Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Marbas » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:54 am UTC

I am...not impressed

Science journalism, ladies and gentlemen!
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?
User avatar
Marbas
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby yurell » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:08 am UTC

That article is referencing this Nature article. And it grossly misrepresents the Comment piece (which I'm quite sure isn't peer reviewed), which does say:

Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars. This would include sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal. Already, Canada and some European countries impose small additional taxes on some sweetened foods.
[...]
A reasonable parallel [to controlling tobacco and alcohol] for sugar would tighten licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell sugary products in schools and workplaces.
[...]
Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda.


They never say "Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin". At worst they make parallel with the fact that tobacco and alcohol are banned, but it doesn't say to regulate them in the same manner (such as with licensing), or even references to actual toxins.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Magnanimous » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:32 am UTC

Do they ever actually call it a toxin? It has a toxic effect in large amounts, but so does, say... water.
The card wrote:GO TO THE CIRCUS. FIREWORKS AND WHISTLES, LION TAMERS AND CLOWNS. HOO RAH.
User avatar
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby yurell » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:40 am UTC

Nope, not at all. In fact, the word 'toxin' doesn't appear anyway in the document. The summary of the document, for those interested, is:
SUMMARY
  • Sugar consumption is linked to a rise in non-communicable disease
  • Sugar's effects on the body can be similar to those of alcohol
  • Regulation could include tax, limiting sales during school hours and placing age limits on purchase

I don't want to quote the entire document here, because it's 2k words, contains diagrams, and I think it's behind a paywall.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby elasto » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:09 am UTC

I've given up caffeine, alcohol and fast sugars in my life - and by far the biggest improvement in health and mental well-being occurred when I gave up sugar.

Now, mind you, I was never an alcoholic, so I didn't gain all that much from giving that up (although I did gain) - but I was definitely a sugar-addict...
elasto
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby emceng » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Nope, not at all. In fact, the word 'toxin' doesn't appear anyway in the document. The summary of the document, for those interested, is:
SUMMARY
  • Sugar consumption is linked to a rise in non-communicable disease
  • Sugar's effects on the body can be similar to those of alcohol
  • Regulation could include tax, limiting sales during school hours and placing age limits on purchase

I don't want to quote the entire document here, because it's 2k words, contains diagrams, and I think it's behind a paywall.



If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar". Fucking idiots.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis
User avatar
emceng
 
Posts: 2966
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Webzter » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I've given up caffeine, alcohol and fast sugars in my life - and by far the biggest improvement in health and mental well-being occurred when I gave up sugar.


I'm curious how you went about the caffeine and sugar. I suppose that's too OT for this thread, but I'm constantly trying, and failing, at the caffeine. Sugar too, to a lesser extent.
Webzter
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

emceng wrote:If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar alcohol? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar beer". Fucking idiots.

I know, right?

Also, rubber cement and spray paint.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Panonadin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar". Fucking idiots.


I'm sorry, aside from your obvious superiority to the people involved in the study I don't see your actual issue with this? Could you clarify?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.
User avatar
Panonadin
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby emceng » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

Panonadin wrote:
emceng wrote:
If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar". Fucking idiots.


I'm sorry, aside from your obvious superiority to the people involved in the study I don't see your actual issue with this? Could you clarify?


Are you trolling, or just being an ass? It is fucking sugar. How is age verification going to do anything, and why should the government be doing it in the first place?
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis
User avatar
emceng
 
Posts: 2966
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Panonadin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:01 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
Are you trolling, or just being an ass? It is fucking sugar. How is age verification going to do anything, and why should the government be doing it in the first place?


I think my post came off as being an ass but it was slightly intended. I think the article describes why they should be regulating it in the first place. Do you have a problem because of the government regulating things? Or just sugar in general? Lots of dangerous stuff is regulated, alcohol, tobacco, etc. It's all bad for your health and you are allowed to buy it when you are at an age where society feels you can make sound decisions.

Also, that was ONE of the options for regulation, they also talked about taxing it higher which would do nothing more than give people a bit of an incentive to avoid it. I honestly don't see the issue and since you posted a different point of view I was curious about your thought process.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.
User avatar
Panonadin
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:13 am UTC
Location: Frying Pan

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby stevey_frac » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:35 am UTC

I have a problem with regulating sugar... because it's about the least harmful thing I can think of...

I mean... If you drink too much alcohol... it will kill you, via alcohol poisoning. A number of people die by this every year. If you drink too much water... you will die, via a reduction in the concentration of electrolyte concentration.

But sugar? I don't think you can die of sugar, assuming you have a normally functioning insulin response. You might get fat, and that might cause health issue... But it can't kill you... (once again, assuming the normal

I would be say we should regulate water consumption before we regulate sugar almost...

Also: Complex carbs turn into glucose almost on contact with the stomach... If we regulate sugar, and mean it... does that mean we should also regulate mashed potatoes?
stevey_frac
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby yurell » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:50 am UTC

emceng wrote:If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit.


Oh, you read the entire paper?

stevey_frac wrote:But sugar? I don't think you can die of sugar, assuming you have a normally functioning insulin response. You might get fat, and that might cause health issue... But it can't kill you.


Five seconds on google disagrees with you. The LD50 for sucrose on rates is about 30g/kg, so assuming it's similar for humans (it likely kills you by osmotic pressure, so the amount would probably be at least ballpark for humans) you'd need to eat about 3kg, which is about as much water you need to drink for the same effect.

stevey_frac wrote:I would be say we should regulate water consumption before we regulate sugar almost...


But they're not talking about the acute effects of sugar, but the long-term effects. And their suggested regulations only include substances that have high amounts of added sugar (which, in the US, would likely be high-fructose corn syrup, compared to sucrose in Australia, since we don't grow corn), which was in the extract I quoted from the paper.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:04 am UTC

yurell wrote:Five seconds on google disagrees with you. The LD50 for sucrose on rates is about 30g/kg, so assuming it's similar for humans (it likely kills you by osmotic pressure, so the amount would probably be at least ballpark for humans) you'd need to eat about 3kg, which is about as much water you need to drink for the same effect.


Well, Vitamin C has a rat LD50 of just 11.9 g/kg, so does that mean we need to put a black-box warning on orange juice, or have it dispensed by prescription only?

Although forcing that much Vitamin C is going to be really, really difficult, but I think the point stands.
I looked out across the river today …
Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Anaximander » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:07 am UTC

Newsflash. If you eat sugar you're gonna die. And if you don't eat sugar? You're still gonna die.

This has nothing to do with anyone's health. None of the heavy hands behind research/regulation like this care about me, you or your obese Aunt with Type 2 diabetes. This is all about paving the way for more corporate-government collusion to gain control over your life while bringing in additional tax revenue.

Too much of anything is not good for you. Education and common sense will drive that home better than any rule or regulation ever could.
Anaximander
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Magnanimous » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:23 am UTC

Panonadin wrote:
emceng wrote:Are you trolling, or just being an ass? It is fucking sugar. How is age verification going to do anything, and why should the government be doing it in the first place?

I think my post came off as being an ass but it was slightly intended. I think the article describes why they should be regulating it in the first place. Do you have a problem because of the government regulating things? Or just sugar in general? Lots of dangerous stuff is regulated, alcohol, tobacco, etc. It's all bad for your health and you are allowed to buy it when you are at an age where society feels you can make sound decisions.

Also, that was ONE of the options for regulation, they also talked about taxing it higher which would do nothing more than give people a bit of an incentive to avoid it. I honestly don't see the issue and since you posted a different point of view I was curious about your thought process.

For starters, sugar isn't inherently dangerous like tobacco or other drugs: it only appears to be harmful in high amounts, and the problem is that people are getting too much. Age requirements for high-sugar items wouldn't really help because it's so easy for anyone to add sugar to something to make it taste better. (Unless we put age regulations on bulk sugars too, but that'd be a little silly.)

Taxes on sugar would lead to companies using it less, though, and I'd most likely support that.
The card wrote:GO TO THE CIRCUS. FIREWORKS AND WHISTLES, LION TAMERS AND CLOWNS. HOO RAH.
User avatar
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:27 am UTC

As has been mentioned, though, you can't get rid of sugars; the article doesn't even suggest that, as has been pointed out. It does suggest there is too much added sugar in many of our foods, and suggests restrictions or taxes on it, but the problem I see is the definition of "added" sugar -- who's going to say "X needs 13.46 g of sugar per 100 kg, and you have 15.7, so we're going to tax you 20.5 cents per added gram per kilogram"?

Edit: Yes, you can try to ban substances such as high-fructose corn syrup, but that will just lead to other high-sugar additives. Eventually, you'd have to quantify what is an added sugar, or what is an excessive amount of sugar, etc. Unless you're aware of a better way.
I looked out across the river today …
Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby stevey_frac » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:56 am UTC

yurell wrote:
Five seconds on google disagrees with you. The LD50 for sucrose on rates is about 30g/kg, so assuming it's similar for humans (it likely kills you by osmotic pressure, so the amount would probably be at least ballpark for humans) you'd need to eat about 3kg, which is about as much water you need to drink for the same effect.



Just because a force fed LD50 exists, doesn't mean people actually die of it. Ever. For me, I'd have to consume a little over 7 pounds of sugar to hit LD50.

If you are familiar with the big bags of sugar at the grocery store... The 5lb ones? I'd have to eat a bag and a half.

And you know what? You simply couldn't do it. Woman complain about feeling nauseous and sometimes vomit when they have to drink a 10oz drink containing 100g of sugar (Edit: For gestational diabetes.. my wife had to do it). You are suggesting someone could actually ingest 3000g to 4000g of sugar. That's total crap. I posit you couldn't kill yourself via sugar if you tried, unless you were already diabetic.
stevey_frac
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby yurell » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:16 am UTC

In case your memory doesn't span the past few hours, Stevey, you said "But it can't kill you". It can kill you. I never posited that people do die from it, nor does the paper, you're the one who brought up acute dose by comparing it with water toxicity.

No one here is under the illusion that it's not insane to believe that someone will kill themselves with sugar, that's the strawman you created. I was just showing that it is possible. This is especially important since your entire argument was 'you're more likely to take a toxic dose of water than of sugar, so water should be more regulated!' This is incredibly stupid because no one other than you is arguing about acute effects.

Edit:
Magnanimous wrote:Taxes on sugar would lead to companies using it less, though, and I'd most likely support that.


In the case of the US, they could lower the subsidies on corn, which is where most of the sweeteners in the US come from.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby elasto » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:03 am UTC

Webzter wrote:I'm curious how you went about the caffeine and sugar. I suppose that's too OT for this thread, but I'm constantly trying, and failing, at the caffeine. Sugar too, to a lesser extent.

Well, sugar and caffeine have similar withdrawal periods actually - with both you're over the worst of it by about day 3. That means if you have your last caffeine dose on Friday morning and can accept a slightly groggy Monday morning, by Tuesday you should be more or less fine. Likewise, if you have your last high-GI meal Thursday night, you can probably muddle through Friday and suffer the worst withdrawal effects Saturday and Sunday, and be pretty good-to-go on Monday.

For me, the effect of going cold-turkey on caffeine is that period of 'brain-fog' that you get between waking up and your first coffee of the day being worse than ever and lasting about three days. For me the effect of going cold-turkey on sugar is cravings and headaches. The easiest way I find to cope with the latter being having a small glass or two of dry wine - ymmv.

The interesting thing to appreciate with caffeine is that brain-scans show that that first coffee of the day doesn't make you more alert so much as simply make your alertness levels the same as someone who doesn't drink caffeine at all. In other words, you wake up simply because you're alleviating the withdrawal effects that caffeine caused in the first place. I found my mental state - alertness, sharpness etc - yoyo-d up and down with caffeine whereas without it I'm always about as good as the best caffeine made me feel.

There are two sides to caffeine though. The other side is that that first coffee of the day felt damn good... The mental symptoms of cutting caffeine went after about 3 days but emotionally I missed it for about a month. I actually felt like there was a little void in my life, like life was forever more boring. Actually, though, that feeling too left. Sugar is similar in that it takes a long time to stop missing it emotionally - taking me a lot more attempts to give up than caffeine.
elasto
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Azrael » Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

Anaximander wrote:This has nothing to do with anyone's health. None of the heavy hands behind research/regulation like this care about me, you or your obese Aunt with Type 2 diabetes. This is all about paving the way for more corporate-government collusion to gain control over your life while bringing in additional tax revenue

Look, I know you're just here to spout your conspiracy theory and then disappear. But really, this is stupid.

Corporate-government collusion to ban sugar? It's the other way around -- there will never be a sugar restriction as severe as this research paper passingly suggests because the corporate food lobby is much to influential to let it happen.

Which, honestly, is probably a good thing in this particular case. Because on the whole, while the idea of a sugar restriction might make sense as a theory to limit one particular public health problem, it is astoundingly impractical. To do anything meaningful, it would also have to be immediately followed by a similar restriction on things with fat and salt.
User avatar
Azrael
Unintentionally Intoxicated
 
Posts: 6185
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

Related opinion piece from the independent http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/ ... ohibition/
User avatar
AvatarIII
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Arrian » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Which, honestly, is probably a good thing in this particular case. Because on the whole, while the idea of a sugar restriction might make sense as a theory to limit one particular public health problem, it is astoundingly impractical. To do anything meaningful, it would also have to be immediately followed by a similar restriction on things with fat and salt.


There's a massive gap between theory and implementation. Honestly, some of our problem (namely American use of high fructose corn syrup instead of cane or beet sugar) is already an unintended consequence of government policy, the result of tariffs on imported sugar and limits on domestic production as well as corn subsidies.

We've already got an experiment going on with taxing sugary foods in Illinois, it would be wise to let that run for a while and see what happens before making any federal rules. (One of the benefits of federalism is that states can beta test different policies and we can see what works, what doesn't, and what perverse results happen that nobody expected.) One of the things to note is that taxing those sugary foods isn't as straightforward as it sounds when you get down to making the laws:

But just what constitutes candy under the law has c-store operators and consumers alike scratching their heads. While a Hershey’s bar is considered candy under the new tax law, it’s Cookie’s ‘n’ Crème spinoff is not. Meanwhile a Butterfinger counts as candy, but Butterfinger Stixx with its wafer center is not. In addition, Twix, Kit Kat and Twizzlers are not considered candy under Illinois law even though they have been staples of the candy aisle for years.
Arrian
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby elasto » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:54 pm UTC

Banning is impractical and you couldn't raise taxes high enough to make a significant difference in behaviour.

Personally I'm in favour of education on the one hand and manufacturers being forced to label foods on the other (which they already are). Then you just have to let people make their own choices because trying to control them is bound to fail. Even though I've made the choice that I'm happier without sugar, caffeine and alcohol I don't believe those choices should be forced on others even if they could be. Heck, I think most illegal drugs should be decriminalised or legalised too for much the same reasons.
elasto
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:10 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
Panonadin wrote:
emceng wrote:
If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar". Fucking idiots.


I'm sorry, aside from your obvious superiority to the people involved in the study I don't see your actual issue with this? Could you clarify?


Are you trolling, or just being an ass? It is fucking sugar spray paint. How is age verification going to do anything, and why should the government be doing it in the first place?

And alcohol occurs naturally, too. What are you gonna do, ban kids from buying yeast?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby thc » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:20 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
emceng wrote:
Panonadin wrote:
emceng wrote:
If you ignore the toxin part, the published paper is still horseshit. Look at the bolded part. Really? Fucking age limits to buy fucking sugar? "Sorry ma'am, I need to see an ID for this candy bar". Fucking idiots.


I'm sorry, aside from your obvious superiority to the people involved in the study I don't see your actual issue with this? Could you clarify?


Are you trolling, or just being an ass? It is fucking sugar spray paint. How is age verification going to do anything, and why should the government be doing it in the first place?

And alcohol occurs naturally, too. What are you gonna do, ban kids from buying yeast?

Right because when underage kids want to get drunk, that's what they do, they go and buy yeast.
User avatar
thc
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:23 pm UTC

thc wrote:Right because when underage kids want to get drunk, that's what they do, they go and buy yeast.

Because when underage kids want a candy bar, that's what they do, they go and by bulk sugar.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Anaximander » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Anaximander wrote:This has nothing to do with anyone's health. None of the heavy hands behind research/regulation like this care about me, you or your obese Aunt with Type 2 diabetes. This is all about paving the way for more corporate-government collusion to gain control over your life while bringing in additional tax revenue

Look, I know you're just here to spout your conspiracy theory and then disappear. But really, this is stupid.

OK. Fair enough. Let's assume that no agricultural company has ever benefited from their ability to lobby for regulation that they know would drive competitors out of business thus giving them virtual monopolistic control of a market share.
Azrael wrote:Corporate-government collusion to ban sugar? It's the other way around -- there will never be a sugar restriction as severe as this research paper passingly suggests because the corporate food lobby is much to influential to let it happen.

Which, honestly, is probably a good thing in this particular case. Because on the whole, while the idea of a sugar restriction might make sense as a theory to limit one particular public health problem, it is astoundingly impractical. To do anything meaningful, it would also have to be immediately followed by a similar restriction on things with fat and salt.

But regulation of all food in the interest of public health is one option, isn't it? My follow-up question would then be why is restriction and regulation of anything preferable to education?

My point being that, as a society (at least in America), we teach people next to nothing about what food is, where it comes from or how diet affects our health and general well-being. Most families and institutions have settled for food that is industrialized and processed beyond all recognition to the point that it is essentially devoid of any nutritional value and full of empty calories - so we have a population of people that are not only fat, but also malnourished. And then, rather than educating people on the root causes of what notable food activist and author Michael Pollan has called the "national eating disorder" that underlies the public health crises we face regarding heart disease and obesity, the government subsidizes the same Big Ag companies responsible for the industrialized food supply that sits at the root cause of many health concerns and then wants to regulate what individual citizens are allowed to eat from that same industrialized food supply. This doesn't make any sense.
Anaximander
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

In general, things shouldn't be regulated just because they hurt the user. Things should be regulated if they hurt others. So, alcohol is regulated because drunk people are harmful to others, most often behind the wheel of a car. PCP is regulated because people on PCP are a huge problem, it often requires 10 cops to take them down. But sugar? Not only does it not pose a risk of harm to somebody other than the user, not only does it pose minimal harm to the user, it's actually a necessity.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:In general, things shouldn't be regulated just because they hurt the user. Things should be regulated if they hurt others. So, alcohol is regulated because drunk people are harmful to others, most often behind the wheel of a car. PCP is regulated because people on PCP are a huge problem, it often requires 10 cops to take them down. But sugar? Not only does it not pose a risk of harm to somebody other than the user, not only does it pose minimal harm to the user, it's actually a necessity.

How does chewing tobacco hurt others, exactly?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:07 pm UTC

It doesn't. I said "shouldn't be regulated", not "aren't regulated". Otherwise Marijuana would be legal.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

Anaximander wrote:Newsflash. If you eat sugar you're gonna die. And if you don't eat sugar? You're still gonna die.

This has nothing to do with anyone's health. None of the heavy hands behind research/regulation like this care about me, you or your obese Aunt with Type 2 diabetes. This is all about paving the way for more corporate-government collusion to gain control over your life while bringing in additional tax revenue.

Too much of anything is not good for you. Education and common sense will drive that home better than any rule or regulation ever could.



I'm sorry, but you make too much sense and are obviously using your brain - we can't have that. (enter police with riot gear and face masks).
Greyarcher:Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
JimsMaher:Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
HES: Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong.
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:It doesn't. I said "shouldn't be regulated", not "aren't regulated". Otherwise Marijuana would be legal.

Fair point. I was trying to say that we put age limits on things like chewing tobacco, alcohol, and spray paint and I don't see putting age restrictions on candy as being materially different from that.

I would be happy in theory if we stopped subsidizing crap food and maybe taxed it instead and subsidized healthy food, but that would be a nightmare in practice.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

Age limits I don't actually have a huge problem with from a rights standpoint: children are and should be denied rights to protect themselves, because they're children and shouldn't be entirely responsible for their own actions. With sugar, I mostly have a problem with an age restriction because it isn't very harmful and it's a necessity.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:34 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:It doesn't. I said "shouldn't be regulated", not "aren't regulated". Otherwise Marijuana would be legal.

Fair point. I was trying to say that we put age limits on things like chewing tobacco, alcohol, and spray paint and I don't see putting age restrictions on candy as being materially different from that.

I would be happy in theory if we stopped subsidizing crap food and maybe taxed it instead and subsidized healthy food, but that would be a nightmare in practice.



This actually wouldn't be that terribly difficult - just end corporate welfare to Monsanto et al.
Greyarcher:Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery.
JimsMaher:Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots.
HES: Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong.
User avatar
eran_rathan
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in ur forum, killing ur threads :(

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:35 pm UTC

If only that were such an easy change :/
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:35 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Age limits I don't actually have a huge problem with from a rights standpoint: children are and should be denied rights in order to protect themselves, because they're children and shouldn't be entirely responsible for their own actions. With sugar, I mostly have a problem with an age restriction because it isn't very harmful and it's a necessity.

Grammar mistake changed your meaning. :shock:

Anyway, they're not talking about natural sugars, I think they're talking about high amounts of added sugars. Sort of like we do with caffeine. It's illegal to sell food products with a certain % of caffeine. (Energy drinks get around this by being classified as "supplements".)
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby Triangle_Man » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:In general, things shouldn't be regulated just because they hurt the user. Things should be regulated if they hurt others. So, alcohol is regulated because drunk people are harmful to others, most often behind the wheel of a car. PCP is regulated because people on PCP are a huge problem, it often requires 10 cops to take them down. But sugar? Not only does it not pose a risk of harm to somebody other than the user, not only does it pose minimal harm to the user, it's actually a necessity.

How does chewing tobacco hurt others, exactly?

Some people might find the act to be unsanity (especially the spitting), but aside from that I don't see how it would cause enough harm to others to warrent potential prohibition.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.
User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

Perhaps, but according to Yurell's quote, that's not what the argument said.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: Sugar is going to murder everything forever

Postby leh » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:11 pm UTC

i believe that the harm done to others are the additional burden on social services (which results in less benefit / increased cost for everyone else) and the mental anguish (endured by family / friends) which is caused when people eventually succumb to the adverse health effects of poor diet / tobacco / alcohol / [insert vice here]..
leh
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:54 pm UTC

Next

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: krogoth and 5 guests