Sugar is going to murder everything forever

[EMTP]

You are aware that sounding really condescending does not actually make your arguments better, right?

. . . he asserts condescendingly. Funny!

Moreover, when accusing someone of using a fallacy, it is good form to point to the fallacy directly, and explain why it is, in fact, that fallacy.

See above. Maybe you missed it?

If you don't do that, you're just throwing around words and trying to look smart.

Kind of like interjecting a condescending lecture into a conversation to which you have nothing of substance to contribute?

[Marbas]

. . . he asserts condescendingly. Funny!

Kind of like interjecting a condescending lecture into a conversation to which you have nothing of substance to contribute?

No! That's the exact same stupid crap that lets people say "YOU NEED TO BE TOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE." Repeatedly throwing around snide insinuations that someone "Doesn't get basic concepts" and that the subject is too complicated for them is really just taking pointless petty snipes at people. All it does is lower standards of discourse.

All I am asking is that you please stop being a jerk.

See above. Maybe you missed it?

I did! My bad.

[yurell]

Similarly, scientific studies on exercise are absolutely horrible. I wouldn't want someone to use the precedent of regulating diet to then tell me how I can / should exercise, because I feel that whole field of study is a giant cluster-fuck.

On that note, how do you then feel about my comment on exercise in schools?

[Azrael]

However, no one's said that.

I'm glad to see you backing away from your slippery slope fallacy. Pretending you never made the argument, however is silly.

Go ahead. Show me where I made an actual slippery slope fallacy. Quote it. Not one where you've decided that I have. A slippery slope "If we do A, then we will do B".

Which isn't what I've been saying.

You stated that in a democracy we can stop at any time along which ever regulatory path we want -- which is true, and no one has stated otherwise. You've invented that opposing stance yourself.

Actually, the fact that we already regulate some ingredients indicates that this isn't a slippery slope argument.

Again you seem to be struggling with basic concepts here. The presence of those regulations illustrates the absurdity of your slippery slope argument.

Saying "again" doesn't make you correct, nor is doubting my understanding making my argument actually fit the little pigeon hole you've decided to build for it.

But let's look up what a slippery slope argument actually is. Allow me to quote it:

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

See that whole bit about middle ground, and the strength of the argument depending on demonstrating a process with leads to the next effect? The presence of regulations of specific ingredients indicates that the middle ground exists -- and it's perfectly clear that after regulating the first (and a whole bunch more) we haven't slipped off the slope into regulating absolutely everything. However, it is also clear that there is a process in place to support additional regulations (i.e. trans-fat). A regulation of sugar would use that process.

But, to be crystal clear, my point is and always has been:

It would be in the interests of a large industrial food company that would be hurt by regulations to sugar, fat, salt or calorie content to prevent a ban on sugar. Initially (obviously) because their interests in sugar would be harmed. But also because a ban on sugar could strengthen the public will and regulatory environment against other unhealthy ingredients.

(See that 'could' and the fact that I'm not saying a ban on sugar would inevitably lead to a ban on fat, salt and calorie content? And the identification of an existent mechanism that could feasibly be used to regulate fat, salt or calorie content? All of that is what makes this not a slippery slope argument.)

Furthermore, the businesses at hand don't care that this has been proclaimed by some guy on the internet to be an arguable and informal fallacy, because managing business risk and following debate rhetoric are not the same. Nor are the driving players (the general public and regulators) perfectly rational actors driven by a formal logic computational engine. The wise company would recognize a risk and manage it -- not (as was the relevant context of the original discussion) collude to further regulate themselves.

Sugar has a far greater impact on heart disease than fat or salt.

Care to cite that? Because The CDC disagrees in putting diabetes last on the list. And this paper outright states that (in 2002) there were no trials linking sugar directly to CVD. AHA's caution against sugar is that it is one (of many) of the causes of obesity.

Nope, wrong again. Nowhere does CDC say that fat and salt are more important than sugar to cardiovascular risk. Care to cite?

You know what's great about context? It make your latest quip here look particularly trite.

No, I will not provide further citations at this time than the three I already gave you. You started this line of discussion by making the positive claim that sugar was a far larger contributor to CVD than fat or salt, and you have already been asked to cite it. Your attempt to play the "No, you cite it" game is transparent.

Cite your original assertion.

[addams]

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.

Oh, Yuck.
I, just, have to ask. I have to.

Food Stamps for the poor are only valid for items that are not taxed. Now; Some people can not celebrate food with a candy bar for a child or an adult?
Really? It seems so mean. Bad Americans. Bad.

[stevey_frac]

I do quite agree with you, RI. While government solutions tend to be hammers, I feel this is more a flaw in their implementation and design from choosing the more politically expedient option than that suggested by the true experts in the field. Of course, you are quite right that it does leave very little room for nuance, and I can't recall a political decree so well done as to leave that room without compromising somewhere else, although I do believe it possible. But I suppose everyone's position on the authoritarianism / anarchy spectrum is for discussion in another thread.

As for the problem not being exclusively sugar, I definitely agree. Lifestyle changes are difficult to enforce (I can't envisage the Japanese approach to mandatory exercise being accepted here), and this is why I think the tax on sugar is suggested — people are a lot more willing to accept a restriction on their actions through market manipulation than they are to accept being forced to do something. However, I believe there is a way government can manipulate the population to encourage exercise, without levying a toll on sugar (that said, I'm not opposed to taxing something should the sugar content pass a threshold), a way that does modify behaviour without forcing people to change — school.

The P.E. classes in school are, to be quite honest, pathetic. They do not teach fitness, they are a cruel travesty for the kids who are naturally skilled to show off and for those who aren't to suffer. If maths classes were modelled on PE classes, there would children barely capable of basic algebra having to do calculus against kids who can already do calculus. I'm sure some of you have done badly in an exam at school at some point or another; do you remember that horrible sinking feeling of humiliation? That is what it feels like for every kid who is told they have to run and can't. Even worse, while in maths there is an expectation that children won't find it fun, in PE it is expected that children will enjoy it, so there is a large social stigma attached to not being good at sports that simply doesn't exist for not being good at maths. The current PE system serves one purpose — to instil a hatred of physical activity for those who aren't already good at it. Education for fitness and healthy eating could quite easily be the main point of PE, instead of just playing games where the fit kids always win and if you're chubby, you can enjoy only burning muscles, and aching chest and constant coughing.
I'm overweight, I recognise this. I'm sure physical activity can be fun and fulfilling, there are many people who have told me so. However, when I think of it I see those people who enjoy it as the fit kids in PE, and exercise as nothing but the sum of humiliation and pain. Education curriculum is something that is firmly in the control of the government, and this is the problem that should be addressed, not to the exclusion of the issue of eating unhealthy food, but as part of a solution to its consequences.

I missed this earlier, and will comment on it, as per your request.

I'd say a lot of this is age dependant. In elementary school, they should be exposing kids to new things. Not everyone's father teaches them to play baseball, etc... whatever.

When we start talking about high school, I'd say we should be training strength almost the exclusion of all else... but ... I have my own warped view on this particular topic. It would be equalizing though, because 'overweight' kids, especially males in this age group, can pack on muscle and grow strong at such an exceptional rate, that it is almost mind blowing. They have the resources available to them to become freakin Mack trucks. Plus, there is significant evidence that strength gained when young you keep for the rest of your lift. Physical strength is also inversely correlated to death from all causes. Give me a chubby 17 year old who's willing to lift, and i'll have him squatting 300 lbs in 3 months. And I means, ass-to-grass squatting... not football coach 'my linebackers squat 600 lbs with 4" of depth" squatting.

</rant>

[yurell]

@Stevey — thank you, I was just interested in your view since you seemed to dislike government-enforced exercise, and school PE seems about as government-enforced it can get. I don't know enough about fitness to know what types of exercise would be best, but I believe something needs to be done to fix the PE curriculum, and that this will help the coming adult population.

Food Stamps for the poor are only valid for items that are not taxed. Now; Some people can not celebrate food with a candy bar for a child or an adult?
Really? It seems so mean. Bad Americans. Bad.

Hang on, chocolate isn't already taxed in the US? What kind of crap is that?

[EMTP]

"Go ahead. Show me where I made an actual slippery slope fallacy. Quote it."

Why? It's right there; anybody can read it and make up their own minds. In addition to slipperly slope fallacies, you seem quite fond of thread-derailing trolling. However, you're just not interesting enough to make bickering with you seem attractive.

I will refer you to sourmilk's original statement of the fallacy, and your attempt to defend it with an incoherent and factually inaccurate "legal precedent" defense. And I'm moving on.

None of your sources seem to support your assertion that fat and salt make a greater contribution to heart disease than sugars. Nutrition and chronic disease is a big topic, but let me refer you to the introduction here: http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1478.full.

Note the large increase in American obesity since 1970, large increase in carbohydrate consumption (+27%) and minimal increase in dietary fat (%3).

For the minimal impact of salt on people without preexisting CHF (congestive heart failure), CKD (chronic kidney disease), or a certain genetic subset (mostly African-Americans), see the Cochrane Review of dietary salt and hypertension: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/detai ... 09217.html.

Big picture: I'm happy to discuss nutrition and chronic disease further, if you're interested in actually expanding your knowledge. If you are really just interested in bickering back and forth, I'm sorry to say I don't really have the time, and your performance to date does not really leave me feeling that I have anything to prove by schooling you further.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

EMTP, what is with you and eating babies? Every thread you post in gets turned into a debate on the merits of baby eating.

[Azrael]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I appreciate the help, but he can't and he knows it. Even the wikipedia definition above demonstrates it. So if the person who started the uninteresting tangent about fallacies wants to leave it alone, let him?

...you seem quite fond of thread-derailing trolling.

And I will leave for the readers to laugh at your irony. After having posted in the fashion you have, you claim I'm the troll? After having been repeatedly told that yelling about fallacies was unimportant, you claim I'm trolling? You do have an amazing ability to read whatever the hell you please.

Speaking of which:

None of your sources seem to support your assertion that fat and salt make a greater contribution to heart disease than sugars.

... because I never made that claim. I only asked you to support your claims that sugar was the larger contributor to CVD.

I did say that by the logic used to support restricting sugar (danger to public health) would also support restricting fat or high calorie foods in general. Which remains true even if sugar is a larger contributor to death, unless you can also demonstrate that fat isn't also a contributor.

I did say that to have any practical effect, fat would have to also be restricted. Because curbing sugar will lead processed food manufacturers to substitute other things to make their products taste good.

Note the large increase in American obesity since 1970, large increase in carbohydrate consumption (+27%) and minimal increase in dietary fat (%3).

But that data doesn't indicate that carbohydrates are worse contributors than fat -- only that carbohydrates are contributors, and increasing their consumption leads to negative consequences. You'd need a study that compares substitution of one for the other to make the comparative statement.

Plus, the percentage increase in obesity listed in Table 1 (10%) is actually lower than the total energy intake increases also cited (15%). Curbing sugar alone doesn't mean people are going to eat less calories.

[EMTP]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I personally am past caring, and have said so. Still seems to be important to Azrael, for reasons I can only assume are related to a distant father and a lack of success at sports.

[stevey_frac]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I personally am past caring, and have said so. Still seems to be important to Azrael, for reasons I can only assume are related to a distant father and a lack of success at sports.

Ad hominem! That'll score you some points with this crowd, as will your repeated deflections!

[Radical_Initiator]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I personally am past caring, and have said so. Still seems to be important to Azrael, for reasons I can only assume are related to a distant father and a lack of success at sports.

Ad hominem! That'll score you some points with this crowd, as will your repeated deflections!

Is it really ad hominem? Ad hominem, I thought, at least makes some argument, using some negative aspect of its proponent to imply the argument is invalid. This is just baseless insult by a useless troll and posturing that no one in their right mind couldn't see through. It's embarrassing, honestly.

[stevey_frac]

Ad hominem "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by
pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. "

As defined by wikipedia. I think this counts. Not really a finessed attempt by any means, I'll give you that.

[Azrael]

Well jeez, if you're going to be like that:

If you consider every vice regulatable because it harms others by proxy, then that's kind of a slipper slope. Then there's no logical barrier preventing the government from banning ...

The slippery slope fallacy could be considered the definition of a "logical barrier." Because we as a democracy chose to regulate certain things, it doesn't follow that we have to regulate other, loosely related things.

While slippery slope arguments can be logically unsound, their cousin legal precedence is a well established principle. So once you establish that X is a large enough risk to public health that it should be regulated, then the case can easily be made that risky thing Y can also be regulated. Especially when they aren't loosely related. In fact they're quite similar; both are regulations of harmful-at-some-level ingredients in prepared food stuffs.

Sugar has a far greater impact on heart disease than fat or salt. The notion that the fat on your coronary arteries comes from the fat you consume is just wrong. Salt's impact on blood pressure in those that do not have renal failure or CHF has been grossly exaggerated. But I digress.

The point is, it's a slippery slope fallacy. I presume you know what that is. We could regulate fat and salt, or we could chose not to. Regulating sugar does not imply that we must go on to regulate other things.

If you said that regulating sugar implied that we must or intrinsically would go on to regulate other things, that would be a slippery slope argument. It would be a slippery slope because it ignores the middle ground (the continuum fallacy) and there is no strength to the warrant.

However, no one's said that.

I'm glad to see you backing away from your slippery slope fallacy. Pretending you never made the argument, however is silly.

In which we demonstrate through quotes that EMTP misconstrued what was being argued, and took the proposed conditionals to be absolutes, and constructed his own version of other people's arguments so that he could claim them to be slippery slope fallacies. Which we'd normally call a strawman.

And that he considered the actual discussion (about anything but the fallacy) a digression.

But guys -- he doesn't care now.

[EMTP]

Ad hominem! That'll score you some points with this crowd, as will your repeated deflections!

Clearly scoring points with this crowd is not the consuming passion for me that it is for some.

I'll just have to be content with winning the argument, and enjoy the content-free whining by those left high and dry.

Plus, the percentage increase in obesity listed in table 1 (10%) is actually lower than the total energy intake increases also cited (15%).

Yeah, you can't compare those two numbers in that way. There's no reason to think they would be directly proportional. Also, the prevalence of obesity did not increase by 10%. First, the chart is about people who are overweight, not people who are obese. Those are two different things. Second, all groups showed an increase of >30% in the prevalence of being overweight.

Google is a powerful tool, but it only gets you so far when you're expressing strong opinions about a subject you don't understand.

Help yourself to the last word.

[Azrael]

Google is a powerful tool, but it only gets you so far when you're expressing strong opinions about a subject you don't understand.

Convenient then that I'm not expressing strong opinions. All I'm asking if for you to justify your own assertions.

Help yourself to the last word.

That no matter how much you claim authority on the subject, only a study showing that sugar has a higher comparative risk factor than fat for CVD will justify your original assertion.

[stevey_frac]

Anyone else find it amusing that he's lashing out with repeated personal insults? Including the subtle one aimed at me?

Desperate attempts to claim authority on the subject will also not convince anyone here. Produce evidence to back your original claim.

You are arguing a bunch of incredibly pedantic people (which by the way I love you all for). They will not take anything on faith, or accept your position because you claim you know what you are talking about.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I personally am past caring, and have said so.

Yeah? And you were still going on about it in your last post because ...?

"Yeah I don't care about the contentious and incendiary claim that I keep making. I mean, I'm not going to stop making it. But I'm not going to back it up, because I don't care."

[EMTP]

I claim that an argument can entirely fit the criteria for being a "slippery slope argument," as the term is ordinarily used, and yet not be a case of fallacious reasoning. Can you refute my claim? Then why the hell should anyone care if Azrael's argument is a slippery slope?

I personally am past caring, and have said so.

Yeah? And you were still going on about it in your last post because ...?

"Yeah I don't care about the contentious and incendiary claim that I keep making. I mean, I'm not going to stop making it. But I'm not going to back it up, because I don't care."

Actually, I did back it up, along with proposing to move on.

You seem to be shifting your position on this. Initially you said "why the hell should anyone care"? Now you're saying "back up your claim," i.e., argue the matter further.

You seem a little confused about what you want -- to stop dwelling on this minor point, or to argue it out more. This impression is further heightened by the fact that you ask me why I'm "going on about it," when the obvious reason I'm still discussing it is posts like yours demanding that I address this or that.

By blaming me for reiterating a "contentious" position when I'm repeatedly asked about it, you are essentially blaming your inability to drop the subject on the fact that I continue to hold a position different from yours.

As I said above: anyone can read the thread and draw their own conclusions. We all agree now, it seems, that regulating sugar does not imply that we will necessarily regulate fat or salt in a similar way. So at this point, your somewhat hysterical rage at my position on a side issue is what is keeping that issue front and center.

You are arguing a bunch of incredibly pedantic people

Pedantic and sloppy don't really go well together.

[Azrael]

Pedantic and sloppy don't really go well together.

Says the guy who was in too much of a hurry to point out a perceived fallacy that he didn't actually read what was written.

Bravo.

Sugar has a far greater impact on heart disease than fat ...

We're still waiting on citations that address this specific claim.

[Zamfir]

To help this thread along, I am going to impose some rules.

A. every post will contain the word 'sugar' as a contributing part of its message.
B. no post will contain words that might conceivably be found in Straw's Encyclopedia of fallacies in argumentation

If it's difficult to stick to the letter of these rules, you may stick to the spirit

[EMTP]

An interesting article on fructose:

Now a study in the February issue of The Journal of Nutrition reports that fructose consumption may increase cardiovascular risk factors because it increases visceral fat, the kind that accumulates around internal organs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/healt ... f=research

In a broader sense, anything that contributes to obesity increases cardiac risk factors, and simple sugars play a large role in our excess consumption. This study has found that at least for fructose, simple sugars may be worse than other types of calories.

The study was conducted in adolescents, who are an important group for dietary issues because there is a large body of research that indicates that obesity in adolescents is very difficult to reverse in adults (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302300).

The abstract: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/2/251.abstract

[benpipe]

What does this mean? Does it mean that sugar is not good for health or something else.

[yurell]

It's just a sensationalist article.

[stevey_frac]

What does this mean? Does it mean that sugar is not good for health or something else.

It means that if you are concerned about your weight, eating sugar probably isn't the best way to go...

And if you didn't already know that, you are likely completely uninformed on the subject.

[Panonadin]

It suggests that we make it more difficult for impulse driven humans to damage themselves with un needed sugar intake.

Of course if we do that all hell will break loose and the government will put people in prison who salt thier vegetables. Or something.

[Radical_Initiator]

It suggests that we make it more difficult for impulse driven humans to damage themselves with un needed sugar intake.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. I mean, higher costs for alcohol have definitely eliminated drunk driving and alcoholism, right? And taxes on cigarettes have killed off smoking. And those are things we don't actually need in any amount. So legislating added sugar is bound to work, right?

[Panonadin]

It suggests that we make it more difficult for impulse driven humans to damage themselves with un needed sugar intake.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. I mean, higher costs for alcohol have definitely eliminated drunk driving and alcoholism, right? And taxes on cigarettes have killed off smoking. And those are things we don't actually need in any amount. So legislating added sugar is bound to work, right?

I dont know why everyone always has to go the smart ass route because they disagree.

Has the age limitation on alcohol and/or price being high (I don't actually think alcohol has a high price in the US) DECREASED the amount of accidents by a measureable number? The high price of smoking these days has REDUCED the number of smokers.

Has the death penalty or jail time stopped murder? Theft? Oh well HERP DERP guess that means murder should be legal. Jesus the rebuttal process on this forum is always. Pick a way to respond from numbers 1-5 and post.

So yes, regulation in some manner to reduce the comsumption to healthy levels would help. The problem with it IS what has been brought up in the thread. #1 being the factories closed and companies cutting jobs due to the increased cost of production would be a huge drawback.

[yurell]

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. I mean, higher costs for alcohol have definitely eliminated drunk driving and alcoholism, right? And taxes on cigarettes have killed off smoking. And those are things we don't actually need in any amount. So legislating added sugar is bound to work, right?

Of course! It's so clear now ... because an action doesn't completely eliminate something, it simply mustn't work so we should abandon it entirely! I guess we can get rid of them rape and murder laws — I mean they were nice and all but haven't eliminated rape and murder.

[Radical_Initiator]

You're right. I'm sorry.

[EMTP]

Increase in cavities among preschoolers, the first in 30 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/healt ... ml?_r=1&hp

Medicaid is required to cover dental care for children, but not adults: https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidDentalCoverage/

Poor dentition is a major risk factor for multiple health problems:

"Age-Dependent Associations Between Chronic Periodontitis/Edentulism and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease" -- http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/117/13/1668.short
"Association between periodontal disease and stroke " -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1411023251
"Systemic Effects of Periodontal Diseases" -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1411023251

The prevalence of simple sugars in the American diet is one of the reasons we have a large burden of periodontal disease, and discouraging sugar consumption is likely to reduce tooth decay.

[gmalivuk]

Yes, we know sugar is bad for teeth. I've known that pretty much since I was old enough to understand all the words in, "Sugar is bad for your teeth."

Of course, another thing I've known for about the same amount of time is that brushing is good for teeth. Brushing more and using fluoridated tap water instead of bottled water would also likely to reduce tooth decay.

But yeah, definitely better to make laws about sugar.

[EMTP]

Yes, we know sugar is bad for teeth. I've known that pretty much since I was old enough to understand all the words in, "Sugar is bad for your teeth."

Of course, another thing I've known for about the same amount of time is that brushing is good for teeth. Brushing more and using fluoridated tap water instead of bottled water would also likely to reduce tooth decay.

But yeah, definitely better to make laws about sugar.

. . . and cars have crumple zones so we shouldn't wear seatbelts.

Nice false choice fallacy. Back in the real world, discouraging sugar consumption and encouraging tooth brushing are what is called complementary strategies, not competing alternatives.