- Philly students planning to walk out of school for another climate strike
- Mayor Jim Kenney wins concession from Philadelphia City Council on tax abatement reform
- Man accused of killing ex-girlfriend in Montco found not guilty of prior assault
- 3 neighboring Camden companies team up to collect 20K cans of food for needy
- 2 Russians charged in multimillion-dollar malware scheme
- Giuliani in Ukraine as Congress moves closer to impeachment
- Cohen to step down from longtime executive Comcast position
- DelVal football rolls into D3 national quarterfinals
- Phone-in-cheek: Spike seen in cellphone-linked face injuries
- Judge: Purdue workers should get bonuses, but maybe not CEO
- Robots, drones, high-tech games show STEM career path to Camden students
- With closure of 15th Street bridge, traffic is already piling up
- National Constitution Center untangles impeachment process with public event
- 4-legged faculty member lends a helping ‘paw’ to students with learning challenges
- From hats to false teeth: The things riders leave behind on SEPTA
- At Lincoln Financial Field, 2 NJ high schools finish football game stopped by gunfire
- Delco family's nightmare ends after getting the support needed to stay in their home
- Coat drive 'an answer to many people's prayers' in North Philadelphia
- Marine Corps anniversary celebrated with endurance challenge
- Philly Rising: Teens create a nonbinary hero in 'A Cape for Candy'
Dreamstime
Health warning labels vs. the First Amendment
By Amy E. Feldman, Judge Technology Solutions
PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) — Turns out, eating sugar leads to obesity.
Sugar — yeah, that's exactly the response that the health advocates in San Francisco want to moderate. Officials are trying to require warning labels on sugary drinks that say sugar-sweetened beverages lead to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.
The beverage industry sued, and the Court of Appeals just agreed that making them put a warning label on soda violates the First Amendment. But then how can the FDA require warnings on cigarette cartons?
The First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak freely and to refrain from speaking, but commercial entities don't have the same rights. The government can force them to have warning labels — it's called compelled commercial speech — so long as the warning is factual and uncontroversial.
And companies don't have to put warnings that imply the existence of dangers that haven't been conclusively proven. Since the court said that the FDA considers sugar safe to consume, it said no to the warning labels.
I'll drink a cup of sugar to that.