State Democrats introduce bill that would require labels with warnings about obesity and tooth decay but admit industry is ‘formidable lobbying force’

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Campaigners against sugary drinks have opened a new front in California with a proposal to label the drinks with warnings about obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.



Bill Monning, the state’s senate majority leader, and an influential Democrat, has introduced a bill which would require labels be placed on the front of containers or at the point of purchase.

If passed, it will set a precedent in the US and potentially transform public health policy, according to supporters.

“The root motivation for this is the continued epidemic of preventable diabetes and obesity in young people in California,” Monning told the Guardian. The problem was not just sodas, but sweet teas, sports drinks and energy drinks, he said.

“Scientific data is clear and unequivocal that the leading cause of bad caloric intake in young people is sugar-sweetened beverages. We believe that the warning label is a fundamental consumer right to know.”

The measure would apply to beverages containing added sweeteners with at least 75 calories per 12 oz. The labels would read: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.”

Senate Bill 203, introduced last week, marked the latest salvo in the battle between beverage companies and health campaigners, who compare it to the struggle to tax and put health warnings on cigarettes.

Voters in Berkeley approved America’s first tax on sugary beverages last November. Mexico, which has its own obesity and diabetes epidemic, passed a soda tax in 2013.

However, heavy spending from the beverage industry, including $9.1m from the American Beverage Association, helped defeat a similar ballot measure in San Francisco.

The industry argued a tax would unfairly hit low-income consumers, who drink more sugary sodas than wealthier people.

CalBev, which represents California’s non-alcoholic beverage industry, branded the proposed warning label a “flawed policy”that overlooked the multiple reasons for obesity and diabetes, the fact sugar intake from sugar-sweetened beverages fell by 37% over the past decade, and that Americans consume nearly twice as many calories from sweets and desserts than from sweetened beverages.

In an article for Capitol Weekly Bob Achermann, the group’s, executive director, expressed confidence California’s legislature will reject the bill.

“They are a formidable lobbying force,” said Monning. He declined to predict whether the bill will pass the senate, the assembly and be signed by Governor Jerry Brown to become law. A similar bill he sponsored last year passed in the senate but died in the assembly.

“The epidemic has not subsided, the problem is still there,” said Monning, who said the drinks’ impact on healthcare costs and insurance premiums were additional reasons to curb consumption. The former law professor vowed to persist, and expressed hope New York and other states would follow. “We’re in it for the long haul. I think time is on our side in terms of more and more public awareness of the hazards.”

Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco who has tracked the soda battles, agreed that the campaign had momentum but questioned whether the bill would become law. “It’s still pretty early in the evolution of this policy issue.”

As someone with diabetes, and the father of two young children, Cook said he had a personal interest in the subject. “Diabetes is no fun. When I’m out and I see three and five-year-olds having soda with dinner it makes me cringe. That’s astonishing to me. You sort of want to go over and say something (to the parents) but I resist.”

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health last year said consumption of sugary drinks may be linked to accelerated ageing. People who reported drinking a 350ml bottle of fizzy drink per day had DNA changes typical of cells 4.6 years older.

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown professor who specialises in public health law, said warnings on California’s sodas would probably have a marginal impact on consumption in the short term but transform the debate. “It would put it on the radar of the entire country: sugar is so dangerous that it requires a warning. That would be really transformative.”

Beverage marketing associated sugar-sweetened drinks with happiness, adventure and love but they were the worst way to consume sugar because they do not satiate people, said Gostin.

He was not optimistic the senate bill will become law, but said over time public sentiment will turn against sugary drinks, just as it did against tobacco. “The costs are adding up. It’s only going to snowball.”