A Stitch in Haste

We all knew it was just a matter of time (WSJ - $) --

A nutrition watchdog group asked the Food and Drug Administration to put tobacco-style labels on sugary sodas and fruit drinks warning that drinking too much of them can lead to excess weight and other health problems.

The petition by the Center for Science in the Public Interest escalates the attack on beverage giants such as Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc., blamed by some critics for partly fueling the rise in obesity rates in the U.S. CSPI claimed that sugar-laden beverages also increase the risk of or can contribute to heart disease, tooth decay, osteoporosis and diabetes.

And why exactly should there be such a warning label on soda but not on any and every food and beverage? Eating too much of even the healthiest food can make one overweight.

And, of course, can calls for a special soda tax be far behind? (Actually there already is, at least in my state: the food exemption to the state and local sales taxes does not include soda — i.e., it is subject to the sales tax, while every other non-alcoholic beverage is not. And don't forget bottle deposits.)

UPDATE: Where there's soda, there's usually food --

The Bush administration's reluctance to crack down on ads that sell calorie-laden, high-fat snacks to kids could change if the industry doesn't do a better job of policing itself, the head of the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday.

"If industry fails to demonstrate a good faith commitment to this issue and to take positive steps, others may step in and act in its stead," FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said at a conference on childhood obesity and food marketing.
...
Ongoing research by an FTC economist has thrown a new wrinkle into the mix. Pauline Ippolito, associate director of economics at the agency, said that food commercials on children's TV shows have declined by 34 percent since 1977.
...
"There appears to be no meaningful enforcement mechanism, no truly independent body with the will and the power to crack down on offenders," said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Of course, "offenders" implies an actual offense, and advertising a legal product is usually a long way from being an "offense."

But so what? Punish them anyway -- after all, they've only reduced their advertising by 34%. Which leaves 66% left to censor in the name of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling.