Sugar is sugar, so the warning should go for any drink with a large amount in it. That said, the amount of sugar in a drink is already labeled in the nutrition facts. People need to be educated on...
Monning amended the bill to exempt flavored milk drinks, but said it would apply to sport teas and energy drinks that have significant sugar.
Sugar is sugar, so the warning should go for any drink with a large amount in it. That said, the amount of sugar in a drink is already labeled in the nutrition facts. People need to be educated on how much is too much. Rather than a warning, maybe a scale should be printed on the food item similar to what you might see on spicy foods.
They should be adding a daily recommended percentage. I have no idea why nutrition facts don't have the daily percentage, a raw mass is meaningless to the general public. But if they notice their...
They should be adding a daily recommended percentage. I have no idea why nutrition facts don't have the daily percentage, a raw mass is meaningless to the general public.
But if they notice their can of coke has more than 100% of their daily recommended intake of sugar than they might stop drinking it.
Actually no the body can subsist quite fine without dietary sources of sugars. More importantly, added sugar (in particular sugars with a high glycemic index) are absolutely unnecessary.
Actually no the body can subsist quite fine without dietary sources of sugars.
More importantly, added sugar (in particular sugars with a high glycemic index) are absolutely unnecessary.
Oh, absolutely agreed. The problem is, businesses want to make gobs of money, and sugar is a cheat code for hacking our brain through our taste buds. It's easy payout for little buy-in. Same goes...
Oh, absolutely agreed. The problem is, businesses want to make gobs of money, and sugar is a cheat code for hacking our brain through our taste buds. It's easy payout for little buy-in. Same goes for sodium (which is the larger threat because of its ubiquity, in my view.)
for fucks sake we're already laughing stock because of prop 65 warnings literally everywhere
might as well put a warning sign on everything 🙄
The laughing stock of...who? Even if that was true, why would it matter?
Warnings don't work. if you want to change behaviour you need to increase prices and change law.
Philly put a tax on soda a couple of years ago. Soda sales have gone down. It works.
Sugar is sugar, so the warning should go for any drink with a large amount in it. That said, the amount of sugar in a drink is already labeled in the nutrition facts. People need to be educated on how much is too much. Rather than a warning, maybe a scale should be printed on the food item similar to what you might see on spicy foods.
If this is anything like Philadelphia's beverage tax, chocolate milk will be exempt, but sugar-free flavored water will not be.
They should be adding a daily recommended percentage. I have no idea why nutrition facts don't have the daily percentage, a raw mass is meaningless to the general public.
But if they notice their can of coke has more than 100% of their daily recommended intake of sugar than they might stop drinking it.
As it should. One day we'll look at sugar the same way we do tobacco.
The body needs some sugar. The body needs no tobacco.
Actually no the body can subsist quite fine without dietary sources of sugars.
More importantly, added sugar (in particular sugars with a high glycemic index) are absolutely unnecessary.
People do get low blood sugar crashes. I'm not saying added sugar is good for you, but saying it's like tobacco is pure hyperbole.
Fair enough. But what's in our food far, far surpasses that.
Oh, absolutely agreed. The problem is, businesses want to make gobs of money, and sugar is a cheat code for hacking our brain through our taste buds. It's easy payout for little buy-in. Same goes for sodium (which is the larger threat because of its ubiquity, in my view.)