CA bill to label sugary sodas, says sugar consumption leads to diabetes

State Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) and the California Medical Assn. said the legislation is necessary because research links sugary drink consumption to skyrocketing rates of diabetes, tooth decay and obesity.

SB 1000 would require a warning label on the front of all cans and bottles of soda and fruit drinks sold in stores with added sweeteners that have 75 or more calories per 12 ounces.

The label would read: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.”

Wow, I have diabetes, and I just had no idea that this was possible!

Sen. Monning's contact info: State Capitol, Room 4066, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4017.

Oh. Em. Gee.


OMG as in Oh My God

Well not to ruffle any feathers, but I applaud his efforts whether we agree 100% or not. I certainly wouldn’t have taxed my fragile pancreas for years without knowing by drinking garbage like soda if I could have read the future-- in that sense I would agree that it contributed to my condition.

Thanks, Melitta; I was trying to think in English; silly me!

Ugh no, shame on this senator.

Well drinking soda contributes to obesity, obesity contributes to diabetes. Pretty sound ad scientific logic on his part I think, don’t you? What’s wrong with labeling a product that’s known to be hazardous to health ? Nobody objects to warnings on cigarettes or alchohol ? I really don’t see what’s wrong with this. I say good for him

I find it a little hard to criticize legislation that seems positive even if the reasoning is flawed. Geez, if they had listened to the ADA and the federal government they would have created a warning that dietary fat contributes to obesity and diabetes. That is in fact the central tenant of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) funded by the our much loved government and the ADA. It is a small step in a positive direction although it may also be a step in a random direction.

Drinking beverages with added sugar does not contribute to the causal factors of autoimmune diabetes and monogenic diabetes.

I sent emails to both Senator Monning's office but also to Dr. Harold Goldstein of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which is sponsoring the legislation. I received a swift response from Dr. Goldstein saying, "Thanks so much for reaching out. You are absolutely right! Sugary drinks do not cause Type 1 diabetes." I appreciate his response.

There isn't any evidence that sweetened beverages has any role in the emergence of any kind of diabetes. But clearly sweetened beverages can have a negative impact on both T1, T2 and MODY diabetes. If I were struck with T1 diabetes, the last thing I would want to do is guzzle sweetened sodas in a valiant attempt to quench my thirst.

Granted, they do not cause t1 diabetes— but how many of the t1 diabetics on here would allow their non diabetic children to drink sugary soda when we are concerned they may be at an elevated risk or diabetes from a genetic standpoint. Why or why not? I think we need to be a little more selective when picking our battles.

I must add that this legislation rankles me (in part) because Monning's waste of time and our tax dollars to legislate an already proven scientific fact (insofar as obesity and tooth decay) bypasses the beverage industry that replaced cane sugar with high fructose corn syrup (because the latter is more cost-effective (read: profitable)).

It's another fine example of treating the symptom rather than the cause.

The point is there is no causal relationship Sam. While there may be some genetic predisposition to getting an autoimmune disease like T1 diabetes, or even T1 diabetes itself, there is no reason to think drinking sugary sodas will precipitate an autoimmune attack on your islet cells.

As a T1 diabetic, I would not stop my daughter from drinking sugary drinks if her getting T1 diabetes because of it were all I were worried about.

As far as T2 goes, there seems to be a strong genetic component that can be inherited, but the link between obesity and T2 are correlative.

That being said, there are plenty of other reasons to limit intake of sugary drinks like sodas. It most definitely contributes to obesity which contributes to all kinds of health issues. I have no problem with warning labels in particular. I, however, am not clear on the reason for choosing caloric content rather than sugar content, or even carb content.

It's just a poorly written bill and if you are going to take the time to write legislation, take the time to write good legislation.

Actually if I have kids some day and they want soda and want a sugared one I'd let them have them. I'd teach them moderation though. Not because I think they'll get diabetes or get overweight but just the overall health of a child depends more on healthy foods and not junk (I honestly worry most about their teeth and bones with sugared soda) . I mean we will have diet soda in the house (and only 1 can a day AT MOST for anyone) , but if we're out and about and they want a little cup of regular soda that they don't have very often, why not? Sugar doesn't cause type 1 diabetes, type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune attack. Also type 1 is not as hereditary as type 2 is unless both parents have type 1 and/or there's Autoimmune Polyendocrine syndrome type 2? They're at risk of type 1 as much as the general population and type 1 is not extremely common. Why restrict a healthy kid who can learn to have treats once in a while from a treat?

Just because I'm a diabetic and want to be a mom, doesn't mean I won't be a no fun allowed person on sweets and soda when I have kids. I still eat sweets (I don't drink regular soda though because I don't want to drink my carbs unless it's coffee) and have no problems with that as long as I dose my insulin correctly.

Melitta, would help if I also contacted Goldstein. I guess having "diabetes" iin the legislation gives it a better chance at getting passed, but sugar alone doesn't cause type 2 - and nor does obesity: you gotta have the genetics for that one, and not all overweight people have type 2, and not all PWD2's are overweight. But maybe that's getting to nitpicky on my part.

Sam, you have a valid point.

I think what bothers many of us -- speaking for myself in particular -- the errors in this information, and more importantly, the role it plays in stigmatizing T2 diabetics.

Linking sugar as a cause for T2 diabetes reinforces the "it's your fault" perception that we have to fight all the time. Going forward with something that might result in beneficial outcome, but further poison the dialog and public perception about diabetics is not worth it.

A bill like this should stand on its own merits. Sugar is not bad. Just like water, oxygen, and vitamin B1 are not bad. However, in excess they can have deleterious effects on your health.

Breathing pure oxygen for long enough can damage your lungs. Overhydrating can kill a person. Yet, both water and oxygen are essential, life-sustaining parts of our lives.

So is sugar. While one can get by on absolutely no carbs at all, it's a pretty extreme mode of nutrition. As ominivores, we've evolved to derived energy from a variety of sources, carbs among them.

Finally, for a person who doesn't have diabetes, is fit, and has no genetic predisposition to developing diabetes, there's no basis for telling them it's unhealthy to drink sugary sodas. It's not. It's simply food. And it's very wrong to lie to them on labeling and worry them that they may get diabetes from drinking coke.

That's why I get riled at the term "diabesity" (Francine Kaufman coined that term and she of all people should know better). Not all PWD2's are overweight and not all overweight people have type 2. In fact, research has shown that type 2 is probably the cause of the overweight symptom than the other way around. Talk about being between a rock and a hard spot. Losing weight helps to lessen the insulin resistance, but the insulin resistance contributes to weight gain (another reason I am glad that if I had to have D I have type 1 - I think it is easier to manage)

And as long as the general public - and many healthcare people - blame PWD2's those of us with type 1 are blamed as well.


As we've come to understand insulin's impact on various tissues, the old "insulin helps glucose get in to the body's cells for energy" idea is so grossly outdated and wrong... But it is still the prevailing understanding of insulin in the general public, and shockingly, among too many doctors.

One effect of insulin is to stimulate the production of fatty acids from glucose in adipose tissue (as well as taking up plasma glucose). The theory -- gaining empirical support -- is that Insulin Resistance causes enormous increases in plasma insulin levels (hyperinsulinemia), which of course causes adipose tissue to go in to overdrive "making fat" from sugar in the blood that the liver and muscle are having a hard time absorbing due to IR.

So, IR, caused by T2, skews the body to storing carbs as fat rather than glycogen because of the high insulin levels. Worse, insulin also inhibits conversion of fat back into glucose, exacerbating the situation.

A lot of fat people very may well be that way not because they're overeating slobs, but because they've had T2 diabetes for years, but their pancreas is still able to counter their IR and keep BG levels normal, all the while doing so by turning up the glucose->fat conversion pathway.

This, BTW, makes weight control much more problematic for T2's, like myself, who are treating tight with insulin. The quantities I have to take to stay in a normal BG range, because of IR, are astonishing.

Low carbing for an tight-controlling T2 is really non-optional.