“…the police shouldn’t be drinking soda anyway.” Huh? The speaker was referring to Berkeley’s sugar ban and a new recommendation asking the
… City of Berkeley departments and City food services contractors to refrain from: 1. Procuring sugar-sweetened beverages with City funds; 2. Selling sugar-sweetened beverages on City property, including in vending machines; and 3. Serving sugar-sweetened beverages at City meetings and events on City property.
Now, Berkeley is going ban the sale of soda in vending machines on city property. What are you saying Berkeley? Grown people who work for the city can’t make informed decisions? Adults in your employ need to be told what to eat? Police who handle life and death situation, serve and protect, can’t be allowed to make their beverage choice?
This is not about the tax a on SSBs¹ or ban on SSBs in school as much as it is about a statement “…the police shouldn’t be drinking sodas anyway.” Where is the balance between protect and control. Are there other ways to address the health impact? Think about this. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one, if you don’t like gay marriage, get gay married. If you don’t like sodas as a beverage choice?
¹The efforts to tax sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) and ban the sale of SSBs in schools have been around for 7 years in efforts to combat obesity and diabetes. The studies are indisputable; sugary drinks increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and gout. Some statistics, one sugary drink per day can increase a child’s risk of becoming overweight by 60%, while adults with the same habit are 26% more likely to be overweight alarming.
“WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that it encroached upon the free-speech of soda advertisers in September of 2017.