[Lizzyg]

I also disagree and think its pretty ridiculous.

I think that people need to be responsible for their own choices and own up to it. The ingredients are right there on the bottle, along with the calories. Its not that hard to figure out that pop really isn't good for you, and shouldn't be sipped on constantly through out the day. Its full of sugar! Not only its it bad for your body, its horrible for your teeth too!

Anyway, I just think that people need to start thinking for themselves and use some common sense. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that drinking 20 Cokes a day isn't healthy for you.

And the whole thing about people suing restaurants because they became overweight from eating their foods is even worse than this. I'm sorry, but since when are French fries and hamburgers considered healthy foods? Its not that hard to realize that if you eat those every single day, you're going to gain weight.

I think its pretty sad that people need special interest groups or the government to think for them.

I've seen the effects of people putting Coke and other pops in babies bottles, and its horrible. People like that really shouldn't be having children if they think thats good for them. I have seen 2 and 3 year olds with teeth that are so full of decay that they have to be extracted. And parents seem to think that because they are baby teeth, its no big deal. Wrong! Its amazing how ignorant people can be sometimes. And I find it hilarious that these are the same people who drink pop all day themselves, and then claim their teeth are full of decay because they have soft enamel. And then blame their children's cavities and dental problem on soft enamel. Umm hello?!?! It couldn't be the pop could it??? They cant take responsibility for their own actions and it just bugs me to no end.

~Liz

[MrsJim]

Another thought that I had today regarding 'warning labels'.

IMO - requiring warning labels on soda pop will give 'watchdog' groups such as this a 'foot in the door' for requiring warning labels on just about any product that is sold, as there is a certain amount of inherent risk in ANYTHING we do or eat.

Using warning labels to 'warn' people of the OBVIOUS - that if you drink too many regular sodas, you run the risk of becoming fat - actually *cheapens* the warning and people end up inverably ignoring it. Think about it - the Nutrition Facts label - on EVERY single can of soda pop in the US - ALREADY cites the calories, amount of sugar and the fact that there is caffeine - if people aren't reading THAT label then why even bother with a "warning label"? Personally, I would regard it as an insult to my intelligence!

I can see proof of this right here in my state - that if warning signs are required, they blend into the landscape and people don't 'see' them, they just go ignored - as Prop 65 requires businesses to post warning signs UNLESS they submit proof to the state demonstrating that the exposure it causes poses no significant risk. (For a chemical that is listed as a carcinogen, the "no significant risk" level is defined as the level which is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, if you are exposed to the chemical in question at this level every day for 70 years, theoretically it will increase your chances of getting cancer by no more than 1 case in 100,000 individuals so exposed.)

Rather than spending the $$ to have their locations, etc tested, most businesses in California simply put up the required Prop 65 signage, which to my mind renders the 'warning signs' meaningless - like the Boy who Cried Wolf, in my mind...

As for the parents putting soda pop in their infant's bottles - enough comment has been made on that - it IS horrifying, but I don't think a warning label is going to stop them from doing what they want to do (I've heard that "it's just their baby teeth" explanation as well, BTW) anymore than the parents or caregivers who add vodka to their baby's bottle to 'help them sleep' would.