When the dietary dictators at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called on the Food and Drug Administration to require warning labels on soda cans, they again pushed the envelope to the point of absurdity. But as we told The Kansas City Star, “This is more of a media stunt than a serious effort to get the FDA to act.” Thankfully, the media appears to be seeing CSPI’s radical agenda for what it is: laughable.
As usual, the Center for Consumer Freedom led the fight against CSPI’s goal of dietary domination. The Washington Post reported on our full-page ad, which warned: “CSPI bases its policy suggestions on the premise that people cannot make good food and beverage decisions without government intervention in the form of bans, taxes, lawsuits and restrictions.” Plenty of others were nonplussed with CSPI’s call for warning labels.
In an editorial, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review stated of CSPI’s effort:
Its hopelessly unscientific report “Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans’ Health” blames sugar for childhood health problems … But while the do-gooders may understand health, they know not human behavior.
The Chronicle-Tribune in Indiana also editorialized against the absurd plan:
This is a nanny effort that should lose its fizz. The food police at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who would love to regulate our lives into their own little worldviews because, well, they just think they’re smarter than we are, have come up with another plan … But we have a wealth of role models and other aids available without the Nanny State riding to our rescue.
Finally, a columnist from The Globe and Mail asked:
Obesity is caused by excess calories, not one food. If obesity warnings are stamped on soft drinks, should we not also add warning labels to potato chips, chocolate bars, cookies, even televisions and video games?