California City Moves to Ban Selling Soda to Children

Government Will “Protect the Children” From Carbonated Drinks

by Josh Guckert

This week, the Davis City Council voted unanimously to make milk and water the “default beverages” for kids’ meals. The ordinance would mandate, under threat of a fine, that restaurants market only water or milk (rather than sodas) as the companion drinks to food options directed towards children.

The proposal requires a second council vote to pass it, and it would then go into effect on September 1. Under the ordinance, parents would still be able to order soda for their children, but it would necessitate a special request.

The ordinance comes in spite of the fact that many restaurants and companies have in recent years begun marketing healthier options in kids’ meals. For example, two years ago, McDonald’s announced plans to advertise water, low-fat milk and 100 percent fruit juice in its Happy Meals, rather than soda.

Davis officials point to the fact that one-fifth of the city’s restaurants still offer sugar-filled drinks as their default option. Under the proposal, if a citizen claims that a restaurant is promoting soda, the city will first reach out to the restaurant, and then begin issuing fines starting at $100.

Perhaps most ominously, Julie Gallelo, who directs the county commission that pushed the project over the past 18 months, suggested that the move is a small part of a bigger picture, saying that, “I think it just brings us all one step closer to an overall healthy children’s meal menu . . . Start with the sugar, and maybe hit the fats later on.”

Rather unsurprisingly, clearly missing in any analyses offered as to such legislation are the rights to self-ownership and individual liberty. While the Davis City Council may claim that such a regulation is minor in that it permits parents to “override” the drink choices offered by specifically requesting soda, this obviously places parents in a position below that of the state; in other words, government has the first word on the matter, and legal guardians are placed second in line.

Instead of placing demands upon private vendors, the government ought to allow parents to be the sole deciders in their children’s diets. Of course some may be better than others at determining what is best for the general welfare of their kids; however, inserting state bureaucracy into family life is not going to cure any dietary problems, which are much more deeply rooted than the simple ordering of a soda at a restaurant.

This kind of tactic only creates another intrusion into the lives of Americans, as the state attempts to perversely place itself into the role of a “parent,” suggesting that it is the “care-taker” of its citizens. Simply put, this policy is less about nutrition and more about power, control and demanded obedience.

If the free market wishes to see healthier menus and choices, its demands will make it so. As can be seen, the influx of nutritional education into society has led to plenty of public pressure for restaurants to change their options, both in their presentations and their menus. Voluntary changes and capitalist influences through natural market forces will always be more effective in both satisfying customers and addressing any arising health concerns.

While this sort of intervention in daily life may seem benign, allowing government such influence in a rather important part of our lives demands that state actors be given a special status in regards to our most private decisions. Particularly when dealing with families, decisions should be left to the actors without an agenda, and those who most often have children’s best interests at heart. When such authority is ceded to cold and calculating bureaucrats, the result is that individual circumstances are too often disregarded in favor of what is determined to be the supposed “general good.”