Tobacco, alcohol … and sugar?
A new commentary published in Nature argues that just as the first two substances are regulated in various ways by government authorities, so should be sugar. While acknowledging that food, unlike alcohol and tobacco, is required for survival, the authors say taxes, zoning ordinances and even age limits for purchasing certain sugar-laden products are all appropriate remedies for what they see as a not-so-sweet problem.
The authors of the piece, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are all from the University of California, San Francisco. Lustig has been a particularly harsh (and longtime) critic of the impact of added sugars on health  here’s his widely viewed 2009 lecture on that topic. (Lustig was also a central character in a New York Times magazine piece on this subject last year.)
Note that they are talking about sugar added to foods. No one is arguing that we should spurn fruit, for example, because of the naturally occurring fructose.
“We believe attention should be turned to ‘added sugar,’ defined as any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing,†the authors write. (And they argue the current dietary “bogeymen† saturated fat and salt  deserve less scrutiny than the sweet white stuff.)
They’re talking about foods sweetened with sucrose  about half fructose and half glucose  and high-fructose corn syrup, which despite its name is mostly used in formulations that are 55% and 42% fructose.
The authors write that sugar is more than just empty calories  that growing evidence links fructose overconsumption with health problems including hypertension and diabetes. “Early studies†link it to cancer and cognitive decline, they write. They also argue that like tobacco and alcohol, “it acts on the brain to encourage subsequent intake.â€Â
This is probably the dumbest regulation I've ever heard. It's up to parents to make decisions as to what to feed their children, not Big Government. Does the government honestly think that parents are incapable of caring for their own children?Considering there is currently a childhood obesity epidemic, they are incapable of such.
What next? Regulating the sale of pencils because kids might accidentally get lead poisoning from the lead in the pencils.I'm reasonably certain that biomedical scientists at a major university know the difference between graphite and lead.(click to show/hide)
What next? Regulating the sale of pencils because kids might accidentally get lead poisoning from the lead in the pencils.
The thing is, too much of ANYTHING isn't healthy for you. You could even die from drinking too much WATER! It should be up to the parents and individuals to decide how much of something they want to eat. Not the government. But then again, I'm sort of for allowing people full control over their own bodies, so... yeah. I find it stupid.Find me a study showing a link between overconsumption of water and public health. If water doesn't have this factor, your comparison is invalid. You could argue personal autonomy, but it's a tax and not a ban.
The thing is, too much of ANYTHING isn't healthy for you. You could even die from drinking too much WATER! It should be up to the parents and individuals to decide how much of something they want to eat. Not the government. But then again, I'm sort of for allowing people full control over their own bodies, so... yeah. I find it stupid.
You know, it would be great if all the parents in the U.S. could just go down to their local WholeHere's a radical idea, take the money gained from taxing sugar and use it to subsidize healthier foods.PaycheckFoods and cook up a nice non-sugary meal every night. Unfortunately, a lot of families can't afford that. Say what you will about sugar and fast food, but that shit's cheap and a lot of times it's the only thing they can afford.
I think part of the solution is to stop subsidizing farms and pushing for honest labeling (telling the consumer just how much sugar is in the product), but no other regulation should really be required.This contradicts your previous concern as it would make food more expensive. Also, the food currently is labeled.
And frankly I think there are problems with the BMI which make it a horrible measure of what is and isn't "obese".Where the fuck is this coming from? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29) Does the BMI matter with respect to cancer or diabetes? I guess you could claim it might mean something with childhood obesity, but it doesn't matter because we see an increase. The obese point could be completely arbitrary and it would still be useful because we see that, over time, there has been a large increase in the weight of American children.
Only when it's clear the parents are grossly incompetent in such matters.
QuoteOnly when it's clear the parents are grossly incompetent in such matters.
Basically, this. Child abuse covers a lot of shit without us having to regulate it. We don't have to regulate food if a parent uses forcefeeding/overfeeding, for example.
Rather than taxing the crap out of sugar laden food items, further nutritional education in the schools. Bring in people who have suffered from morbid obesity, diabetes and heart disease from an overconsumption of unhealthy food choices to talk to the students. Just looking at the kids and saying 'too much of this isn't good for you' isn't going to get the message across.
Ulitmately, it's up to the individual what they put in their bodies, but they should be made aware of all the potential long term risks involved in their life choices. If they decide to take that risk, then that's their decision.
Sugar's very addictive and causes a lot of health problems...I mean, I love sugar, don't get me wrong, but that shit's like crack.
Yeah...that's the whole problem I have with this. Its abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous, and does nothing to treat the problem. It just looks like they're trying to do that.QFT
Yeah...that's the whole problem I have with this. Its abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous, and does nothing to treat the problem. It just looks like they're trying to do that.Then explain to us, in your infinite wisdom, what would treat the problem? Better yet, explain how the regulation of sugar is fatally flawed.
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; somehow I doubt it'd work for sugar.It's not like fucking prohibition. It's not banned and the proposal doesn't suggest it being banned.
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; somehow I doubt it'd work for sugar.
I'm starting to see us becoming like San Angeles, the society portrayed in Demolition Man, wherein everything not good for you is deemed to be bad, therefore illegal. Salt, junk food, red meat, contact sports, non-educational toys, even profanity. ::)I think the researchers missed a side effect. Apparently excessive sugar consumption leads to problems with reading comprehension because nobody is fucking talking about it being illegal!
Again, back to the article: It compares it to drugs & cigarrettes. If you want to blame anyone for planting false distinctions, blame them.Alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are currently legal.
I have no idea what the original researchers actually proposed because it directly attributes very little to them.
Similarly, what if the government instituted caps on the amount of sugar that could be added to certain food products?
What is with people and bad analogies today? Do you need your fix that badly?
What is with people and bad analogies today? Do you need your fix that badly?
I'm rather curious. What is it with you being so condescending?
I'm rather curious. What is it with you being so condescending?
It probably has to do with the very poorly applied analogies in this thread. Analogies can be useful tools, don't abuse them!
What is with people and bad analogies today? Do you need your fix that badly?
I'm rather curious. What is it with you being so condescending?
It probably has to do with the very poorly applied analogies in this thread. Analogies can be useful tools, don't abuse them!
Do you know what is more dickish? When people ignore arguments made and go off wargarbling over imaginary bogeymen. If people are going to insist on being childish, I'm gonna berate them for being foolish. This site was founded upon mocking the illogical, after all. If you bring up cognizant points, I'll treat you respectfully. If you make stupid comparisons between a tax and prohibition, I see no reason to act as if your concern has merit.I'm rather curious. What is it with you being so condescending?
It probably has to do with the very poorly applied analogies in this thread. Analogies can be useful tools, don't abuse them!
It occurs in multiple threads though, and I find it dickish and unnecessary. A person can debate and refute points without acting that way.
I have a problem with regulating something simply on the grounds of "it's bad for you." I'm more open to regulating something on the grounds that it's bad for a person who is not the user, such as second-hand smoke or drunk driving. If a substance is harmful or addictive - recognizing the problem with the word "addictive" - it should have to clearly say so on the packaging an advertising. Beyond that, it should be up to the individual or the guardian to make decisions about consumption.
Do you know what is more dickish? When people ignore arguments made and go off wargarbling over imaginary bogeymen.
A good start would be stabbing corn subsidies in the kidneys. Repeatedly. Subsidizing healthy foods could be beneficial, too.
I am suggesting that the strong must protect the sweet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOuxdRMJME
A good start would be stabbing corn subsidies in the kidneys. Repeatedly. Subsidizing healthy foods could be beneficial, too.
You know what? Being condescending is what got people here to say that their analogies were bad. I don't really care about your feelings, I care about what is and what isn't.Do you know what is more dickish? When people ignore arguments made and go off wargarbling over imaginary bogeymen.
Incorrect. Being a condescending dickhead is still more dickish.
But sugar? Seriously? Are we just supposed to go back to Ye Goode Olde Days when the big-name sweetener was honey? Oh, no, wait, regulating sugar is just going to result in a HFCS surge. As if we needed that.HFCS is sugar.
Another voice to end corn subsidies. It's high-fructose corn syrup that's the problem, not sugar in general. (And HFCS is, as I said, in everything, so taxing it at a consumer level would just drive up the prices of all foods)Wrong, biochemically sucrose (table sugar) is a dimer composed of one fructose and one glucose which is immediately broke into its constituents. HFCS is mixture comprised of a ~1:1 ratio of fructose and glucose. Nutritionally, they're the same and led to the same problems.
I have no idea what the original researchers actually proposed because it directly attributes very little to them.This seems to me like directly attributing proposals to the original researchers:
So, what’s a country to do? The authors propose taxing processed foods containing any kind of added sugars, including drinks and cereal. In addition, they suggest tightening licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars selling sugary drinks in schools and at work, instituting zoning ordinances to restrict the number of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores in low-income neighborhoods and near schools, and even instituting an age limit for purchasing sugary drinks such as soda.
We can put all the taxes and regulations we want on sugar but it will not help the obesity problem. You can put large labels, pictures of fatty hearts, the likelihood of dying of a stroke or what ever else you like on a package, people are still buying that pint of ice cream.Actually, different sources of calories are treated differently by the body. (http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2012/01/higher-protein-diets-lead-more-weight-gain-but-also-more-muscle-study-finds/3qq7a17kyLZ2vR8OvwbQyK/index.html) If you take somebody on a 3000 calorie/day diet and replace 200 calories of sugar with 200 calories of something else (such as lean meat) their health actually would improve. We could also do something like what Mira suggested so that the pint of ice cream has less total sugar in it. I am a strong proponent of "less bad" dieting where people make a relatively small changes which increases overall health (ex: cutting out pop, throwing a 15 minute walk into your schedule, eating dessert every other day) and I see a reduction of the amount of sugar people consume as a step in that direction.
The problem is not how much sugar is in food but how much of that food people eat and how much they lack any type of physical activity.
And Lithp saying drugs instead of alcohol when he could have just checked the title of the thread is hilarious.
We can also see that other taxes of this nature, such as a federal tax on cigarettes, actually do reduce consumption.
Actually, different sources of calories are treated differently by the body. (http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2012/01/higher-protein-diets-lead-more-weight-gain-but-also-more-muscle-study-finds/3qq7a17kyLZ2vR8OvwbQyK/index.html) If you take somebody on a 3000 calorie/day diet and replace 200 calories of sugar with 200 calories of something else (such as lean meat) their health actually would improve. We could also do something like what Mira suggested so that the pint of ice cream has less total sugar in it. I am a strong proponent of "less bad" dieting where people make a relatively small changes which increases overall health (ex: cutting out pop, throwing a 15 minute walk into your schedule, eating dessert every other day) and I see a reduction of the amount of sugar people consume as a step in that direction.
We can also see that other taxes of this nature, such as a federal tax on cigarettes, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm) actually do reduce consumption. I fail to see why increasing the price of sugary foods wouldn't do that same thing. I'd actually expect a greater decrease because there isn't a physiological addiction to sugar like there is with nicotine.
You know what? Being condescending is what got people here to say that their analogies were bad. I don't really care about your feelings, I care about what is and what isn't.Do you know what is more dickish? When people ignore arguments made and go off wargarbling over imaginary bogeymen.
Incorrect. Being a condescending dickhead is still more dickish.But sugar? Seriously? Are we just supposed to go back to Ye Goode Olde Days when the big-name sweetener was honey? Oh, no, wait, regulating sugar is just going to result in a HFCS surge. As if we needed that.HFCS is sugar.Another voice to end corn subsidies. It's high-fructose corn syrup that's the problem, not sugar in general. (And HFCS is, as I said, in everything, so taxing it at a consumer level would just drive up the prices of all foods)Wrong, biochemically sucrose (table sugar) is a dimer composed of one fructose and one glucose which is immediately broke into its constituents. HFCS is mixture comprised of a ~1:1 ratio of fructose and glucose. Nutritionally, they're the same and led to the same problems.
You know what? Being condescending is what got people here to say that their analogies were bad. I don't really care about your feelings, I care about what is and what isn't.Do you know what is more dickish? When people ignore arguments made and go off wargarbling over imaginary bogeymen.
Incorrect. Being a condescending dickhead is still more dickish.
Please do not belittle me with your lecture on "starvation mode." I fucking know what it is, I study this shit.
-Address the points given by others in as civil a manner as you can
Normally, I don't have a problem with Vene's condescension, because he usually does it when someone (A) ignores his sources or (B) tries to lecture him about biology. In both cases, this is an appropriate response. But in this case? God damn, who really cares if someone says "prohibition" instead of "regulation"? Fuck, for that matter, how do you know this won't turn into a prohibition of added sugars? Yes, the words mean very different things, but the point remains the same: Making laws about who can access this particular product is a terrible idea.Lithp, this is a slippery slope argument. Let's talk about actual prohibition for the moment. It meant nobody could buy any sort of alcohol, but alcohol is currently regulated (Mira mentioned the requirements about maximum alcohol content earlier in the thread). As a result of this, regulation and prohibition really are different beasts. They are closely related, but distinct.
Obviously, making something more expensive will decrease its consumption. But this fails to account for other factors. As has been mentioned at least once in this thread, people buy unhealthy foods in part because they're cheaper. If you increase the price of unhealthy foods, without decreasing the price of healthy foods, you're just placing an additional burden on them.From what I can see, this is probably the best argument against the proposal. Personally, that is why I like either what I suggested with the tax revenues being used to reduce the price of healthier foods or what Mira said about simply limiting the amount of sugar that can be added to food products. Mine would work to make healthier food more affordable and Mira's would reduce the sugar in food without increasing the cost.
I think taxing sugar and reducing that amount that people eat might help a few. I think overall the obesity problem is more about how much people are eating over all. Many will just change from those sugary foods to fatty ones or to food with high natural sugar. Even if they choose healthier ones they still may overeat. They maybe slightly better off, but is the cost worth it. I don't know.And how about the other negative aspects of overconsumption of sugar like diabetes? Are those not worth addressing?
You know what you could also say? "Your analogy is bad because of X, Y, and Z." And you should care about it to some extent, considering the "don't be a dick" rule. Also, it's not limited to these circumstances.Sleepy, I live with the person who wrote those rules and I've ran a number of my posts by her. She didn't see a problem. Napoleon is also in this thread and he didn't see need to give me a warning (official or unofficial). And, you know what, what was said to me in the thread was belittling, to treat me as if I don't have knowledge of the subject when I've demonstrated on this forum and the old site that I do. Unless you really, really want to try and claim Zachski knows more about biochemistry and physiology than I do. If it was some other field like, say, history or psychology that would be one thing, but not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.Please do not belittle me with your lecture on "starvation mode." I fucking know what it is, I study this shit.
From Da Rules:Quote-Address the points given by others in as civil a manner as you can
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; somehow I doubt it'd work for sugar.It's not like fucking prohibition. It's not banned and the proposal doesn't suggest it being banned.
Lithp, this is a slippery slope argument. Let's talk about actual prohibition for the moment. It meant nobody could buy any sort of alcohol, but alcohol is currently regulated (Mira mentioned the requirements about maximum alcohol content earlier in the thread). As a result of this, regulation and prohibition really are different beasts. They are closely related, but distinct.
From what I can see, this is probably the best argument against the proposal. Personally, that is why I like either what I suggested with the tax revenues being used to reduce the price of healthier foods or what Mira said about simply limiting the amount of sugar that can be added to food products. Mine would work to make healthier food more affordable and Mira's would reduce the sugar in food without increasing the cost.
What next? Regulating the sale of pencils because kids might accidentally get lead poisoning from the lead in the pencils.
What next? Regulating automobile safety because some family might accidentally go through a windshield?
Vene, before you start claiming more bullshit about me...Funny that people only started to retract their piss-poor analogies only after I started to behave in a way you disapprove of. I started out with trying to say, 'you are wrong because x, y, or z.' But people only started paying attention once I stated saying, 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x, y, or z.'
I never said you were wrong. In fact, you were right. No one was calling for the banning of sugar. This isn't the first time FSTDT has jumped the gun, but most of those times, the situation was resolved respectfully. In fact, your dickish behavior made it take longer to correct the situation.
Vene is falling into the appeal to authority fallacy, I see. While also using ad hominems against people he is arguing with. There were days when Vene was actually polite when he debated. I miss those days.
@Lexikon- Mira was being sarcastic.
Vene is falling into the appeal to authority fallacy, I see. While also using ad hominems against people he is arguing with. There were days when Vene was actually polite when he debated. I miss those days.I miss the days when people here actually knew the meaning of fallacies. Ad hominem doesn't mean you were mean. Ad hominem would be me saying 'you're an idiot and are wrong' not 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x.'
@Lexikon- Mira was being sarcastic.
Sleepy, I live with the person who wrote those rules and I've ran a number of my posts by her. She didn't see a problem. Napoleon is also in this thread and he didn't see need to give me a warning (official or unofficial). And, you know what, what was said to me in the thread was belittling, to treat me as if I don't have knowledge of the subject when I've demonstrated on this forum and the old site that I do. Unless you really, really want to try and claim Zachski knows more about biochemistry and physiology than I do. If it was some other field like, say, history or psychology that would be one thing, but not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.
Vene is falling into the appeal to authority fallacy, I see. While also using ad hominems against people he is arguing with. There were days when Vene was actually polite when he debated. I miss those days.I miss the days when people here actually knew the meaning of fallacies. Ad hominem doesn't mean you were mean. Ad hominem would be me saying 'you're an idiot and are wrong' not 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x.'
@Lexikon- Mira was being sarcastic.
No, Shane, here is what I said:Vene is falling into the appeal to authority fallacy, I see. While also using ad hominems against people he is arguing with. There were days when Vene was actually polite when he debated. I miss those days.I miss the days when people here actually knew the meaning of fallacies. Ad hominem doesn't mean you were mean. Ad hominem would be me saying 'you're an idiot and are wrong' not 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x.'
@Lexikon- Mira was being sarcastic.
Except you already admitted to saying 'you're an idiot and you're wrong.' Plus there is evidence of you saying it, maybe not in so few terms, but it's there. Ergo...
But people only started paying attention once I stated saying, 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x, y, or z.'
Correct. Being right and telling the truth with a haughty tone while continually reminding everyone that he has more knowledge than them in various fields? That's arrogant.I know right! How dare I have the audacity to get uppity when people try to incorrectly explain simple concepts to me. You might have a point if I was saying something incorrect, but I wasn't.
but not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.
Latest example in this thread:Considering that in the example I was talking about I actually went and explained why he was wrong (with citations!), it's not an ad hom, he is ignorant. You're also a fool if you think that random person is as likely to be right about a biological phenomenon as a biologist.Quotebut not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.
QED. You are attacking someone, not their ideas but the person. Including appeal to authority for extra oomph.
Correct. Being right and telling the truth with a haughty tone while continually reminding everyone that he has more knowledge than them in various fields? That's arrogant.
You know, it would be great if all the parents in the U.S. could just go down to their local WholeHere's a radical idea, take the money gained from taxing sugar and use it to subsidize healthier foods.PaycheckFoods and cook up a nice non-sugary meal every night. Unfortunately, a lot of families can't afford that. Say what you will about sugar and fast food, but that shit's cheap and a lot of times it's the only thing they can afford.
*ahem* Lexi, that's the thing. Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread. Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads. Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is. Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.
*ahem* Lexi, that's the thing. Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread. Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads. Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is. Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."
Funny that people only started to retract their piss-poor analogies only after I started to behave in a way you disapprove of. I started out with trying to say, 'you are wrong because x, y, or z.' But people only started paying attention once I stated saying, 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x, y, or z.'
*ahem* Lexi, that's the thing. Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread. Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads. Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is. Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.
I don't want the government regulating or taxing sugar because eating to much of it can cause problems. Pull subsidies from corn or the like, fine. Subsidize healthier foods, fine. If people want to eat nothing but Twinkies all day and get obese, that’s their call. I don't want to pay more when I feel like eating a rutting ice cream cone.
In the end there is at least some to be said about personal responsibility.
*ahem* Lexi, that's the thing. Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread. Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads. Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is. Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.
I'm not sure we reached the point yet.
Plus if you eat nothing but twinkies for a while (or something similar) the effects will be long lasting.
Also, think of the children!!!
I do think there should be regulations when it comes to adding sugar to processed foods - specifically hidden sugar. Those ingredients with the alternative names for multiple forms to make people think there's less of it in there than there is.
And labels that suggest a sugar-laden food is 'healthy' because of lower fat, when the sugar is just as fattening and probably even worse for your body.
How about warning labels on the most unhealthy junk foods? Just the stuff that has no significant nutritional value otherwise. There's already labels on cigarettes, so why not on a candy bar?
if you eat nothing but twinkies for a while (or something similar) the effects will be long lasting.Oh god, not the twinkie defence again...
Maybe I am naive but I could see Valentines Day and a lot of women in general would be a bit pissy to have a warning label put on their chocolates....but like I said I could be wrong.
I do think there should be regulations when it comes to adding sugar to processed foods - specifically hidden sugar. Those ingredients with the alternative names for multiple forms to make people think there's less of it in there than there is.
And labels that suggest a sugar-laden food is 'healthy' because of lower fat, when the sugar is just as fattening and probably even worse for your body.
How about warning labels on the most unhealthy junk foods? Just the stuff that has no significant nutritional value otherwise. There's already labels on cigarettes, so why not on a candy bar?
(addendum) It also occurs to me that there's a degree of indoctrination to support the corn syrup industry in the US. Sadly, so much money is riding on feeding Americans as much corn as they can handle, that the chances of anything threatening that being successful is pretty low.
Latest example in this thread:I only see attacking the behaviour, and thus the ideas themselves, not the person. He didn't say "you're wrong because you're a doo-doo-head," it was closer to "you're a doo-doo-head and wrong because of this evidence right here *smacks down a source*". Huge fucking difference which is vital to know if something is an ad hominem or not. I also do not see an appeal to authority there beyond "this is what actual authorities have said on the matter and these are the reasons why, so that those who aren't authorities can also understand it". Seriously, it's like saying it's an appeal to authority to rely on a professional basketball coach for what the rules of basketball are instead of a physicist.Quotebut not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.
QED. You are attacking someone, not their ideas but the person. Including appeal to authority for extra oomph.
I think the best way to go about it, is to go after the corn subsides. That along with decent health education would have the biggest impact.
Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.
Oh, and for those who complained about high fructose corn syrup instead of "sugar" sugar: they are the same thing and everyone who's bothered to read even the OP has no reason not to know such as it was directly stated how and why they are essentially the same.
Why exactly is just about every suggestion on combating the obesity problem being treated like it must exist in a vacuum? Seriously, comprehensive plan:
1) Institute a nominal tax on non-necessity food items that are high in sugar (sodas and candy and ice cream and etc). Use the revenues to subsidize healthier food.
2) Institute regulations on how much sugar can be added to "necessity" food items like bread, milk products, crackers, canned fruits and veggies, etc.
3) Bridging points one and two, set a standard for sugar content that heat'n'eat meals that would place some of them under the sugar tax and some not. Microwavable meals aren't strictly a necessity, but they are a definite boon to some families.
4) Institute regulations on what foods are available in school cafeterias.
5) Better nutritional education in schools! Phys ed classes that focus more on exercise than learning a bunch of different games!
6) Go after corn subsidies and sugar tariffs that artificially skew prices on cane sugar and HFCS.
Seriously, there isn't a magic bullet of regulation that will make the problem go bye-bye and personal responsibility does play a role. However, there are steps that can be taken to try and minimize the problem. It's not "tax sweets or end subsidies or better education".
Why exactly is just about every suggestion on combating the obesity problem being treated like it must exist in a vacuum? Seriously, comprehensive plan:
I never stated or meant to imply that I believe in a single solution to the obesity problem (or any other problem really). I was simply discussing one possible means of tackling the problem.
Sleepy, I live with the person who wrote those rules and I've ran a number of my posts by her. She didn't see a problem. Napoleon is also in this thread and he didn't see need to give me a warning (official or unofficial).
Organic sugar
Cane sugar
Corn sweetener
Corn syrup
Evaporated cane juice
Fructose
Fruit extract
Crystalline fructose
High-fructose corn syrup
Invert sugar
Liquid Invert Sugar
Malt syrup
Molasses
Raw sugar
Sugar Alcohol
This is what I have an issue with. Especially when they're worded to avoid calling them 'sugar'. Because food ingredients must be listed in order of percentage, a common tactic in food production is to break up an undesirable additive - such as fillers - into several ingredient names, of each of which there are less than the more desirable components, and therefore can be included further down the list.
They're all sugar, but the food industry allows different names based on source or impurities. If your bread only contains half a gram of sugar, but half a gram of five other hidden sugar items, that's six grams they're trying to sneak past you.
I admit you're right about the allergy thing.
Still, 'carbohydrates' covers a wide range, from forms of fiber to complex carbs, starches, and sugars. Some are good for you, others are really bad.
And even if there are good reasons for the naming convention, the food companies are still using that to their advantage to add more sugar to their products than is necessary.