The bill requires food service places to provide sugar-free substitutes for syrups and jellies and preserves and notice to their customers of its availability. This notice must be in the form of menus, signs and posters inside restaurants and at drive-thru areas and when advertising.
Why oh why are politicians getting involved in more regulations on private enterprise. Do they know or care what unintended consequences their regulations cause?
Maybe those who don't want dangerous sugar substitutes will find themselves having no choice but to accept "sugar-free" syrups and fruit preserves in restaurants because the restaurants will be forced to serve "sugar-free" by law and so why go to the added expense of keeping both? Instead of being forced to give notice to guests of availability of "sugar-free" substitutes they need merely say "All our products are sugar-free". They only need to buy one lot of syrups and jellies and preserves. Makes business sense doesn't it? That's one consequence.
On the side: I don't want high fructose corn syrup in my syrups and fruit preserves. I want cane sugar in them. Is there a bill out there for that? Not as far as I am aware and quite honestly, I don't want there to be because companies are naturally, without regulation, starting to produce products with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup because they are getting the message from their customers and their competition without the heavy hand of political regulation.
You know the big food chains may have all the cashflow resources in the world to submit to these regulations (they'll pass it on in adding it into the food price for all of us that don't want sugar-free) but how about the up front costs for the Mom and Pop food place?
If any of these lobbyists and politicians have ever owned a small business they'd know how such regulations can really play havoc with cashflow especially for a Mom and Pop Restaurant. Small businesses are constantly watching their cashflow. They may not have the upfront cash to redo their menus with the regulated wording "sugar-free" or to redo the pamphlets they saved money on by printing thousands to last them a couple of years. They may not have the space for the extra product and the wherewithal to withstand the cost of having new shelving put up. They may not have the cash up front to buy new product or pay a new supplier of "sugar-free" products or the clout of the bigger chains to fix credit terms. What about the little country bed and breakfast and the corner café - all will have to redo artwork and have signs and menu's reprinted. Heck, most of them are struggling to keep their heads above water in this poor economy.
It's a pity that our regulators only think of notches on their belts and lining their pockets and the loss or gain in votes and nothing else because they really do have tunnel vision when they favor one group over another. Do they realize that running a small business today is becoming more and more difficult because of constant new regulations? While I was in an architectural business I saw many a restaurant business give up before even opening under the weight of costly regulation.
If there are enough customers asking for "sugar-free" at restaurants, the restaurants will eventually oblige and those who don't will lose customers and money. Don't take away competition. Don't take away a free market. Certainly don't hurt the Mom and Pop places. The little bed and breakfast, the tearoom, corner café or diner. Allow them to ease into "add ons" like "sugar-free" syrups and fruit preserves at their own pace when the cashflow allows and when they feel they will benefit by giving their customers choices. Business people are in business to make money not to make people happy. The fact that happy people in turn, make the business people money is what will drive them to giving the people what they want.
Shouldn't we, when things are so tight, be looking at how to ease up on regulation and allow the free market to flow and grow rather than make it more difficult to run a small food business?