Our Federal government is going to spend approximately $164,000 to study the effects of adding a warning label to our pop/soda.  The agency that approved this spending is an agency that waste quite a bit of our taxpayer dollars and they are the National Institutes of Health.

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the study by the University of California, Davis is attempting to determine if these warning labels can:

nudge consumers toward healthier dietary choices

According to the grant:

The prevalence of adolescent and adult obesity is higher than it has ever been in the U.S, driving population risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease…Robust evidence indicates that consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of developing obesity. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Medicine have called for broad action to reduce SSB consumption, little is known about how to effectively do so in the age group that consumes the greatest amount of SSBs—older adolescents and young adults.

The interesting part of this study for me is the fact that according to the article:

The only warning label for soda law attempted in the United States was struck down by the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for violating the First Amendment rights of beverage advertisers.

Wow if the extremist progressive judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the warning label for pop/soda how does anyone think this would be constitutional?

Another interesting aspect of this story has to do with warning labels on cigarettes or pretty much any other product.

If warning labels are unconstitutional on pop/soda because it violates the First Amendment rights of beverage advertisers, why would the same not hold true for cigarettes or any other product?

As I have always stated hypocrisy will eventually come back to bite you in the rear-end.

The Live with Renk show airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts call (269) 441-9595