Image 01 Image 03

CA Bill Would Make ‘Water or Milk’ Default Restaurant Beverage Choices for Kids

CA Bill Would Make ‘Water or Milk’ Default Restaurant Beverage Choices for Kids

“Some of these kids are drinking up to three sodas a day.”

A new bill making its way through the California legislature would require unflavored milk or water to be the default beverage choices for children in restaurants. The nanny state never goes away, it just thinks of new ways to tell you and your family what to do.

Jillian Harding reports at CBS News:

California wants to curb kids’ soda habits

California is stepping up efforts to curb children’s consumption of sugary drinks with a bill that, if signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, would restrict what beverages restaurants may offer to kids.

The measure requires restaurants to serve water or milk with kids’ meals instead of soda or juice. Supporters include the American Cancer Society, which encourages limiting sugar intake as a way to prevent obesity.

“Some of these kids are drinking up to three sodas a day. This is setting them up for tremendous cancer risks down the road. Because now we know that 20 percent of all cancers are tied to being overweight,” Stephanie Winn of the American Cancer Society told CBS affiliate KOVR.

Opponents of the bill say it’s the job of parents or caregivers, not the state, to determine what kids should consume.

“I think the government shouldn’t determine what’s available when I as a mother know what’s best with my child,” Inez Deocio said.

Alexei Koseff of the Sacramento Bee has more:

Senate Bill 1192, which passed the Assembly on Thursday, would allow customers to specifically order alternatives, such as soda or juice. The bill is silent on whether the restaurant would have to change extra for the substitute.

Several Republican members criticized SB 1192 for allowing the government to step in and take over parents’ role and for putting further burdens on small businesses.

“Seriously, like, what’s next?” Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, asked. “Are we going to insist that you have to have kale in your salad unless you specifically ask otherwise?”

Here’s the CBS News video report:

You might like the idea of making decisions like these on your own, but a recent op-ed by Benjamin Winig at Mercury News shows the nanny state does have supporters:

California should require warning labels on soda

Blackmail. Extortion. Shakedown.

Those words were used to describe the soda industry’s latest attack on California. Its lobbyists this summer strong-armed state legislators into making it illegal for cities and counties to adopt sugary-drink taxes and undermined peoples’ hopes to improve their health and well-being.

But while Big Soda may have been successful in temporarily interfering with local democracy, they can’t deny the facts. Sugary drinks are making us sick.

Despite sugar-industry-funded research that deliberately minimized the health risks of sugar consumption, a clear and compelling body of evidence now shows a strong relationship between consumption of sugary drinks and chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and heart, liver, and dental diseases. In fact, every year, 40,000 deaths in the U.S. are attributed to heart problems caused specifically by consuming too many sugary beverages…

Health warnings are one of government’s best strategies for educating people about the risks of what they consume. In the case of tobacco and alcohol, warning labels have proved not only effective but also legally sound. The same is true for sugary drinks.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



I thought they understood Prohibition doesn’t work.

I think America has gone Prohibition crazy. All we need is laws and GOVERNMENT enforcers and we can fix anything.

The right eggs this along by believing (despite the evidence) that Drug Prohibition can work. Which sets a fine example for gun prohibitionists.

And I should add that the violence Drug Prohibition causes is being used as an excuse to control guns. Just as it was in 1920 to 1933. How smart do you have to be to ignore that bit of history? Very.

    Elzorro in reply to MSimon. | August 19, 2018 at 12:43 pm

    The needy left is the democrat base. Like the Cuban communists. The grand socialist revolution. But they blame all their problems on the evil capitalist embargo. IOW the need the capitalists to finance their scheme. It is not self ‘sustainable’. They bite the hand that feeds them.

These people and their God complexes

On the other hand, I was grocery shopping and the couple ahead of me had nothing but chips, candy and soda in their cart.

Part of me said they were welfare recipients, but I decided not to check out how they were paying.

I hate feeling superior but apparently that’s not a concern in California

I do think certain things you shouldn’t be able to buy on food stamps, like candy, soda, beer, you get the picture, it should all be real food.

    tom_swift in reply to gonzotx. | August 19, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    it should all be real food.

    The perils of allowing any government agency to determine what is “real food” should be obvious.

    I expect that eventually all they’ll be allowed to buy would be carrot juice and salads.

      puhiawa in reply to tom_swift. | August 19, 2018 at 2:10 pm

      Actually, not too long ago, foodstamps could not be used for candy or sugar/diet drinks. Chips were OK as were jams and jellies, but there were a bunch of items prohibited by the Department of Agriculture. All based on common sense and likely school lunch and home meal scenarios. No grocer had trouble complying.

      It is fairly well established that carbohydrates and sugar are to some extent causing the diabetes explosion.

      Carbohydrates in the diet is promoted by the US Government.

      Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | August 19, 2018 at 4:12 pm

      If they’re paying for it with government money, why shouldn’t the government dictate what they buy? If the regs get silly (as they will) then maybe people will decide it’s too much trouble and not spend the money, so the taxpayer will save.

    Close The Fed in reply to gonzotx. | August 19, 2018 at 4:49 pm

    Agree with GonzoTx on both counts:
    Govt. shouldn’t do this, but my gosh, parents are doing a crappy job as anyone can tell just by seeing all the fat kids walking around.

    If they pay with govt. $$, refuse it!!!

I think we should stop calling it the nanny state and start calling it what it is: Tyranny.

The Micro Manage Everybody’s Little Lives State. The Self-Important State. The Tyrant State.

    plauer in reply to irv. | August 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm

    Uncle Adolph would be so proud.
    Part of the Nazi philosophy was that rather then the state existing for the benifit of the people, the people exist for the benifit of the state.

The grocery chains and their lobbyists have slowly changed what can be bought. It used to be no prepared foods at all, but now you can buy the deli food as long as it isn’t hot, so they have cold meals in a bowl and a microwave on the other side of the cash register. But because it isn’t a gun, it isn’t a loophole. Similarly, “they” can buy (4) 36packs of water, go to the parking lot, empty out the water and run the containers through the redemption machine to get $14.40 in cash so they can go back in and buy 2 packs of ciggies and a couple of 24oz beers, the typical hot lunch for the homeless. And of course, it is all first bought on the extremely inappropriately named “independence card” because apparently “parasite card” was poorly received by some. Giving money to these people just allows them to make bad decisions in a slightly grander style. There are few absolute truths in the universe, but the guy asking for money for food while smoking a ciggie is one of them.

The basic fact is that the majority these days don’t mind acting like total parasites with zero responsibility even without .gov encouraging that behavior. The power base of the left comes from those whose votes are wholly dependent of a constant stream of entitlements. Just look at how visciously Emmanuel was attacked last week for even suggesting that the peeps of Chi-town (hmmm Shyte-town has a ring to it) take even a slight bit of responsibility for what is happening there.

    Granny in reply to MajorWood. | August 19, 2018 at 1:37 pm

    You have been able to buy deli food with Food Stamps since at the very least the 1970s. That is nothing new. Just not hot food. You cannot buy beer with Food Stamps and never have been able to.

    As far as chips, cake, cookies and anything else “righteous indignation” tells you that the poor “shouldn’t” have, being poor hasn’t been a crime in this country for many decades. We’ve closed the Work Houses. Even the schools cannot administer their free school lunch programs in any that makes it apparent (even slightly) which children receive free lunch and which do not.

    Bear in mind that unless you are independently wealthy or have thousands set aside for emergency cash, you too are just about 2 pay checks away from the food stamp line yourself.

      gonzotx in reply to Granny. | August 19, 2018 at 2:23 pm

      Well ms granny, people DO buy cigarettes and crap food that should not be allowed to do with food stamps

      The key word here is food…

      When I was a child my family WAS on food stamps for a short time and we literally had bags of dried beans, cheese and butter blocks.

      Nothing wrong with limiting “food” stamps to real food

      You want Fritos, my suggestion is to go get a job.

      Reminds me of the welfare recipients in Wisconsin in the 70’’s protesting because their kid didn’t have new coats…I was in college and all my clothes were second hand…

      Advise again, get a job!

        Granny in reply to gonzotx. | August 19, 2018 at 4:24 pm

        Those bags of dried beans, butter, etc. were not purchased with food stamps. They were given out for free to food stamp recipients, the elderly and disabled by way of the USDA Commodity Food program. (I used to run a food bank.)

        As far as people who “do” buy cigarettes, etc. Before SNAP benefits (the current name for food stamps) was put onto a card people did indeed buy a stick of gum and then use the change for smokes and toilet paper. That is no longer possible and hasn’t been for decades. Any store owner who is processing SNAP benefits for disallowed items is breaking the law, defrauding the Food Stamp program and can be jailed.

        Food stamps have always been for FOOD. PERIOD. And in states that abide by the Federal guidelines things like soda, candy and birthday cake are 100% eligible for purchase with Food Stamps and always have been. There was a short period of time when some states did try to limit the foods that could be purchased but that was overturned as discrimination.

      Milhouse in reply to Granny. | August 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm

      Being poor isn’t a crime, but it also doesn’t entitle you to anything. I don’t want to pay for your junk food. If you want it, pay for it yourself, but if you do that you obviously don’t need my help.

      Anonamom in reply to Granny. | August 19, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      When one takes handouts from other people, one shouldn’t be surprised when those other people want to provide input as to how their money is spent.

      Barry in reply to Granny. | August 19, 2018 at 10:32 pm

      Last time I heard from Granny she didn’t believe it possible to feed a family of four on $60 – $80 a week. But it can be done with good choices.

Coming soon…Water and bread only. They must be acclimated to life in the american gulag.

OnTheLeftCoast | August 19, 2018 at 12:39 pm

Lawsuit because “You served my child milk and xe is allergic” in 3,2,1…

Another reason to be glad I do not live in California.

When you hear them spout off about what is ‘sustainable’ they are tolking about other peoples money, their life blood. What parasite is smart enoungh not to suck every drop of blood out of the host?

Order a soft drink and hand it to your kid. Then what? Pay an extra tax to the state? Have your insurance rates raised? Get hauled away by the fuzz? Get doxed on social media so SJWs can hound you at your doorstep? What if the one-in-a-trazillion happens and this twaddle actually passes? When this fails to have the desired effect is the next step to mandate that kids can only receive kiddie meals? What’s the age limit for a “kid?” I seem to remember that in some circumstances it was considered to be 25.

Every time I start to think that the BS has reached its limit, some fool reminds that there is no limit.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to tkdkerry. | August 19, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    Bad news. It did pass and is now “on the governor’s desk” awaiting a signature, or veto. The governor is Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Odds of a veto appear long…

Occasional Thinker | August 19, 2018 at 12:50 pm

I remember reading about the problem estrogen in milk was causing with prepubescent development. The good (from a make viewpoint) was more breast development in females but it was counterbalanced by hindering some testosterone controlled development in males. I guess in California the latter would be a great reason to force feed more milk to children.

Second point, I will not make a donation to any nonprofit organization, American Cancer in this article, that advocates to strip our freedoms through legislation “for our own good”. Research, educate, offer assistance to victims and I will support you. The first time you advocate for legislation to tell me what I can’t do for my own good and never another penny. And United Way exists to funnel money to organizations most people would not voluntarily support, in my opinion.

” As O’Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped.

Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.

‘You can turn it off!’ he said.

‘Yes,’ said O’Brien, ‘we can turn it off. We have that privilege.’

– 1984, Orwell

The California legislature is racist. They are targeting hispanics.

I used to work at a Dairy Queen, and the families would come in, and always get soft drinks for the kids, some of whom had large, visible, black cavities on their baby teeth, not to mention terrible bad breath.

These were the kids that were being given sugary drinks before bedtime on a regular basis.

“Some of these kids are drinking up to three sodas a day…

Uh, so what? If they’re young and active, they burn off the sugar. Juices, orange, grape, apple, whatever, have just as much sugar if not more. And are much more expensive.

As long as kids are getting enough of what they need, eating more “junk food” won’t hurt them. My sister-in-law limited her kids snacks. Her kids grew up into overweight adults. Snacks were always available in my house. My youngest had to recently work to gain 8 pounds so he wasn’t underweight for his military entrance exam. He joined a gym, used protein supplements, and put it on as muscle. Without slowing down junk food consumption.

Wait….we have an obesity problem with kids? I keep hearing these radio ads about 20% of children going hungry. What is it, you tyrants? Are they hungry or are they fat?

Emotional dictatorship such as this is why I trust no one on the left.

    They often conflate hunger with “food insecurity” which is a proggie fabrication meaning that someone feels insecurity about where their next meal will come from.

    Call me old fashioned, but a little “insecurity” just MIGHT motivate Mommy and Daddy not to poop out another mouth to feed, or to perhaps GO GET A JOB. Pay for your own food!

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | August 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm

      Food insecurity is a real thing, not some lefty invention. It’s bad. None of us would like to experience it, and those of us who are experiencing it hate it. But it’s not hunger. There are many people in the world who are actually hungry, and would love to be merely unsure where their next meal was coming from, but to be reasonably sure it would somehow come, if only at a soup kitchen or food pantry, or from some kind stranger. To the best of my knowledge there is a lot of food insecurity in the US, but no actual hunger.

Would be interesting if the soft drink makers boycotted the state. No cans, no bottles, no syrup, pay black market prices if you want it.

The sugar of our youth is not the sugar of Archer Daniels Midland. Kids, well, kids of ignorant irresponsible parents, are basically being sedated by what are essentially artificial sweeteners. Adderal + HFCS = normal?

So, it is like seatbelts. Smart people wear them because the upside far outweighs the downside. But at the same time, I object to there being a law which requires me to wear one, even though I would anyway. I don’t object to the message being sent since it is one I employ anyway, I just object to it being sent in the form of a tax or a mandate. As in all things, you can’t legislate against stupidity.

There is a solution to the artificial sweeteners issue. Don’t provide health care coverage. This makes people responsible for their choices. People used to learn smart behavior by seeing the consequences that were dealt to stupid people. But in today’s world, there are no longer massive financial consequences to stupidity. Ruin your body, Obama will fix it, for free. That is the message being sent. I am a healthy person because I am cheap (according to my son) although I prefer to look at it as thrifty. I don’t like to give away my money, so I learned to act in a healthy way that allows me to spend as much of my money on things that I want, as opposed to donating it to the local hospital or to a full-coverage health plan that I’ll likely ever use (God I miss my high deductible catastrophic plan). So the big problem with the artificial sweeteners is that some of the long-term thinking socialists are now realizing that by offering to provide health care to everyone, they are actually going to have to provide long term health care, and the growing population of future type-II’s is going to drain that budget right quick (which all the Leftists thought was going to be “their free money”). Obesity is dangerous on pretty much every front, not just general organ failure. Just look at the increase in knee and hip replacements due to increased weight loading, which far exceeds just an increase due to longevity. The average age for these procedures is decreasing to where those in their 40’s are now getting them. There is one kid who frequents our local library who we call the Michelin Boy, because every day he shows up with a 64 oz slurpee. He is 16 and well over 300 lbs at 5’6″. It puts me on a moral fence because CPR is in this kids future, and I really don’t want to be the one doing it. He probably needs a bunch of therapy, but for now, the slurpee is the cheap alternative.

My ex does health-care financing research at the national level, and we have interesting conversations regarding prevention strategies. The HMO’s are looking down the road and are seeing how prevention really helps the bottom line. They aren’t being generous by putting a health club membership in as a benefit. That is $$$ in the bank as future money that doesn’t need to be spent.

What I don’t understand about penny-ante approach to such laws in CA and everywhere else the nanny-state conspires to control every element in our lives, is WHY THE HELL the public and opponents in the legislature don’t INSIST on a more comprehensive approach to thwart nanny-state BS?

Is life simply eating and drinking? Sugar ban? Straw ban? Only cow-juice can be called “milk”? You’d think so based on actions taken by the nanny-state legislature. Why NOT push the nanny-staters to come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses the health of the WHOLE man, i.e., mind, body and spirit?

As for the mind, let’s look at what these kids are watching on TV, what they’re seeing on the internet, the video games they’re playing – what is good for the development of a healthy mind and what isn’t. Let’s study and legislate that, too.

Oh, and spiritual development – just yesterday I read where the children of parents who pray and practice spiritual faith, are less inclined to commit suicide. Let’s study and legislate that, too.

I would expect nanny-staters to argue that the realm of the mind and spirit is a bridge too far … and yet in terms of the health of a society are far more important than food. But banning sugar is the same mentality that motivates them to attack guns and the 2A every time some psycho shoots up a soft-target.

“A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”

Et Caveat Emptor

And do NOT even think about giving any plastic straws to children to drink their milk or water from – or any other liquid

If this passes, it should also be illegal for any state, county, or city building to serve anything but milk or plain water.

Except in times of drought. Then milk only.

amatuerwrangler | August 19, 2018 at 4:05 pm

Allow me to add some more factual info. (I read the law.)

Along with water and milk, also allowed is flavored sparkling water and non-dairy milk substitutes; you can already see where this ends up. The law applies to “children’s meal” that include a beverage, not anything and everything served to children. The law provides that one can specifically request some other beverage.

My reading left me with this scenario: a six-year old walks into McD’s and orders a Happy Meal. He will only be allowed the “big 4” unless he specifically asks for, say, root beer. Nothing says who is allowed to override the requirements, let along just how the whole children’s meal thing works. There are many more inconsistencies and conflicts in there, in my opinion.

And those complaining of obesity do not explain how the “sugary drink” is more of a problem than the cheeseburger, mac & cheese, and/or french fries.

Hmm. An unintended side effect (like with the PCBS on campuses blinding millennials)… maybe the next generation, having had to actively demand straws and root beer in their youth… Maybe they won’t be so easy to control with complacency.

I remember my first date with wife. Waiter seated us at small corner table near kitchen door. I calmly said no and walked us all over to a table of my choice. She was shocked, it never occurred to her that you could do that.

Look, the enlightened and benevolent California Dumb-o-crat apparatchiks know what is best for one’s self and for one’s children; who are we benighted peasants to question their decisions?

The apparatchiks must necessarily exert control over every facet of daily life, no matter how trivial, because we lumpenproletariat are too busy spending time on Legal Insurrection to properly manage our lives.

Don’t be such a bunch of petulant ingrates, comrades.

There is a theory, called Paleoweltschmerz, which expresses a possible explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs. It claims that dinosaurs became so disillusioned with their ancient world that they died of boredom.

I see this in our future.

Do you know how many children suffer from milk allergies? They will need to be sure and have milk alternatives, such as soy, rice, almond, cashew available and clearly marked on the menu.

And there will need to be a law passed governing the lead and mineral content in the water served to children. An agency will need to be performed to test it.

    MajorWood in reply to elle. | August 21, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    They will have to label them “beverage alternatives” if it is a substance that doesn’t come from lactation. 😉 As a comedian once said, “you know what they don’t have in Africa? Food allergies.”

As long as they don’t drink it with a plastic straw. . .

If the Founding Fathers could see this…
They may not have bothered.
The job of the Government is to secure the Nation, and defend Liberty.