• Says warning labels would lead to higher production costs
• California effort “unnecessary” because FDA will update labels
• Argues obesity more complicated than singling out sugared drinks
The association said, “Senate Bill 1000 is a red tape nightmare that would result in higher overhead costs, which ultimately would be passed on to consumers in California.”
CalBev said further: “The last thing California needs is a confusing labeling law that creates barriers to opening new businesses, right as our economy is slowly starting to recover.”
It says the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already has plans to change nutrition labels, and both the president and the agency already introduced the first new update to nutrition labels in 20 years.
“It doesn’t make sense for California to waste time and taxpayer money singling out sugar-sweetened beverage containers when there’s a new national effort already underway to update nutrition information on all food and beverage packaging,” argued CalBev.
There are also confusing exemptions in SB 1000, it said. The bill “is written so that milk-based products like frappuccinos and mochas are exempt from warning labels – even though some of those products contain just as many or more calories than soda. It’s confusing, and just doesn’t make sense.”
Citing MayoClinic.com, CalBev argued that obesity and related diseases, like diabetes, have multiple risk factors, including genetics, age, stress and even lack of sleep.
“A warning label that singles out certain beverages will have no effect on a problem as complex as obesity, and do nothing to help people understand the importance of balance and moderation in the diet. Obesity is more complicated than a warning label,” CalBev said.
RELATED STORIES
Toxic ingredients found on bottled drinks labels