One plank of Mayor Dan Wolk’s healthy children’s initiative is offering alternatives to sugary drinks at restaurants and making low-fat milk the default beverage.
Next Tuesday, the council will hear information from First 5 Yolo and could potentially direct “staff to work with the City Attorney to draft an ordinance addressing sugary beverages in kids’ meals, start outreach to local restaurants about proposed changes and return to Social Services Commission and to Council once a draft ordinance is complete.”
In the city staff report, they report that California and the nation is experiencing a childhood obesity epidemic. “In Davis, one-quarter of all children in grades 5, 7 and 9 are overweight or obese. In 2012, more than half of all Davis 5th, 7th, and 9th graders failed to meet the CA Fitness Standards,” staff reports.
They write, “Sugary beverages play a central and unique role in the obesity epidemic. Studies have found a significant link between sugary drink consumption and weight gain in children. Soda and sugary beverages are the single largest source of calories in children’s diets, and provide nearly half of kids’ added sugar intake.
“Cities are enacting policies to increase access to healthy beverages for children, such as adopting standards for beverages provided in parks, recreational facilities, and city-sponsored programs,” staff writes. “Restaurants serve as another important venue within cities where changing local policies on healthy beverages could contribute to the fight against childhood obesity.”
Staff continues, “Cities can promote good health for their youngest residents and support parents in purchasing healthy beverages for their children by adopting a policy that requires restaurants to offer water or low-fat milk as part of any kids’ meal unless a customer specifically requests an alternative beverage. First 5 Yolo has been working to explore whether the City of Davis could adopt such a policy.”
The city has previously adopted nutritional standards related to the sale of food in vending machines and concession stands at its parks and pool facilities. The city had a goal of providing food compliance with “nutritional standards in 100% of its concession stand and vending at Arroyo Pool, but subsequently determined that 50% at all of the pool sites was more acceptable due to public feedback and decreases in revenue. The general feedback the city has received is that the public is interested in having options at the pool sites.”
The Social Services Commission took action at their September meeting to unanimously recommend that the Davis City Council “support an initiative to require the default option for drinks that accompany children’s meals to be low-fat milk or water, allowing juice or soda to still be available upon request should the parent wish to have that option.”
The commission recommended further “that the City look for opportunities to provide increased health education to the community.”
Finally, “Members of the commission requested that draft ordinance language return to them for consideration if the Council acted to proceed with this policy. Staff recommends considering a policy regarding beverage options in local children’s meals. If Council is interested in pursuing such a policy, staff will work with legal counsel to develop a draft ordinance and will return to Council. Staff will also engage in outreach with local restaurants about the proposed changes prior to returning to the City Council.”
The First 5 report finds that “sugary drinks play a central and unique role in the obesity epidemic.” They found that “soda and sugary drinks are the single largest source of calories in children’s diets and provide nearly half of kids’ sugar intake.”
Forty-one percent of children aged two to 11 and 62 percent of those aged 12 to 17 drink at least one soda or other sugar-sweetened beverage every day.
The risk of obesity increases by 60 percent with each additional daily serving of soda, which contains 16 teaspoons of sugar for each 20-ounce serving, making sweetened beverages the largest single source of added sugar in American diet.
Bodies absorb sugar far faster when we consume them in liquids as compared to solids, raising blood sugar levels in just 30 minutes.
The Vanguard previously reported on concerns about the quality and high sugar content in food served for breakfast to mainly Title I kids – a good percentage of whom get the majority of their food at school.
We have heard from teachers in schools like Montgomery that it’s a real problem because the kids, many of whom eat breakfast at school, load up on sugary food and then end up crashing mid-morning. This impacts not only their health but also their education.
According to First 5, many cities are enacting policies to increase access to healthy beverages for children, including adopting standards for beverages to be provided at city sponsored facilities.
However, the problem clearly goes beyond beverages, as children consume about 20 percent of their calories from fast food and other restaurants – though beverages are a huge contributor.
First 5 suggests cities offer water or low-fat milk as part of kids’ meals unless a customer specifically requests an alternative beverage. They can also display water and low-fat milk more prominently on menus and menu boards along with information about kids’ meals.
First 5 notes that one-fifth of the 122 restaurants in Davis offer kids’ meals that include sugar-sweetened beverages as the default, while one-fourth offer healthier choices like milk, water, or 100% fruit juice as a default beverage.
First 5 then calls out: Applebee’s, Beach Hut Deli, Bistro 33, Black Bear Diner, Cafe Bernardo, Carl’s Jr., de Vere’s, Del Taco, Habit Burger, Jack in the Box, Lamppost Pizza, Paesanos Panda Express, Pluto’s, Round Table Pizza, Sudwerk, Taco Bell and Togo’s as including a sugary drink with their kids’ meals.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
First they came for the bags, but I didn’t use plastic bags…
They they banned soda but I don’t drink soda…
They they banned alcohol (and now my friends from Chico don’t come down on Picnic Day any more)…
Sugar should be the least of your worries.
http://davisenterprise.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013/06/MarshDaniel-2012-10thW-682×1024.jpg
http://davisenterprise.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2014/11/1121dhs-soccerW.jpg
http://davisenterprise.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013/06/0627crawfordW-741×1024.jpg
http://davisenterprise.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013/03/Kitsch1w-1024×720.jpg
Soda pop ban, lol.
;>)/
That’s an odd comment – diabetes and obesity kill more people than any of those things you mention combined.
That’s an odd comment. Perhaps you’d like to share the occurrence of Type I vs. Type II diabetes. And share how much obesity is genetic/glandular, vs, due to behavior.
Think Rich’s post supports mine. There is not a 1:1 correlation between sugary beverages and obesity/diabetes. That said, I fully support removal of soft-drinks from schools, yet they (school districts across the US have added soft drink vending machines, and have pursued ads on school athletic fields to gain revenue. Don’t even GO to the comment that they HAVE to, to ‘make up’ for inadequate funding from State/locals.
While I consume no added sugar* in my diet largely because I come from a family with a history of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, I think three more things need to be mentioned beyond “sugary beverages.”
1. Genetics are a very important component as to how sugar affects your gut and your brain chemistry. For every person who gets fat and puts himself at risk for high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack and diabetes, there is another who can consume these same foods and have no bad consequences. Alas, I am not one of those who is unaffected by added sugars and thus I completely leave them out of everything I eat and drink, and I recommend such a strategy for everyone who has a tendency to be overweight; and
2. Chemical sweeteners put in “diet” sodas are likely just as bad for a person as added sugar is. These chemicals negatively affect brain chemistry–making the consumer feel lethargic and hungry–and they have a very high correlation with developing diabetes. As such, it makes no sense to ever encourage anyone who is fat and drinks regular sodas to switch to diet drinks. The latter are not healthy for anyone; and
3. Fruit juice is every bit as bad as a sugary soda. The problem is that all of the fiber is strained out when fruit juice is made, and all that is left is a few vitamins and sugary water. Kids who suck down glasses of orange and apple juice are no better off than those who drink Coca Cola. If a person is thirsty, drink water, leave out the sugar. If you want the nutrition from fruit, eat the whole fruit with all of its natural fibers, and stay away from starchy fruits with little natural fiber.
I would be in favor of a stiff statewide tax on sugar*–like we tax alcohol–if it applied across the board. It strikes me as illogical and unworkable to have a local tax on sugary drinks alone.
*Added sugars to avoid include honey, HF corn syrup, tree syrups and pretty much anything ending in -ose.
I don’t disagree with you, Rich, but you meant the irony [as a history guy] of proposing a “Sugar Tax”, right?
To Biddlin: Thanks for the chuckle! LOL
Thank you, Dan, for caring about the health of our kids. You are also saving future health costs.
Yes, too bad he’s the only one who cares about kids . . .
Yet another in what will be a string of Wolk for Senate campaign initiatives cluttering up our Council agenda.
I agree with the concept — but disagree that this is a local issue.
Look how much time we wasted on plastic bags — even though we knew it was likely that there would be state legislation.
Here we go again! And in the meantime, our roads continue to crumble. Thanks, Mayor Nero.
sisterhood
“I agree with the concept — but disagree that this is a local issue.”
I believe that this is very much a local issue. I believe that personal eating and drinking habits occur on the very local level, household by household. Children tend to see what their parents eat or provide for them as the “right” way to eat and rarely question this until they become old enough to start understanding the commercials on TV or eating at friends houses by which time their basic preferences are fairly well established.
My own mother saw no difference in offering us water or a coke. We were allowed to drink as much as we wanted during the day. I was habituated and it took me years to completely wean myself off. Making water the default offered beverage is a win for everyone who is not directly profiting from the sale of sweet beverages.
I strongly believe that to build a healthier community, that the right place to start is right here in our own community.
Actually, water IS the default beverage in fast-food establishments. You pay nothing for a cup for water, but your ‘sugary’ beverage may cost you close to the rest of the “meal cost”. If I were to go on a rampage on this, I’d fight why a glass of iced tea costs the same as that “sugary drink”.
Perhaps we should ban (and eliminate) from Davis, Taco Bell, KFC, etc., as they are owned by “sugary drink” companies.
Restricting sugary drinks for children is a very good idea. Offering low-fat milk is a very bad idea. Whole milk is the only healthy option for children.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/07/02/lowfat-milk-may-not-be-as-healthy-as-we-thought-says-harvard-expert/
Elizabeth wrote:
> Whole milk is the only healthy option for children.
Whole “Mothers” milk (designed to grow an 8 pound infant in to a 25 pound toddler over a couple years) is a healthy option for children, while Whole “Cows” mild (designed to grow a 80 pound calf to a 1,000 pound cow in 9 months) is probably not the best choice…
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/linda_folden_palmer.html
The big question is: Do we let “parents” decide what to feed their kids or do we let the “city council” make these decisions?
If we really want people to get healthy we could pass a law “requiring” everyone to get their kids up early run a 10K with them before school (like I do a few days a week)…
I didn’t say that whole milk is the “best” milk option, obviously human breast milk is best for children, but of the available milk options that are being considered, whole milk is the best, as low-fat and non-fat milk are also sugary drinks.
I don’t really see a huge difference. The trade off is 3 grams of fat and 2 grams of saturated versus 2 extra grams of sugar.
DP, the extra sugar plus the decreased fat combine to make lowfat and nonfat milk bad options for children. Children’s brains need lots of healthy fats, such as that found in whole milk, for proper development. Additionally, the critical fat soluble vitamins are decreased or missing in the low and non-fat versions.
IMHO it’s reasonable for the city to step in when unhealthy kids cost taxpayers money- free dental and health care, which increases the cost of these services for the folks who have to pay for them. I also believe there are more behavioral problems with kids who are fed a high sugar high carb diet, but I have no stats to back up that statement, just personal observations.
Health care is not the purview of local government. This is an issue of state government — although they’ve delegated much of the authority to the C0unty.
It isn’t our issue and a we don’t get any payback for enforcement.
Our Council members are part time and only have so much time to deal with issues. You have a County government with full time paid County Supervisors and full time paid support staff–and yet they typically have smaller agendas than the City of Davis.
If Davis residents are interested in this, have Saylor and Provenza and their bloated staffs take the lead on this. It is in their area of jurisdiction, not ours!
Let Shallow Dan campaign on his own time!
Gunrocik’s quote, not mine. As usual, I agree with everything you just wrote.
My mom used to be a dental assistant. So she offered nothing but water, and an occasional Kool Aid on very special occasions. I never developed a taste for sugar water and the only thing that satisfies my quench, to this day, is water, Pellegrino, or unsweetened iced tea. My kids were only allowed water, but when school started, they began their craving for soda. I also blame the many soccer, softball, and little league games where parents brought Sunny Delite, Gatorade, and other sweet drinks! Oh well.
My kids were only allowed water, but when school started, they began their craving for soda. I also blame the many soccer, softball, and little league games where parents brought Sunny Delite, Gatorade, and other sweet drinks! Oh well.
As a general rule (though perhaps not correct in your specific case), you should blame two other things in my opinion:
1. Blame yourself for being a prohibitionist. Very often, when parents do not allow their kids to eat certain things or do certain activities, those things or activities become tantalizing, and almost any kid, as an act of rebellion, will want to try them, and in many cases go overboard. Generally, assuming the food or drink or whatever is not truly toxic in any amount, the best strategy is to let the kid try it now and then in your presence, but teach him just why it is bad for his health if he consumes it regularly; and
2. Blame biology. Humans are wired to love sweets. Our species evolved when sweets were very rarely available, other than when naturally growing fruits were fully ripe and abundant. People ate as much as they could in order to gain weight, as a strategy to survive those times when calories were not available. So if a person did not like sweets, he was much less likely to survive. The problem in contemporary times is that sweets are extremely cheap, always available and physically disassociated with all natural fibers that our bodies need to properly process them without damaging our pancreatic functions.
#1 Not really. We taught our kids moderation. They didn’t see their folks drinking soda so they didn’t ask for it. Re: making forbidden activities more desirable: We taught our kids not to solve problems by slapping and hitting. It did not make them want to be violent.
#2. A piece of fruit is relatively inexpensive, and has the benefits of sweetness without as many dangers.
Response:
Response:
Hold on, Sister. If your kids “were only allowed water,” then by definition you were a soda prohibitionist. That might be part of the reason they “craved it.” If you had actually been more moderate, it would have been far less tantalizing to them seeing other kids who brought sweet drinks from home. Yet, as I also noted above, the biological craving for sweets is hard wired into human evolution. So that is part of the equation, too.
There is nothing that is not damaging in an excessive amount. A lot of anything will bring bad consequences. This includes anything we consider “good” such as vitamins and minerals and government.
I suspect this is a solution in search of a problem. If anyone thinks such an ordinance will make one iota of difference, they are living in dreamland. If parents are already allowing their children to drink lots of soda, then when the family gets to a restaurant and the kid wants soda, do you think this ordinance will make a hill of beans difference? The parent will allow their kid a soda. It is not likely such an ordinance will change anything. But if proponents of this ordinance are so convinced it will do some good, then there should be some objective record keeping, so that after one year (or whatever time frame you want to choose) of such an ordinance, there is some data that actually proves/disproves the ordinance made a difference. Otherwise this is tilting at windmills, wasting time, and moving the City Council away from paying attention to the city’s real problems. It is also wasting money through staff time.
“If anyone thinks such an ordinance will make one iota of difference, they are living in dreamland. “
I may be living in public health dreamland, but I fundamentally disagree with this point. I believe that two important factors in decision making are what is convenient and what is viewed as normal. I believe that it would be possible to shift perceptions away from the the normalcy of the sweetened drinks ( whether with sugar or artificial sweeteners which do seem to have deleterious effects just as Rich pointed out) by making them less conspicuously available.
I think that we have one example where local, state and national policies worked together to lower the rate of a very dangerous habit, namely smoking. Education, banning advertising targeting children and adolescents and progressive public exclusion of the dangerous activity can decrease its attractiveness over time. I believe that this could work for sweetened beverages just as it did for tobacco.
I very much disagree that this is not a just a county or state or national issue but can and should be addressed on the local level as well.
Right… and if Davis spends 10’s of thousands of dollars to pursue this issue, KFC, etc. will change their advertising that might reach Davis homes, order their franchisees to either comply or close up shop… yeah.
Perhaps all fast food places should be banned from the City, and any restaurant who offers sugary drinks as a first choice should be also.
Guess what industry provides the most sales tax revenue (general fund) to Davis…
Parents need to be adults, and PARENTS, and direct the choices. NOT the City (even tho’ it’s cute to call the CC ‘city fathers (or mothers [double entendre intended]).
hpierce
I understand the issue of parental autonomy. So is it ok for parents to get their kids addicted to cigarettes by providing them to them anywhere where it is legal to smoke ? How about giving their kids as much alcohol as the parent sees fit ? Ok to let them get drunk because the parent thinks their behavior in that state is cute, or funny ? How about giving the prescribed narcotic medication not for the pain relief for which it was intended, but because the parent is tired of dealing with them and wants them to fall asleep ? Any of these not ok with you ?
If not, I would suggest that the underlying reason is “child endangerment”. We are not talking about hypothetical risk here. We are talking about a real, and very, very costly epidemic in our country to which Davis is not immune.
We are talking about making money ( and thus funds to the city in the form of sales taxes) off the future illness of others. Just as the tobacco companies did. This comes with its own costs in terms of increased days of illness, decreased productivity, and increased medical costs
From a public health perspective, when will we learn that poisoning ourselves and our children for private profit and tax revenues is not, in the long run, a winning strategy and should be discouraged…not banned.
David… this has been popping up each time I’ve posted lately: https://davisvanguard.org/wp-comments-post.php. White screen. My end, or yours?
Our end. WE are trying to figure out what the issue is.
David, I can look if you want.
SEE https://wordpress.org/support/topic/white-screen-of-death-7
I’m glad Mayor Wolk has brought attention to this issue. I hope it raises awareness about the negative effects of all sugary beverages, not just soda. (I see way to many 1st graders drinking 20 ounce containers of Gatorade).
While this ordinance works to decrease the amount of sugary beverages served in restaurants we are continuing to serve it, (for “free” to our low-income kids) in our schools in the form of chocolate milk. I hope First Five will consider working to eliminate the distribution of this beverage in our schools breakfast and lunch programs. (As well as the sugared cereal, chocolate graham crackers cookies, and pop tarts that are served for breakfast to our children that qualify for the free breakfast program).
completely agree, the flavored lowfat milks and other junk food served at the schools need to go
I have no problem with what a public institution decides to do on public property when it comes to school snacks. Where I have a problem is when government gets involved and tells private business what they can serve and not serve. What’s next, no more Big Macs?
BP wrote:
> I have no problem with what a public institution
> decides to do on public property
Maybe they should get rid of the fruit loops, pop tarts and chocolate milk that the schools feed to poor kids every day before trying to regulate what kids get in a happy meal…
agreed
No one is stopping anyone from serving anything. The proposal would allow the service sweetened beverages if specifically requested, just not offered as the default. Your argument would be much stronger if you were to stick with the facts of the measure.
The measure is telling private businesses what they must offer as a default. Gov’t needs to mind their own business.
OMG!!!! My drink of choice is ice tea but if I want to have a soda with my dinner occasionally whos business is it????? I notice NO ONE is mentioning that there is also sugar in wines and beers… When will that be outlawed?????????????? Hope there isnt anyone who enjoys a nice glass of wine with their dinner!!! Next they will be proposing that everyone must use specific toilet paper to wipe their butts!
the proposal under consideration pertains to beverages for children
Its only a matter of time…….
I am glad someone who is “more knowledgeable” than I am can just make decisions for the better of the community. Why don’t we just have a government that makes all the decisions for us for the better of the commune?
Why not, our President thinks he knows best. This seems to be the way we’re headed at least until we smarten up and kick them all out of office.
That’s what a government does
That is what a socialist government does.
A socialist government controls the means of productions, all governments pass laws.
Democratic socialism.
Funny that leftists want to legislate you into not being able to buy a Coke but in the same breath legislate that it’s okay to smoke a joint.
That’s not being proposed here. The only thing that would be on the table is changing the default beverage on the kids menu. Is that really so bad?
Yes it is that bad. What business does someone have telling me what I can or can’t feed my children? Mr. Wolk is assuming that he knows better than me how to raise my children and what to feed them and is taking that choice away from me. You can make a case that feeding a child almost anything is either healthy or unhealthy, but somehow Mr. Wolk knows what is best and given the chance will force me into his decision by the power of law. I’m not advocating for soda specifically, but for the right to make a choice. My body, or in this case my kids, my choice. Not his.
Under this intiative you can feed your kids what everyou want, all it does is change the default from soda to milk or water. You’re welcome to get soda, if that’s your preference.
Predictably idiotic comment, since you can’t get further left than me and I was the first to call BS. I’m popping a fizzy drink and smoking a bowl, right now.
;>)/
Once again — this is a non-issue. This is an issue for the County and/or the State. We need to keep our eye on the ball and not let Shallow Dan use the mayor’s pulpit for his Senate election.
Saylor and Provenza get full time salaries and have dedicated staff to deal with this — and actually have a part of their charter that deals with public health.
The City of Davis isn’t the venue for this.
We need to FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS on budget and infrastructure and stay away from these sorts of issues.
“We need to FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS on budget and infrastructure and stay away from these sorts of issues.”
I could not disagree with you more. Epidemics are a public health issue at all levels. They have tremendous costs both monetary and social. Most of us do not have difficulty seeing reduction in cases of flu as a public health issue. Most of us were concerned at least on some level with Ebola, even thought the risk of that within the United States was very low. When I wrote the article on Ebola, not one person commented that it was ridiculous for Kaiser to be taking precautions on the local level even though the risk of anyone in Davis contracting Ebola was vastly less than the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, Type II diabetes leading to huge medical expenses and premature deaths of children now being provided sugary beverages as the default drink in packaged meals.
Obesity and its secondary health problems, while not applying to everyone, are epidemic in numbers. This should be the business of every responsible adult in our community and is certainly the business of the Mayor and City Council.
From my perspective, it is the demand to FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS on a single aspect of the prosperity of our community that leads us astray. Was it not relative neglect of our infrastructure that has led to the current condition of our roads. Was it not in some people’s eyes ignoring economic development that got us into budgetary problems?
So why would we think that simply ignoring any aspect of the well being of our community is going to be a productive strategy. From my point of view, the wisest strategy and the biggest challenge is to keep in mind the need for balance in all aspects that contribute to the ability of our community to thrive.
You are missing my main point. Public Health is a County issue, not a City issue. They are the ones with the resources and the staff to actually make a difference. If you want to foster change, you need to address it at a level where there is actually the infrastructure in place to do something about it.
At the City level they don’t have the expertise, resources or staff to do anything but talk about it.
Show me within the structure of City government where they regulate pubic health in any way shape or form? Even when it comes to any police or code enforcement action related to public health, they bring in the County to regulate that portion of an enforcement action.
This is purely a political move on Shallow Dan’s part — and is actually damaging as it is diverting the issue from the County, which is where it belongs.
“This should be the business of every responsible adult in our community and is certainly the business of the Mayor and City Council.”
I agree with the good Doctor that addressing the complicated health issues brought about by excess sugar in our diet, especially the sweeteners incorporated into processed foods, is the ‘business of every responsible adult,’ which by most people’s definition would include the Mayor and the other individual members of the City Council. It is not however the business or expertise of the City of Davis, and therefore is not appropriately the business of the City Council as an entity.
The effort to have the City Council weigh in on every sundry topic is the sort of muddle headed thinking that gives us a City Council that is unable to set priorities and therefore unable to appropriately address the needs of the community that are in fact the expertise and business of the City and City Council.
But what about the CHILDREN?!?!?!!!
Bottom line, choices and information good, telling businesses what to do, bad, parents who raise their children without thought to how their lifestyles affect their children’s health, bad, but probably not government’s business, except maybe to inform, and even that is questionable.
When I was a freshman at UCD in the late 70’s, the food in the dorms was almost all crap. Now, there is crap, but there is also a salad bar and healthier choices. There are also more challenges, like a culture that drives their kids to school instead of biking and walking (even though the health risk of not getting that exercise is certain and the chance of a goon jumping out of the bushes and stealing a kid is one-in-a-million).
So having choices, good. It’s hard to make a healthy choice when none is available.
But also, let’s not be stupid and think low-fat milk and diet soda is healthy. Puh-leeeeez!
Finally someone gets it, that Mayor Wolk is proposing Legislation to control you and yours… Finally the conversation ended about chemistry and nutrition lessons and realized it is a control issue.
If the Yolo 5 or First 5 or whoever this is wants to control peoples’ choices, I guess they will, but making choices available when they are not seems okay. Aggressive signage regarding dietary choices may become the way to encourage people, information is not control. Limiting choices or taxing choices is wrong. Maybe the new Federal regulation regarding calorie signage may be helpful. I know it is for me, and I may buy “that thing” that is 1100 calories, but I won’t finish it.
The CC is wasting time and making headlines AGAIN with the usual eye-rolling topics.
OK, one more time for those who are having difficulty understanding.
What is being suggested is not a ban or limitation on what you can order, or what you can choose to give to your children. There is nothing in the proposal to stop you from ordering 10 sweetened beverages for your child if that is what you want to do. The proposal is intended to not “automatically” provide a soda ( or other sweetened beverage) as part of a pre-packaged meal. I fail to see how anyone could possibly believe that this is limiting your personal choices in any way at all ( unless or course you count the three seconds required to say “We would like a coke with that please) as an infringement on your rights.
I don’t mind anyone criticizing the actions of Mayor Wolk or anyone else in public life for that matter. But it becomes beyond ridiculous when you claim he ( or Yolo First 5) or anyone else is infringing on your rights when your “rights” are not changed.