SB 869 requires chains with at least 20 locations to identify qualifying drinks that meet or exceed the federal daily value for added sugar. The law calls for a sugar-cube icon inside a black triangle and an explanation, with compliance required by Jan. 1, 2029. Drive-through menus must display the information directly; restaurants have options for physical or digital disclosure elsewhere. 

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting people to understand what they are drinking. Some beverages are practically dessert served through a straw; calling one “refreshing” doesn’t turn it into spring water. 

However, Sacramento should resist confusing the ability to write a regulation with the ability to improve a diet. 

People go out to eat to indulge and choose restaurants based on the ingredients they serve. This law will only add costs to an already heavily regulated restaurant industry that is struggling to survive — and it will most likely not change consumers’ sugar intake.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

In fact, it may actually increase their sugar intake. Research shows that messages perceived as threatening people’s freedom can provoke resistance and actually have a “boomerang” effect. Studies of sugary-drink warnings generally find modest reductions in purchasing, but that does not settle whether California’s particular approach will deliver lasting benefits worth its costs. 

In a restaurant, every new requirement becomes somebody’s job. Someone must review recipes, update information, coordinate menu changes and make sure the business complies. Those tasks consume time and money. 

A franchise owner still has payroll, rent and equipment bills, even when the sign outside carries a nationally recognized name. That does not automatically make this law bad; it just means its costs deserve consideration alongside its promised benefits. 

The certification program raises a related question: Who will find it easiest to participate? 

Large manufacturers can dedicate staff to applications and packaging. A small restaurant group may be making the food, answering customers and delivering orders personally. 

California should ensure that certification is affordable and straightforward enough for those businesses to participate. Otherwise, we risk building a system in which the companies best equipped to advertise simplicity are the companies with the biggest compliance departments.

We should also be careful about what consumers infer from a seal. 

Processing is one feature of food; a certification should communicate exactly what it verifies, without becoming an all-purpose promise that a product belongs (or doesn’t) in unlimited quantities on every dinner table. Will this label drive people toward other products that are worse for other reasons?

You could probably fix people’s health just by informing them about real food and making it more affordable. 

What happened to teaching people what ingredients go into food, and then letting them make their own decisions? Do we need Sacramento to tell us what to buy at all times?

The more we see people rely on these catch-all government tropes and labels, the less we see people think on their own. 

That is the real health hazard here, because as those of us in California know: Sacramento has not always been there to protect the citizens; they’ve focused instead on their own power (See: COVID). 

If a product is dangerous for the public, then it should not be allowed in the food system, but this is not the case here.

My personal approach to this health problem starts in the kitchen: buy recognizable ingredients, learn a few reliable recipes, cook enough for leftovers and give children opportunities to taste, chop, mix, and understand their food. 

That advice becomes much more useful when families can afford the ingredients and have somewhere nearby to purchase them. 

This is where I want California’s food agenda to get practical.

Review the obstacles that make it difficult for small food businesses to open and grow. Maybe make permitting predictable and examine barriers to connecting local producers with restaurants and customers. Help schools build kitchens and teach cooking skills, then measure whether public programs actually put good meals in front of children.

I would rather see a child learn to roast a chicken than memorize a collection of government-approved packaging symbols. And I would rather see a neighborhood gain an affordable place to buy dinner than celebrate another announcement about healthy eating.

Newsom deserves credit when his policies genuinely help people choose better food. Supporting transparency and questioning bureaucracy can coexist. The standard should be clear information, reasonable costs, and greater access to meals families can afford — then leave it to the citizens to make their own decisions based upon transparent ingredient information and not a superficial, costly government-approved label. 

California has the best farmers, fishermen, chefs, and entrepreneurs, all capable of feeding this state with the best products. Government should make it easier for them to do that work. 

That’s the real goal, because a healthier food system requires more than identifying what people should avoid. A healthy California requires making good food available, appealing, and affordable first and this can’t be done with a stupid label.

Put that on Sacramento’s menu.

Andrew Gruel is a chef, television host and member of the Huntington Beach City Council.