| Or even some "coffee" drinks. Black coffee? Pretty healthy, just water and caffeine. 0 calories. 0g sugar. 0g sodium. A Starbucks "White Chocolate Mocha"? 530 calories, 320mg of sodium, 69g of sugar per 20 oz "Venti" serving. That's twice as many calories as a 20 oz Coke, with twice as much sodium, and higher sugar levels. Nobody is defending soda here. Just pointing out, this good idea needs to be applied consistently or people will switch from "unhealthy" soda to "healthy" coffee drinks or "healthy" fruit juices both of which can have scary-high sugar too. I like the "color code" system they have in Europe[0]. You buy a soda and it has a red warning on the sugar/salt levels. [0] https://www.nutrition.org.uk/images/cache/537bf3c6516df64581... |
It looks like Seattle has a similar exemption: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fancy-lat...
Exemptions like these make me pause, I can see the point of such a law (though I'm libertarian and not in favor) but when exemptions like that are made I find it hard to take seriously. If the state was concerned with sweetened beverages they would apply the same measures to all of them. Taxing or applying warning labels to soda alone strikes me as a classist move as if the lower classes are too dumb to read the nutrition information.