunts several times a week. The only times I see that, are families on the go. Going to sports or dance or whatever they've got the kid enrolled in. No point in complaining about a lack of healthy alternatives when they're already offering them. Milk is full of sugar too. Care to bitch about that?
---

_Rinku_ posted...

edededdy posted...

MwarriorHiei posted...

edededdy posted...

BlameAnesthesia posted...

edededdy posted...

might as well ban alcohol as well while youre at it California Jesus fucking Christ

Not the same, Mr. Pitchfork.

absolutely is. soda causes negative impacts on health? so does alcohol.

last i checked, children already cant buy alcohol.

alcohol impacts the health of adults negatively therefore it should be banned using Californias shit tier logic

Do you disagree that the state should intervene for the benefit of a child?

Consider also that children don't have the mental capacity to understand the addictive qualities of sugary drinks. Adults do have the mental capacity to do this with alcohol. Children's brains just literally aren't fully formed yet and they can't comprehend long-term consequences.

Yes because no parent ever has said, No your not eating/drinking that.

Plenty of parents do. But if you need the government to say no to your kids because your incapable for you, well I have nothing positive to say.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Caution999 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

maniaxe613 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Just tax soda, fuck it

I don't get this. Why not just supplement healthier alternatives?

That's a good idea. Give a healthier choice.

Honestly, punishing people just turns it into a freedom issue and gives them a martyrdom aspect. The better solution is often just to reward 'good' behavior and be neutral towards 'bad' behavior. Mostly in cases where the only person negatively effected directly is the person making the choice.

Because most people will take a default option if available. The more work you make it to get a different option the less people who will go out of their way to take.

If you want kids to drink less soda the easiest solution is to not make soda the default option they get when eating out.

I like this

But that's literally what they're doing with this law.

"Well when you put it that way!"

xD
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Lil_Bit83 posted...

SparkClark posted...

Better idea would be to require restaurants to offer a healthy option for kids meals.

Which is why they also offer applejuice and milk as an alternative.

apple juice is just as sugar filled as soda, though.

some restaurants offer those alternatives to soda/juice, but do all of them? probably not.

the effective thing to do here would be to force restaurants to present the healthy alternative and possibly even list the nutrition info of the drink choices on the menu.

Again. Its the parents choice not the state's. McDonald's has been offering juice and milk from prior pressure to make kids meals healthier, as well as fruit. Not every family goes and stuffs there face at fast food restaraunts several times a week. The only times I see that, are families on the go. Going to sports or dance or whatever they've got the kid enrolled in. No point in complaining about a lack of healthy alternatives when they're already offering them. Milk is full of sugar too. Care to bitch about that?

The milk jugs at McDonald's only have 15g of sugar.

The juice boxes have 8g.

An extra small Coca-Cola has 30g.

You can also get refills on the soda, but not the other drinks. It's not truly a fair comparison.

Caution999 posted...

The California legislature recently passed a bill banning restaurants from selling soda and juice with kids' meals and instead requires them to offer a cup of milk or water in an effort to fight childhood obesity. But, the purchaser of the meal may still buy an extra soda or juice and hand the drink to the child, thus negating whatever intended effects the bill hopes to accomplish.

This is factually incorrect, piss-poor "reporting."

SB 1192 requires restaurants to offer milk or water as the default option in kids meals. Parents do not need to purchase an extra soda or juice; they can simply swap out the default drink. The bill does not require restaurants to give away milk and water and it does not require parents to pay extra.

It's funny... I'm actually opposed to this nanny state bill, but when people outright lie about what's in it, I end up wasting my breath correcting them instead of explaining why I think it's a bad bill.
---

From the bill:

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a childrens meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurants ability to sell, or a customers ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

Default beverage means the beverage automatically included or offered as part of a childrens meal, absent a specific request by the purchaser of the childrens meal for an alternative beverage.

This chapter does not prohibit a restaurants ability to sell, or a customers ability to purchase, an alternative beverage instead of the default beverage offered with the childrens meal, if requested by the purchaser of the childrens meal.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1192
---

Polycosm posted...

From the bill:

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a childrens meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurants ability to sell, or a customers ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.

Default beverage means the beverage automatically included or offered as part of a childrens meal, absent a specific request by the purchaser of the childrens meal for an alternative beverage.

This chapter does not prohibit a restaurants ability to sell, or a customers ability to purchase, an alternative beverage instead of the default beverage offered with the childrens meal, if requested by the purchaser of the childrens meal.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1192

Restaraunts ask what you want to drink anyway. Fast food or Sit Down. I've never once heard them say that soda is the only thing to drink.
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

The intention of the plan wasn't "aha, if we ban them in kids meals there is no way to go around the ban by buying a regular soda! Foolproof!" You'd have to be [moddable] to take it that literally.

It's a tax. You can't bundle the sodas with a meal. It costs more to include soda in the meal. This won't discourage most of its use, but might discourage some.

Great so only kids who already aren't insistant on drinking soda will stop drinking soda.

Great job, bureaucrats.
---