(NaturalNews) California State Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) and others are proposing legislation that would require warning labels on sodas and juices with added sugars. The California State warning would include this phrase: "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay."
Senator Monning stated in a news conference, "When the science is this conclusive, the state of California has a responsibility to take steps to protect consumers." The warning label is similar to what goes on cigarette packages and is intended to leave the consumer responsible for his or her decision after seeing the label.
One commenter on the LA Times article announcing this proposed legislation lamented that politicians have to do these things instead of medical authorities. Let's see, medical authority, oh yes, the FDA. The ones who have more adverse effect reports of aspartame in their files than any other food item, which are ignored while aspartame remains on the market as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) without any warnings. Right, the medical authorities.
Substances proven to be dangerous should be banned -- period. One medical authority in Venezuela did that. The Health Minister removed Coke Zero from the shelves, removed as in banned. Exactly why is confused by earlier reports. We all know that diet cokes contain harmful excitoxic sweeteners.
But exactly which one in Coke Zero drew the Health Minister's attention has been muddied by the mainstream's ignorance of excitotoxins and the history of how the FDA's approval of aspartame was manipulated politically.
The mainstream media preferred to paint the ban as a socialist stance on capitalism, you know, the free enterprise angle. That gets all the corporate serfs and corporate CEO wanna-be libertarians pumped up about how the commies are out to kill capitalism. One sarcastically wonders how much banning GMOs should be considered anti-free-market ideology.
It's unfortunate that many "free market" and libertarian types have been duped by the "corporations as individuals" fraud. Redefining issues with new wording gets the realities confused, and economic theory attachments sadly trump survival realities. Before the Civil War, corporations did not have all this power.
Corporations before they morphed into international monarchies
Up until the post-Civil War era, corporations had to be reviewed and granted a charter that detailed the approved activity in which they could operate for a specific period, say 10 years or so. The charter could be dissolved if the corporation's activity went outside the charter's allowance or if public or environmental harm was caused by that corporation.
Charter dissolution meant that they were done, over, and what remained of value was left for the shareholders to divide among themselves.
Corporations during those times were not allowed to influence political decisions, even with campaign contributions on a party level. Corporate individuals could be held responsible for corporate crimes or misdeeds according to their level of complicity.
If they became conglomerates and trusts, they could have their charter revoked for exceeding their charter's defined activity.
The major issue of corporate personhood was established as implied precedence by a Supreme Court decision in 1886. The case was between Santa Clara County and Southern Pacific Railroad.
From then on, the 14th Amendment, originally intended to protect the citizen privileges and liberties of freed slaves and ex-confederates, was used and manipulated under the false "personhood" of corporations, allowing them to evolve as ruthless dynasties.
The USA is neither a democracy nor a republic. It is an oligarchy. A handful of corporate leaders have the wealth and wherewithal to control us and destroy the environment while harming our health with impunity. Any group of citizens should have the power to completely ban proven dangerous corporate products or processes.