Soda does have some health benefits: nurses use it in hospitals to clear feeding tubes when they become obstructed (no joke- I've seen that with my own eyes). Soda is absolutely terrible. Mechanics use it to clean battery terminals on cars. I blame HFCS and higher soda use as the reason kids and people in general are fatter today than 10-15 years ago. Stay away from that stuff.

Now I didn't go to school in Howard County but I recall at my schools there was not a single soda vending machine on the premises. However the alternatives - dozens of flavors of from concentrate juice mixes and gatorade/powerade flavors were just as loaded with sugar and calories.

The website for HoCo Unsweetened seems to realize this fact but unfortunately I don't believe "just drink water instead" is really a viable alternative for the majority of kids.

I'm sorry, Ms. Valentino, soda is the antithesis of "a healthy, balanced and active lifestyle" but you've clearly bought into Big Soda's lies about it filling in some nutritional hole your life had before they came and filled it with their HFCS and imitation caramel coloring. A soda, once in a while is fine, but having one on a daily basis is not healthy. This is what HoCo Unsweetened is teaching kids, the TRUTH Big Soda doesn't want them to know.

I'm not saying to never drink soda (which I think I made clear in my comment). I agree that soda in moderation (less than once a week) is fine. What I'm saying is that soda is NOT part of a daily healthy lifestyle, and big soda (Coke and Pepsi's advertising departments, excuse me for not being clear on that for you) would like you to believe that it is (much like the tobacco companies wanted people to think that smoking was a healthy part of life). Your argument that lack of caloric burning is the driver of obesity, okay, well the last time I checked kids in middle school still had recess and some form of a gym class, so then why are kids still obese? Maybe because the 12 ounce soda they had with lunch also came with 39 grams of sugar and 140 calories, neither of which provide any nutritional benefit to their growing bodies.

I think that Nicolette Highsmith Vernick, the Horizon Foundation, and the government better leave me alone and stay the hell out of my private life!!! Whether or not I want to drink soda, or allow my kids to drink soda, is none of their damn business!! What next....Ken Ulman pulling a Mayor Bloomberg on Howard Co. and banning 16 oz sugary drinks?

Ian, the point Michael is trying to make is that we, as parents or individuals, can make informed choices about the food and beverages we and our children consume by the nutritional information displayed on a given product. Life is about choices, and choices have consequences. Parents know this, and we want was is best for our children. But this is an example of a typical liberal scare tactic, i.e., influencing the targeted audience through the demonstration of the dump truck carrying and dumping tons of sugar consumed by one middle school in a year on a school parking lot. It's about shock value. And what better audience to showcase it to...a bunch of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. If my kids went attended this school, I can guarantee you I would be storming into the principal's office tomorrow. Michael is not in the minority. There are PLENTY of citizens in this state and this country that are sick of government and their surrogates telling us what we should and should NOT do.

Agree with Michael and The Great One - Thanks for the Bio. Another Liberal shoving their agenda down our throats. Was this food and drink whore a special guest at Michelle O's Christmas brunch? Guarantee is isn't Oprah after what Michelle said about Oprah - "Never want that fat bitch back in the White House". The Liberals cannot persuade adults who have lived life; they need to terrify 6 - 8th graders to have dreams of sugar suffocating them in their sleep. This is the only way the Socialist can permeate our society, through our children. They (Liberals) slither like snakes inch by inch until they change the mind-set of a whole generation; and this “War on Sodas” is just one small example. We the people have the “Freedom” to choose what we want to eat, drink, whether or not to exercise. Keep the Food and Drink Police out of our schools. If my children attended Burleigh Manor, I would be in the Superintendent of Schools Office. Stay out of the Schools, we the parents make the choices for our children, not the government and we do not need assistance from the government to direct our children in the direction of a Socialist Society. Sadly, believe the whole article says up yours, parents, we are indoctrinating your children like it or not.

Oh my goodness. This is not about politics. This is a public health issue. When we educate young people in school to be active, get enough sleep, learn proper hygiene, make safe choices, eat healthy foods, it is a part of health education. If you want to have a political slant, think of it this way--healthier young people will become healthier adults who may very well be the best supporters of your political party, whatever that may be. Sluggish, sickly citizens won't do anyone any good.

Exactly Julia. People are so worried about the political agenda being shoved down their throats, they don't even realize that Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A are shoving their agendas down these same people's throats -- from the Olympics to high school sporting events and fundraisers. People just don't like to be told that maybe the decision they made to let their 2-year-old have a soda wasn't really their decision at all. It's easier to blame it on the political machine than face the truth.

Julia, if you operate under the assumption that the Democrat Party and the government are inextricably linked in the State of Maryland, a valid assumption, then politics is an issue here. And is it a mere coincidence this demonstration occurs on the same day HoCo's County's Exec proposes a ban on the sale of soft drinks in public parks and government buildings? I think not. We are all for what is best for our kids. , in and out of the classroom. But what makes you think government is in the best position to do that?

@Nicole - Those corporations, all of which are very successful I might add and are synonymous with the freedom of choice we are blessed to have in America, produce food and beverages millions of Americans enjoy. It's their fault, right? It has nothing to do with personal responsibility and accountability. Individuals have NO choice but to go to McDonald's or the local 7-11 to buy a Big Gulp when they see a commercial.

So Ulman is a Nanny Stater! Following in the footsteps of GrandDaddy Nanny Bloomingidiot in NY.
Liberal Progressives life mantra.
"There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to — The Outer Limits."

If sodas are so bad then the State and Counties should NOT ACCEPT any of the sales taxes form their sale. Same with tobacco! They profit all the while bashing the product they so rely on for revenue. Hypocrites all!

JaySmith "Michael: EXACTLY MY SENTIMENT !!!! If the govt thinks sodas and chips are so bad, then why don't they stop selling on govt property.......ie, the schools !!"

Halfway there in this nanny state.

Ian Kennedy said, "Nobody is taking anything away from you, Michael. "

Ulman has proven you wrong and the others right.

Of course they are. Sugary drinks should be banned, I mean, afterall, it's for the children. Frankly, if people can't be responsible for themselves, then the state must accept responsibility for them. It's all about doing good for the people.

I think that after reading everyones different replies, is that all of you have your good and bad points and opinions. And that is what life is all about, us making our own choices in life, be it good or bad. And who has the right to say to you what is good and or bad for you/us. No on but you/us! And I think as adults/parents it is still only your/our right to make the choices we decide to allow your/our children to make/have in life. No One Else! My choice is the healthy way, but that does not make it for me to say, that is the right way! It is just my choice! My Wife drinks diet coke every single day, do I totally agree with this, No! But, It is her choice and her right and not my right to stop her. She is a grown women! As for our children, they drink very little too no soda. And that is both my wife and my choice, and also our children's choice. They think more to the healthy side on their own as well. The bottom line here as I said earlier is this, as Adults/ Parents it is and should only be our choices to make for both ourselves and or Family. No one else! Be it as it may, no one has the right to tell someone what is right or wrong for them to drink or eat! And as I always say, opinions are like backsides! Everyone has one, and when you start voicing your opinions to try to change others! You start acting like a backside! What right do any of us have to say that your/our choices/opinions are the right/better one! No One!

Some here say they need others to provide info on how to make their choices. Didn't you same people demand nutrition labels on every product in the store?
Now you are demanding restaurants to provide nutrition info as well. Then you go complain you don;t know what to choose and need others to help you? Dependent sheep!

Truth be told, I first learned of this on Fox 45 News @ 10 last night, then decided to do more digging. Suffice it to say, when I started reading the bios of the staff, it became obvious to me what this "well-intentioned" foundation and publicity stunt was all about (it was patently evident, but I sought corroboration). This is statism, guys. This is government wanting to have more and more say and control over what you eat, where you sleep, what clothes you wear, etc, etc, etc. My well-intentioned liberal friends who live in denial either by choice or ignorance cannot see the forest through the trees when it comes to expanding government at the expense of their liberty. And another poster brought up a terrific point about the liberal/statist hipocrisy vis-a-vis lost tax revenue and the food/beverage industry. These costs ONLY get passed ultimately on to the consumers until the breaking point, which in the short term is bad for us, the consumers. Consumption is curtailed, which the statists want. But what they don't think about is people taking their business elsewhere. When consumers and companies take their money elsewhere (i.e., out of the State of Maryland), tax revenues decline. So Marylanders ultimately have fewer choices, and the state has no choice but to tax other goods and services to fund their crack-like spending habits. It's a beautiful thing.

I don't understand the fuss. If the government were banning soda, I'd totally get the outrage. But a private group is simply suggesting that we consume too much sugar. A leftist-hippie-delusional private group to be sure- but a private group none-the-less. What's wrong with that?

Of course Immelt says it works, he has outsourced thousands of jobs there.

Ulman didn't even bother to put the soda sales ban to a vote of the people. He just unilaterally imposed his will on the people. Leftists like Ulman will take from you as much of your liberty and property as you let them. And it will always be for the children or some other group for which you might have sympathy. It will always be for the greater good, the village.

Ban? Sugary drinks aren't banned in Howard County! What the heck is everyone reading, anyway? Drinks with less sugar and unsweetened drinks are available on gov property... and certainly you could feel free to bring your big gulp to work... the school system has yet to weigh in- no pun intended, but if it chooses to not put sugary drinks in its machines- that doesn't mean you couldn't send your little darling to school with a 16 oz Soda or Gatorade or whatever... The Gov is just saying it's supporting good health choices.

First of all, it is not the business of government, local, state or federal to tell us what we can drink, what we can eat, how much salt we should have, whether we can own guns, whether we must purchase health insurance, what color cars we can drive and on and on. Really, when are we going to stop allowing government to be our PARENT and start to think for ourselves???????

Well said Mary Ellen. When asked on a radio interview why Mr. Ulman invoked an executive order to pass the ban instead of bringing it to a vote, Mr. Ulman replied "Because I have the authority". Today it may just be sodas, tomorrow it could be free speech being banned on county property. The point is government at any level never relinquishes power, it only takes more.

Ulman in not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make medical recommendations about food consumption. It is not dangerous for my child to have a soda at my descretion. However, it is dangerous and unsafe for my child to go to the Columbia mall due to the crime and armed robberies that take place almost daily. Why doesn't Ulman leave medical advice to the qualified professionals and spend his time trying to solve the crime problem that affects us all???

Just one more thing for parents to blame about why they have fat, lazy kids before they blame themselves.

Marie Sk.
Each Howard County, Maryland, United States citizen has the right of personal responsibility-- the liberty to do what they feel best for their own health and well being. No government politicians, federal state or local, nor any other group has that responsibility, nor can they usurp that right. They should rather be doing what they are elected to do. If not elected, they should be minding their own personal responsibility. Are we no longer a free country?