San Francisco: court blocks health warnings on soda ads

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Required warnings on ads for soda violate constitutionally protected commercial speech, judges said in unanimous ruling

Associated Press
Thu 31 Jan 2019 18.49 EST

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a San Francisco law requiring health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugary drinks. The ruling is a victory for beverage and retail groups that sued to block the ordinance.

The law violates constitutionally protected commercial speech, the ninth US circuit court of appeals said in a unanimous ruling. The required warnings “offend plaintiffs’ first amendment rights by chilling protected speech”, the judges wrote.

The judges granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the ordinance from taking effect and kicked the case back to a lower court.

The American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others, had joined retail and advertising organizations to argue in court that the rules should be blocked.


Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/31/san-francisco-soda-health-warning-law-blocked-appeals-court

[Laffy Kat]

1. Then why can we do it with tobacco products?

Is that voluntary from Big Tobacco?

[fleabiscuit]

2. Because tobacco lost in court for hiding known dangers and heightened addiction by them.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Because it was shown that tobacco causes serious health problems...

like cancer, and it wasn't widely known and that causation was combatted by the tobacco companies.

Soda doesn't cause any serious health problems. A person can drink a soda every day and be very healthy. It's the lifestyle and the sum total of what a person eats that affects health.

[Aristus]

9. I'm sorry, but your assertion that people can drink soda every day

and be very healthy, is misleading.

For one, High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is the sweetener in soda, and a number of other beverages, is very bad for one's health. It suppresses the secretion of a hormone called leptin, the satiety hormone. When we eat, our stomachs stretch, and when they do, they activate what are called stretch receptors. And these stretch receptors secrete leptin, which goes from the stomach to the brain, and tells the brain: "Stop eating. We're full."

When the secretion of leptin is suppressed, we keep eating and eating and eating because we don't feel full. Which is just one reason we have an obesity epidemic in this country.

Also, HFCS all by itself is a huge risk factor for Diabetes.

Also, sugar and HFCS consumption increases what is called central adiposity, the deposition of fat around the abdomen. All fatty tissue secretes a hormone called resistin, which is called that because it creates resistance to insulin in the body's target cells, the cells that use glucose for energy. Insulin is the hormone that gets sugar out of the bloodstream, and into the cells where it is burned up for energy.

Even marathon runners with their 1% body fat secret resistin; in tiny amounts, though, no big deal. But in the aggregate, the more fatty tissue we have, the greater our insulin resistance. And insulin resistance is all that Type II Diabetes is.

I tell my patients, an occasional soda as a treat once in a while is fine. But every day is very bad for the health.

[EX500rider]

13. Different view on HFCS:

"Proponents of the "you can't spell murder without HFCS" crowd can in fact point to statistics showing that American obesity began its rapid ascent at about the same time corn sweetener began its dominance of the edible garbage industry. If you stop there, it looks like a pretty convincing argument. But researchers who like to look at the bigger picture see it another way -- the reason companies switched to corn syrup in the first place is because it's cheaper than regular sugar. Using it pushed the price of sugary foods down, making them more affordable to the masses. So it's not just that we started eating high fructose corn syrup, it's that we suddenly started eating a lot more bullshit.
In actual fact, studies so far have shown that the body doesn't seem to know the difference between high fructose corn syrup and regular sugar. After all, they both contain the same ingredients, in the same quantities. The only difference is in how they're extracted and combined.

Of course, high fructose corn syrup is still really bad for you, as are the foods that are chock-full of the shit. There's also no doubt that our addiction to sweet-tasting foods and drinks is making us fat as hell. It's just that it's no worse than if those same products were made with sugar.

And that's the problem -- demonizing one has the effect of making the other look good in comparison. That's the driving force behind well-meaning crusaders calling for bans on high fructose corn syrup and grocery stores stripping it from their shelves and replacing it with good old sugar, declaring the problem solved. Chicago's public schools even dropped chocolate milk from their menus because it contains HFCS, only to switch to a sugar-laden version. In reality, that's like switching butter for lard.

But hey, both of them are better than whatever industrial chemicals they make artificial sweetener out of, right?"

http://www.cracked.com/article_20601_6-ridiculous-myths-you-believe-about-stuff-you-use-every-day.html

[Aristus]

14. That's right. And I explain that to my patients.

The cheapness of beverages sweetened with HFCS over cane sugar is insidious when it comes to caring for patients in the homeless community. In places where safe, drinkable tap water is not available, many of my patients have a choice between bottled water and sweet beverages. Many opt for the sweet beverages because they are usually cheaper than the water (!). Plus, and I understand this mind-set, the sweet beverages are more enjoyable to drink than "plain old water".

The challenges that homeless patients face in the day-to-day management of their chronic conditions would shock people who take such things as clean water for swallowing with medications for granted.

[The Truth Is Here]

30. I drink diet Coke

Am i out of trouble? I hate Coke or anything sweet. Last time i drink anything non Diet Coke was sampling international Coke products at the World of Coke. Naturally i went for Diet Coke (free) nearby.

[Dave Starsky]

31. Diet Coke contains aspartame, a deadly poison.

You might as well have chugged a bottle of Radiator Stop Leak.

[Honeycombe8]

16. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that drinking a soda a day harms your health...

if the person otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle and eats responsibly. None. Nada. Zip.

If you drink the soda with protein (with your meal), the sugar isn't absorbed into yur body as quickly.

Again...it is not harmful. It is the entirety of one's diet and lifestyle that matters. Not the one mildly high in sugar item you drink or eat once a day.

Coca Cola has a glycemic index value of about 63, less than Ocean Spray cranberry juice. So does the warning go on that, too? If not, I suspect a motivation for going after sodas.

When NY restricted amount of soda a person could buy at one time, it did not except diet colas, which have no sugar. I suspect a motivation for going after sodas.

Note: I don't drink any beverage that has sugars in it. So I have no horse in this race. But facts are facts.

[Aristus]

18. No. I warn my patients off of fruit juice, too, advising consumption of whole fruit only.

It can certainly seem like 'going after soda' to anyone who doesn't work in a medical clinic on a daily basis. And, as I pointed out in my posts above, there's more adverse effects of soda consumption than just the glycemic index.

The chemical sweeteners in diet sodas, despite not containing sugar, can increase central adiposity, which I addressed above.

And it's not like I don't sympathise with your point of view. We all want to feel like we're the only rational people on the planet; that everyone else is running around like their hair is on fire, and we're the only cool, rational, logical ones staying above the fray and amusing ourselves with the antics of the paranoid screamers.

But I see clinical medicine from the inside. I know whereof I speak.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Now you're reaching...you're talking about ALL processed foods.

Why do you single out sodas? What IS it about that that gets on your nerves?

The warnings are slated JUST for sodas, is what I read. Not fruit juice.

SALT is one of the foods that is the most damaging to the human body. It tears up the arteries and all sorts of horrible things.

There is NO scientific evidence that drinking one soda a day has any harmful effect on health, when a person lives an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

I submit to you that a person who eats right (no beef, especially, SINCE THAT CAUSES CANCER), walks every day, excercises, controls stress, and drinks a cola every day will be far healthier than someone who does not consume refined sugars, but eats fast food, doesn't walk or otherwise exercise.

The cola is meaningless to a person living a healthy lifestyle. It really is.

I should know health: I am 65, weigh the same I did 35 years ago, and my lab work is better than it was 35 years ago. The reason: I don't eat beef, I try to walk every day, I've exercised off and on throughout my adult life, I quit smoking, I cut back on my overabundant sugar intake (not from sugary drinks), I watch sodium closely, and all sorts of things I do that are very easy. I do like candy, but try to restrict it to the holidays (ALL of them! Though I'll skip Valentine's Day this year because the sugary Sweethearts are not being made this year.)

Humans don't live without some vice(s). The trick is to choose your vice wisely, and make sure you can imbibe w/o it seriously affecting your health in a bad way. A cola a day, in the scheme of vices, is a pretty safe choice. Much safer than choosing not to walk every day.

[Aristus]

20. Because of their easy availability to the people in my patient population.

And because of the disingenuous marketing strategy that goes with them. Soda companies sponsor youth sports events, for example, with the proviso that their beverage is served to the child athletes at the events under the guise of 'hydration'.

One can certainly feel a sense of pride when boasting of one's healthy lifestyle. But at the homeless level, a healthy lifestyle is extraordinarily difficult to maintain. So many of the circumstances surrounding my patients' lives as homeless people are out of my control. But the areas of their daily living that contribute adversely to their health that I can mitigate somehow, I'm going to do. Just because you object to the apparant vilification of soda doesn't mean I'm going to stop providing my patients with good sound medical care and advice.

I've had medical concern trolls dogging my steps ever since I went into clinical practice nine years ago. But I'm still here, and they aren't.

[Honeycombe8]

21. I'm waiting for the scientific evidence that drinking one soda a day harms the health

of someone who otherwise lives a healthy lifestyle.

That's all I said, and you're arguing about that with no proof whatsoever.

I'm talking about facts. Not anecdotal stories or thoughts.

[Aristus]

23. Well, I would send you the charts of my patients to show you what I'm talking about,

but that would violate medical privacy laws.

In any case, anyone demanding 'proof' would only reject what they were offered, and demand something else.

We see it all the time with evolution deniers.

Anyway, I can see we're not communicating here.

It's heartwarming to see such passionate advocacy on behalf of billion-dollar corporations. Keep up the good work.

[Honeycombe8]

24. That's not scientific proof.

There would have to be a control group, and all sorts of information categorized about each and every participant in the study. What would matter about each participant is if he is overweight, has other health problems, how much does he exercise and how often, a record of everything he ate for months, etc. Then, if there is a rise in glucose, you'd have to prove somehow that it's a result of the one Coke a day, and not the steak w/baked potato he ate once or twice a week, or the popcorn he liked to munch on. Enter the control group...the groups should the same, except for that one Coke a day.

Give it up. You lost this argument. You believe what you believe.

Your belief is based on people who generally live the American lifestyle: overweight, eating processed foods, drinking too many colas, eating too much sugar and/or too much fat and the wrong kind of fat, not exercising, etc.

I have no belief about it. I rely on facts.

Yes, I'm proud of being healthy as a result of lifestyle. That's something to be proud of. But I stated it to show you that I do know a thing or two about how to live a healthy life.

Beef and sodium are far worse than a cola a day.

[Sgent]

26. I don't like this line of thinking

since dose makes the poison. There's no evidence that a cigar a week harms your health either, or for that matter a cigarette a day.

I'm not sure where the line for compelled commercial speech should be drawn, but just because a little doesn't hurt doesn't mean a lot is ok.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Yes, there is evidence that a cigarette a day harms your health.

I don't know anything about cigars...except for the causation to cancer of the mouth from the contact.

But there is evidence that just one cigarette...just one, one time...kills cilia in your lungs. Cilia don't grow back. Of course, the big issue w/cigarettes is that they are addictive. If a person smokes one a day, soon he'll smoke several, then a pack. That's the nature of addiction.

One soda...120 calories with sugar content beverage with a GI of 68, just isn't that bad for ya, folks.

It's better than a slice of white bread every day, that's for sure. Or biscuits or cereal every day (depending on the cereal). Soda is over the recommended GI level, but not that much. Especially if you drink it along with a meal with protein.

To be healthy involves a whole lifestyle of things to do and way of eating. It's not one thing that isn't pure evil (like white bread), consumed in a moderate amount. And we're not speaking of people who are ill, who have to be on a strict lifestyle because of their diabetes or cancer or whatever.

No, drinking one cola a day, if you live a healthy lifestyle, and this is your guilty pleasure..no, it won't give you diabetes, make you fat, give you a bulging tummy, etc.

Now beer...that's a different matter.

[robbob]

12. Im sure a person can smoke A cigarette a day

...and not have any health problems. But most smokers are closer to a pack a day, just as I’m sure many soda drinkers have 5-6 a day. I have a buddy who drinks a litre of Coke a day because it “gives him a buzz”!

[Honeycombe8]

17. Two problems with that. 1-no, smoking just one cig a day permanently harms your lungs...

(it kills some cilia, which never grow back). 2- tobacco is addictive, unlike sodas. Some say sugar is addictive (I should know, since I've had to control my love of sugar), but it's really habit forming, rather than clinically addictive.

[democratisphere]

3. Most people already know rot gut soda or pop isn't good for human health.

Likewise burgers and fries are bad for good health too. The food police need to back off and let people decide.

[Princess Turandot]

4. They didn't block warning messages on soda adverts across the board..

The appellate court was asked to review a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction while the case was being heard. They granted the preliminary injunction: in order to do so, they needed to determine if the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of this particular case at trial. They decided that it was, in large part because the city could not convince them that requiring 20% of an ad-space to be devoted to the warning wasn't 'unduly burdensome' to the businesses. The case has now been send back to the district court for trial.

It was a unanimous decision by 11 judges.

From the opinion:

To be clear, we do not hold that a warning occupying 10% of product labels or advertisements necessarily is valid, nor do we hold that a warning occupying more than 10% of product labels or advertisements necessarily is invalid. See id. (“We express no view on the legality of a similar disclosure requirement that is better supported or less burdensome.”). Rather, we hold only that, on this record, Defendant has not carried its burden to demonstrate that the Ordinance’s requirement is not “unjustified or unduly burdensome.” The required warnings therefore offend Plaintiffs ’First Amendment rights by chilling protected speech'. Case: 16-16072, 01/31/2019, ID: 11173788, DktEntry: 158-1, Page 16 of 40 (16 of 70)

[Honeycombe8]

5. Good. This anti-soda movement is getting ridiculous.

I bet they wanted to include those sugar warnings even on Diet Coke, which has no sugar.

I'm aware of the obestity and diabetes problem in America. People are eating wrong and not exercising, and are eating too much. But we all know that all the sugar in processed foods and drinks are bad for you. We don't need to add labels that state the obvious and which seem to be aimed at curtailing the sodas from being sold.

Ultimately, this is a free country. We are free to eat and drink what we want. It's a person's own responsibility to make better choices. Adding another label adds to cost, too. At least initially.

[BuddhaGirl]

8. Some soda consumers

are probably completely unaware of how bad for one's health that soda is.

Yes, they are out there. There is nothing wrong with a label informing people of the unhealthiness.

Oh, and diet soda is just as unhealthy. smh

[Polybius]

25. So should they be on cheeseburgers and pizza too?

Or just sodas?

[Mosby]

32. they are required to show calories on menus

And menu boards.

Not the same thing I know, but the idea is to help consumers make better food choices.

[Aristus]

10. Food marketers are still required by law to post the ingredients on the food packaging.

But they are deliberately misleading consumers as to whether their products contain sugar or HFCS. Since 2010, consumption of HFCS has decreased dramatically, likely because medical providers like me are informing our patients as to how devious these marketers can be.

It's not just as simple as declaring that sugar-laden beverages like Gatorade and Powerade are 'health' or 'sports' drinks. They're actually using euphemisms to mislead anyone examining the packaging for the ingredients.

Not every product containing High Fructose Corn Syrup comes right out and says so. Some say 'fruit syrup', 'corn syrup', 'fructose syrup', etc. Jugs of non-dairy creamer include the ingredient 'evaporated cane juice'. It's insidious. Consumers have a right to know if what they are purchasing is harmful. If they know, and they purchase it anyway, that's different. But we need an informed citizenry.

[BuddhaGirl]

22. +1

n/t

[kimbutgar]

7. So corporations now have more power than local communities who want to protect its citizens

Bull shit. I voted for this. I bet the judge was one of those right wingers appointed by the repukes.

[GulfCoast66]

11. It was a unanimous ruling by 11 judges. So the OP said.

So perhaps the problem is not the judges but the law?

[dkhbrit]

15. This is of course the right ruling

Singling out a single food/beverage is simply not appropriate. What about candy? Chips? Fast Food? Pastries?

[Aussie105]

28. How can you say

that soda is ok if the person lives an otherwise healthy life style?

Watching the sugar content of what you put in your mouth IS part of a healthy lifestyle.

Bit like saying smoking is ok, as long as you don't breathe in the smoke.

Not up with US food labelling laws, but here in Australia it is really easy to pick the peanut butter low in sugar (and salt) from that loaded with them, every food item has labels telling me what is in them.

Once you get off sugar for a while, other tastes like no sugar coffee, a lemon eaten fresh, become your friend. And you discover how pervasive sugar from any origin is - after all, it is a cheap filler, a cheap thickener, a cheap preservative.

[Snellius]

29. Just stay away from my donuts. Bacon too.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2019, 08:15 AM - Edit history (1)

The CA courts have overruled a number of fairly ludicrous state laws, instituted usually thru initiatives. The best was when citizens voted to not allow subscription TV, what was called "pay TV", a ballot measure heavily funded with a barrage of ads by the movie industry, of course, and it won. Needless to say, the state supreme court overturned it.