FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on February 02, 2012, 06:44:49 pm

Title: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: CaseAgainstFaith on February 02, 2012, 06:44:49 pm
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.”

source - http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/02/02/a-spoonful-of-bad-health-ucsf-researchers-slam-sugar/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/02/02/a-spoonful-of-bad-health-ucsf-researchers-slam-sugar/)

This just seems dumb to me.  I think it is more about personal responsibility than sugar being inherently bad for you.  I say dumb idea is dumb.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 02, 2012, 06:54:38 pm
Parents already get to regulate their children's diets heavily, passing laws about it isn't necessary even if their logic DID hold true.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Da Rat Bastid on February 02, 2012, 06:58:28 pm
Are you kidding, Lithp?  It isn't a parent's job to keep things safe for their kids nowadays.  That's the job of the government and everyone else. ::)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 02, 2012, 07:08:04 pm
Umm...no?  This is blatantly retarded.  Regulating alcohol doesn't stop people from getting drunk.  It doesn't even stop minors from getting drunk.  What could possibly make you think sugar would be any easier to regulate in a similar manner to alcohol or tobacco?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: KZN02 on February 02, 2012, 07:08:42 pm
Reminds me of the sugar plantations centuries ago in the Americas. Pretty much karma bit back finally.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 02, 2012, 07:11:50 pm
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?

I support honest labling of foods with sucrose and other sweeteners, but we already have that. This is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 02, 2012, 08:26:56 pm
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.

Oh, fyi, scientists at UCSF and the government are two different entities.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: GLaDOS on February 02, 2012, 08:47:38 pm
What next? Regulating the sale of pencils because kids might accidentally get lead poisoning from the lead in the pencils.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 02, 2012, 08:51:52 pm
What next? Regulating the sale of pencils because kids might accidentally get lead poisoning from the lead in the pencils.
(click to show/hide)
I'm reasonably certain that biomedical scientists at a major university know the difference between graphite and lead.

ETA: Your comparison is also pretty bad because a high sugar diet actually does increase risk of cancer and diabetes.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Nightangel8212 on February 02, 2012, 08:58:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 02, 2012, 08:59:13 pm
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?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: deadpandoubter on February 02, 2012, 09:01:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 02, 2012, 09:04:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 02, 2012, 09:05:10 pm
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.

If parents neglect their children's health, is this not defined as child abuse? Don't you think intervention is called for in such cases?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Stormwarden on February 02, 2012, 09:15:06 pm
^ Only when it's clear the parents are grossly incompetent in such matters. If their kid is already morbidly obese, and the 'rents won't do bupkis about it, then by all means.

However, let's not kid ourselves. The government's track record as parental substitutes is ABYSMAL at best. I've already seen how well the government is doing on the drug war (they're not). On this issue, frankly, the nanny staters can go jump off a ledge.

Nothing of value would be lost if they did.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 02, 2012, 09:19:22 pm
I don't see how this is comparable to the drug war. The way I see it, a government regulation on the amount of sugar a manufacturer can add to their product would effectively do its job. Same way the government has gotten automobile manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 02, 2012, 09:20:08 pm
You know, it would be great if all the parents in the U.S. could just go down to their local Whole Paycheck Foods 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.

And frankly I think there are problems with the BMI which make it a horrible measure of what is and isn't "obese".
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Nightangel8212 on February 02, 2012, 09:20:42 pm
Obviously, if some parents are letting their children, who do not have the knowledge of proper nutrition themselves yet, to eat whatever the hell they want, then yeah, someone SHOULD intervene and give them a proper education and tell them of all the health risks. If, after being aware of the health risks, the parents are still allowing their children to eat whatever they want, I can understand further intervention, but overall, the idea itself is retarded.

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.

As someone mentioned earlier, regulating alcohol doesn't stop minors from getting drunk. Why would taxing sugar make any difference?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 02, 2012, 09:22:32 pm
You know, it would be great if all the parents in the U.S. could just go down to their local Whole Paycheck Foods 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.
Here's a radical idea, take the money gained from taxing sugar and use it to subsidize healthier foods.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on February 02, 2012, 09:23:37 pm
Washington had a candy tax once. It was stupid because even though it was intended to stop the spread of unhealthy foods, there were some candies like Kit Kats that were exempt from the tax because they were mostly wafers, and therefore, not candy.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 02, 2012, 09:28:40 pm
I don't believe in a consumer tax as far as this is concerned. I feel that the manufacturers should be discouraged from adding excessive amounts of sugar to their products. Putting an extra burden on the consumers is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 02, 2012, 09:29:52 pm
Blargh, you edited your post as I was responding:
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Smurfette Principle on February 02, 2012, 09:41:24 pm
A tax on the parents is terrible because it just makes it that much harder for parents to feed their kids, because almost everything has high-fructose corn syrup, even bread. If you want to reduce obesity, get rid of the sugar in the food first.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 02, 2012, 09:50:51 pm
Quote
Only 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.

Also, maybe the article doesn't reflect the research, but there's little actual science in there. As a matter of fact, a quick glance at the new food pyramid tells me that fats/oils/sweets are recommended at 6 teaspoons. So if you only have a spoonful a day, you're probably UNDERnourished. Why do I mention this? It's the title of the article.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 02, 2012, 10:01:43 pm
Quote
Only 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.

I wasn't using this as an argument for regulation, I was disputing NightAngel's statement that parents should have the right to feed their children what they want. I probably should have been more specific.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: nickiknack on February 02, 2012, 11:18:32 pm
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.

It annoys me when people call this an attack on "freedom", like many teabaggers  do.
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.

Ditto, it's my drug of choice too.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: DarkfireTaimatsu on February 02, 2012, 11:34:55 pm
Let's just say there's a reason I wear this shirt:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/andsean/Blog%20Pics/X-masween11007.jpg)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Captain Jack Harkness on February 02, 2012, 11:47:26 pm
So my question is this.  If for whatever reason this goes through - or at least the age limit part - can a kid get arrested for Minor In Possession [Of Soda] and can an adult get arrested for distribution to minors?

For that matter, are they going to start regulating cartoons and ban sugar from being portrayed?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 02, 2012, 11:58:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Nightangel8212 on February 03, 2012, 12:07:23 am
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

And incidently, I happen to eat a lot of junk food... not because it's necessarily something I WANT to do constantly, but because it's the only damn food my roommate and I can afford. The healthier options are simply too expensive for our budget. And even WITH the cheaper food items, we still run out of food before the end of the month and have to do things such as my roommate writing food items off at work, and me begging my parents for food and money. If the government wants people to eat healthier, they should damn well lower the prices of the healthier food options.

My mother was recently put on a strict diet, and is currently unable to afford the types of food she is required to eat. She has to get a doctors note for AISH so they will increase the amount of money she gets every month, and even THEN she's doubtful that the increase will help matters much.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TenfoldMaquette on February 03, 2012, 12:08:19 am
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; somehow I doubt it'd work for sugar.

Should companies stop shoveling sugar into their products to cover up the poor quality? Hell yes. Will they? Not without a metric fuck-ton of consumer disapproval. Forcing the issue via laws will just encourage them to use weasel-words (hello "evaporated cane juice") to get around the problem or to just jack up the price in response to all the increased production costs of their "healthier" foods.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 12:15:34 am
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.

What is with people and bad analogies today? Do you need your fix that badly?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 12:20:26 am
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; somehow I doubt it'd work for sugar.

How is this anything like Prohibition?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Da Rat Bastid on February 03, 2012, 12:21:25 am
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. ::)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 12:25:08 am
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!
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 12:27:48 am
Again, back to the article: It compares it to drugs & cigarrettes. If you want to blame anyone for planting false distinctions, blame them.

I have no idea what the original researchers actually proposed because it directly attributes very little to them.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 12:29:35 am
Again, back to the article: It compares it to drugs & cigarrettes. If you want to blame anyone for planting false distinctions, blame them.

I have no idea what the original researchers actually proposed because it directly attributes very little to them.
Alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are currently legal.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 12:38:00 am
Yes, so the prohibition comparisons are inaccurate, but not necessarily the ones about regulating who can use it & sending people to prison over it.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 12:44:11 am
Okay, while we're comparing alcohol and sugar.

Currently, the government caps alcohol manufacturers on the ABV of their beers. Major manufacturers respect these policies without much issue and the only people that would probably go around them would be microbrewers (which really isn't a huge issue in the scheme of things).

Similarly, what if the government instituted caps on the amount of sugar that could be added to certain food products? I think it could work pretty similarly to the current ABV caps. The sugar refiners would pitch a fit, sure, but it wouldn't cost the manufacturers anything extra and I don't think the prices would be affected. If the manufacturers went over their caps, they would be fined an appropriate amount, which would discourage the practice. Since these policies would be applied universally, no company would gain an edge over another due to the change in recipe.

I think that a huge part of the obesity issue starts at the manufacturing end of foods and stems from the practice of adding lots of sweeteners to foods. As well as the immediate fat deposits gained from the excess sugar intake, our taste buds are trained to expect sweetness. It'd be difficult for any one manufacturer to lower their sugar content and expect to remain competitive due to the public's expectations of sweetness. Government policy is really the only way I see of exiting this conundrum.


Or maybe it would be 1984 combined with Logan's Run. I don't know.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 12:45:57 am
Quote
Similarly, what if the government instituted caps on the amount of sugar that could be added to certain food products?

This kind of regulation I am much more inclined to agree with. Provided they do it right.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: MaybeNever on February 03, 2012, 12:49:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sleepy on February 03, 2012, 01:15:46 am
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?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 01:19:18 am
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!
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sylvana on February 03, 2012, 01:23:28 am
Look I understand that America in particular has a severe obesity problem.
Regulating sugar wont change that. Changing the amount of sugar in a product wont magically change the amount of food people shovel into their mouths. If anything less sugar will encourage them to eat more.

People eat unhealthy food because firstly, it is cheap and convenient, and secondly it tastes nice. Regulating sugar will not change that. No matter what you do to these foods, they will always have too much sugar in them because that is the nature of the food in question. An example is things like french fries, they contain no additional sugar but you can get morbidly obese eating them. You can probably even give yourself diabetes because of the high carbohydrate levels.

We all need to eat more healthily, but healthy food will always loose out in the reasons why people buy and eat unhealthy food. Healthy food is more expensive and people on a tight budget cant afford it. Healthy food also takes more effort and time to prepare, while unhealthy foods are generally prepared quickly and easily. Lastly, people do not enjoy eating healthy food most of the time. There is a reason why people who go on diet don't enjoy eating that salad and yogurt for lunch. The burger and fries tastes better and is generally more filling.

To solve the problems we must address the habits and social aspects of people, not regulate the sugar.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sleepy on February 03, 2012, 01:24:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Eniliad on February 03, 2012, 01:29:36 am
What? This is stupid.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 03, 2012, 01:32:03 am
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!

I'll admit, my analogy was poor...but that does not give a person the right to be a condescending ass.

To the point at hand, some regulation might be good, but we could also put money into better education.  Remember, the same people who would be passing said regulation are the same incompetent schmoes that can't even decide on school lunches.  Would I trust them to do the regulation, and do it right?  Probably not.

That, and who's to say where the tax revenue would go?  It could very well go into said schmoes' pockets...or into shit that doesn't matter.  It could work, I just don't trust them to do it right.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 01:35:58 am
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.
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.

Edit: Actually, RH's post above this still shows he doesn't understand the issue. I'd love to know how he concludes that professors at a university (the people proposing the regulation) would be paid as a result of a sugar tax. With ideas like this I can't say I'm convinced he understand how the political system functions.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Askold on February 03, 2012, 01:39:16 am
You have to admit that those analogies were horribly inaccurate. One might even think that you were making straw arguments by comparing it with prohibition instead of regulation.

And Lithp saying drugs instead of alcohol when he could have just checked the title of the thread is hilarious.  ;D

Anyway, I don't think that sugar is as bad as alcohol and cigarettes but it is everywhere so maybe some regulation would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 01:42:55 am
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.

I think that when an epidemic occurs in our society and is continuing to get worse, we as a society have an obligation to intervene and attempt to make changes to better ourselves. If we ignore the obesity issue, it is going to get worse and it is going to bite us. I'm not saying that you are suggesting that we ignore the problem, but I think that something needs to be done and that regulation is one method to accomplish this.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Napoleon the Clown on February 03, 2012, 02:01:07 am
A good start would be stabbing corn subsidies in the kidneys. Repeatedly. Subsidizing healthy foods could be beneficial, too.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: MaybeNever on February 03, 2012, 02:09:50 am
I am suggesting that the strong must protect the sweet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOuxdRMJME
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 03, 2012, 02:17:10 am
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 02:20:15 am
A good start would be stabbing corn subsidies in the kidneys. Repeatedly. Subsidizing healthy foods could be beneficial, too.

Yes, this is probably a pretty important step.

I am suggesting that the strong must protect the sweet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOuxdRMJME

Well, can't argue with that.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: StallChaser on February 03, 2012, 05:07:16 am
A good start would be stabbing corn subsidies in the kidneys. Repeatedly. Subsidizing healthy foods could be beneficial, too.

THIS x1000.  I'd also support labeling requirements (large print on the front) as to the amount of sugar per serving, but not an age restriction.  How would that even be enforced?.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TheL on February 03, 2012, 06:46:54 am
I would agree if they were placing limits on the use of corn syrup (especially HFCS), since that stuff's been connected to all sorts of health issues and is in damn near everything processed these days.  (Inexpensive brands of bread often have HFCS as one of the first few ingredients.  Why does bread need to be that damn sweet?  Ugh.)

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.

Like Nap said, get rid of corn subsidies.  They have succeeded far beyond their original intent and even beyond the bounds of sanity.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Smurfette Principle on February 03, 2012, 08:10:35 am
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)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 09:07:51 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 09:46:43 am
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sigmaleph on February 03, 2012, 09:56:31 am
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:
Quote
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.

As an aside, the age limit sounds like an ineffective idea. Parents in general are not likely to take sugar as a dangerous threat, they won't stop buying soda for their children.

Taxing/regulating amounts of added sugar, though... I dunno. It might work. Especially if, as Vene said, the tax revenue is used to subsidise healthier food.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 10:06:18 am
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. 

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.
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 10:36:30 am
Let me preface what I'm about to say by saying that, at this point, I don't really care whether or not this was intended to be serious:

Quote
And Lithp saying drugs instead of alcohol when he could have just checked the title of the thread is hilarious.

Before anyone else bitches about people being stupid because of slightly inappropriate phrasings, let me make one thing perfectly clear:

THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONCEPT THAN THE SEMANTICS.

I read the article before you did (on the IRC), I know it says cigarrettes, I was thinking about the general idea & inadvertently replaced the words. Same. Fucking. Bullshit. It does not change the meaning I was trying to express in the slightest.

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.

Now, back to the point:

Quote
We can also see that other taxes of this nature, such as a federal tax on cigarettes, actually do reduce consumption.

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 10:49:57 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TheL on February 03, 2012, 10:51:37 am
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.
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.

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.

OK, why do my posts keep disappearing?  Ugh. *posts a note in "Forum Issues" about it*

Parents tend to not think of corn syrup and sugar as being the same thing, because they're labeled differently in ingredients lists on food packaging. Remember, the bogeyman held up to parents is "sugary foods," so parents are looking for the word "sugar."  When an ingredients list says "Flour, corn syrup, sugar, [blah, blah, blah], high-fructose corn syrup," how many people are going to make the connection that three different ingredients on the list are all sugars?  That's like expecting people to know without being told that "blueberry bits" and blueberries are not the same thing.

Ending corn subsidies will make it so that the use of corn syrup is no longer cost-effective.  Since other sweeteners tend to cost more, and sugar supplies are limited because of its limited growing range, ending corn subsidies should help cut down on the ridiculous amount of oversweetening in processed foods today.

Part of the reason why I avoid spices and sugars is because I want to taste food.  Not added junk, but the actual meats, grains, fruits and vegetables that are nourishing my body.  I spent so much of my childhood eating sugar-laden garbage that flavors other than "sweet" are a source of never-ending delight to me.  When I eat a Kashi bar, I taste grains, fruit, nuts, and chocolate or peanut butter if I'm eating those varieties.  When I eat any other brand of granola bar, I taste sugar and damn near nothing else.  It's overpowering.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sleepy on February 03, 2012, 11:17:57 am
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.
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.

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.

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
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 02:48:45 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 03, 2012, 02:54:32 pm
Vene, before you start claiming more bullshit about me...

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.

However, the fact of the matter is, you get away with a lot of dickish behavior.  Quite frankly, you have a tendency to forget that other people can be intelligent too.  There's a respectful way to do something and an ass-backwards way to do something, and you're certainly not doing it the respectful way.

And no, I don't care if Oriet or Napoleon okay it.  That, to me, does not handwave it, it actually makes it more of a problem.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TenfoldMaquette on February 03, 2012, 03:06:55 pm
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.

I was more making a point about how trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with something commonly available (and legal) tends to backfire, and trying to implement restrictions via law is just going to create backlash. What we need to do is spread the idea that excessive sugar consumption is bad, so that it ingrains itself culturally and results in less consumer demand for such products.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 03:14:39 pm
Quote
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.

See, my point was, we have no idea what regulations these people--defined loosely as an activist group based around this idea--might suggest. It might well be prohibition. If they're related, & radical new regulations are implied to be proposed, it's worth it to consider both. 

Also, like Tenfold said, it's a good example of what happens when you overreact to a problem.

Quote
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.

The only issue I have is that I fucking love sugar. Sounds sort of petty next to the other arguments, but it is what it is. When you're eating something not because you want to, but because you have to, DAMN does that suck. That is why, even though diet soda isn't really any more expensive, I'll typically go with regular soda. Diet tastes like shit. I know diet soda isn't exactly a health drink, but bear with that analogy, because I can't think of anything better right now.

With Mira's suggestion, I would add that the limits imposed are gradual. Most people would simply acquire a taste for the less sweetened food without even really noticing that changes are being made. I'm not sure how it could work with yours, because people would just see continual taxes being imposed on them, without seeing the long-term idea.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 03:18:45 pm
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?

You never heard of seatbelt laws, speed limit signs, and fuel efficiency?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 03:22:44 pm
Vene, before you start claiming more bullshit about me...

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.
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.'
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Shane for Wax on February 03, 2012, 03:26:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 03:29:06 pm
>.>

That is because (A) more time & instances of you saying it had elapsed, (B) they were getting over their initial reactions, & (C) a big damn fight erupted in the thread, which drew attention towards the problem.

Hell, look at SpukiKitty acting like a raving goddamn lunatic in the thread about Komen & Planned Parenthood. She's more noticeable, sure. Also, to draw that conclusion, we have to ignore not only he fact that there could be other factors, but all of the contention that resulted.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 03:29:18 pm
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.

Sorry, I thought she was trying to do the same thing as GLaDOS.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 03:29:26 pm
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.
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.'
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sleepy on February 03, 2012, 03:30:16 pm
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.

He didn't act as if he knows more than you. He simply explained the concept in his post. That could've been for his own benefit, or it could've been for others in the thread. I'd be more likely to agree with you if his post contained foul language or a negative tone, but it doesn't, and stating that it implies those things is a huge leap. I don't care that Oriet approved it, or that Nap hasn't issued a warning. That doesn't make your dickish behavior right.

And we get it, you know a great deal about biochemistry and physiology. Drop the arrogance.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 03:32:45 pm
Telling the truth isn't arrogance.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Sleepy on February 03, 2012, 03:34:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Shane for Wax on February 03, 2012, 03:35:42 pm
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.
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.'

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...
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 03:39:32 pm
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.
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.'

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...
No, Shane, here is what I said:
But people only started paying attention once I stated saying, 'you're an idiot and are wrong because x, y, or z.'

Unless you have another quote in mind.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 03:42:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Shane for Wax on February 03, 2012, 03:46:55 pm
Latest example in this thread:
Quote
but 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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 03:52:10 pm
Latest example in this thread:
Quote
but 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.
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Shane for Wax on February 03, 2012, 03:53:12 pm
And thus you prove exactly what I said in the DeVry thread. Thanks. Couldn't do it without ya.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 03:54:44 pm
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.

Vene didn't constantly remind people. As far as I recall, only one time in this thread.

Oh and people saying that junk food will be bought because it is cheaper? Vene already answered that too.

You know, it would be great if all the parents in the U.S. could just go down to their local Whole Paycheck Foods 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.
Here's a radical idea, take the money gained from taxing sugar and use it to subsidize healthier foods.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 03, 2012, 04:03:46 pm
*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."
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 03, 2012, 04:05:39 pm
*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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 04:11:18 pm
*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."

He isn't trying to belittle people, he's just answering their claims.

If people don't know what they are saying I see no need for Vene, or anyone else, to not point that out.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TenfoldMaquette on February 03, 2012, 04:14:03 pm
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.'

In my own defense (though I doubt you're talking about me - if not, feel free to ignore this) the statement of mine you quoted was the last thing I posted before my clarification of my post, with around twelve hours passing between the two. I'd have corrected myself earlier if I'd been around, but such is the nature of the internet. :-/
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: GLaDOS on February 03, 2012, 04:24:03 pm
Inb4 LHM 2.0 (albeit politer, and without the pig-fucking)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 04:33:23 pm
Vene, you can come off as arrogant sometimes.  Just running your posts by a mod that you live with or another mod that often jumps to insulting people as quickly does not make it right.  You are also not the only one on this board that has a degree in biology.

Now to the topic....

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 04:38:44 pm
*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.

Cock gets a friend.


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.


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!!!
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on February 03, 2012, 04:40:29 pm
*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.

So, essentially, "I'm smarter than you, so I have the right to verbally abuse you."
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 04:46:09 pm
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 know we have not reached that point yet, but in some ways it feels as if we are headed that way.  I don't even agree with some of the bans on smoking.

I just remembered this....http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html)...for whatever it is worth.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Quasirodent on February 03, 2012, 05:13:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 03, 2012, 05:19:09 pm
Since you're taking it far outside of the context of this thread, I feel like all the "Vene's being a dick" shit should have its own thread if the discussion is going to continue.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: CaseAgainstFaith on February 03, 2012, 05:19:09 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: GLaDOS on February 03, 2012, 05:22:38 pm
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...
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Quasirodent on February 03, 2012, 05:23:35 pm
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.

It might add the allure of the forbidden?
But then again, if it's GOOD chocolate, it wouldn't make the list of the most unhealthy sweets.
And as I've always said, Valentines' day is the best holiday to get half-price chocolate the day after, because the product's main target is men who want to get laid - and cheap sugary garbage (like Easter candy) won't cut it.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TheL on February 03, 2012, 05:41:39 pm
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.

This, exactly.  When the sugars are listed as "sugar," "corn syrup," and "high fructose corn syrup" in the same ingredient list, it gives the impression that two of those things are not even remotely sugar.  Since mothers are most often told to watch out for sugar, particularly, they can be fooled into thinking something loaded with corn syrup is healthier, simply because sugar is not listed as sugar, or appears lower in the ingredients list.

I eat sugar-free stuff mostly (yes, I know, artificial sweeteners are worse), because some of them actually taste like FOOD instead of like sweetener.  You don't realize how horribly over-sweetened 90% of processed food is until you've been on a sugar-free or low-carb diet.  I used to love Little Debbie/Hostess/Entenmann's snacks, and now I feel queasy just looking at them because they're nothing but sugar and grease.  I can no longer stand soda or Southern-style sweet tea, either.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: nickiknack on February 03, 2012, 05:57:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Oriet on February 03, 2012, 05:59:43 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/XnV0L.jpg)

Seriously people, what the fuck? Here I expected from the title and OP for there to be reasonable discussion, yet what I have found is most people being moronic; stating ignorance and falsehoods as fact, plugging their ears going "La la la la la! I can't hear you!" to people and sources they disagree with, making gross false equivalences, complete misunderstanding of fairly simple English and simple concepts, and horrendous attempts at comparisons. What the bloody hell, people?

A person stating facts, reminding people of their education to illustrate why they understand the topic, and backing both up with simple arguments and sourced evidence is not a person being arrogant. Telling people who do not have education and are messing even the simplest of concepts such education imparts that they are wrong and why they are wrong, again with simple argumentation and sourced evidence, is not being condescending. Deriding an expert for correcting people who don't even have the most basic level of understanding of the topic they are an expert in is pretty much the definition of moronic, especially when you deride them as much if not more than they have expressed frustration at the ignorant for stating falsehoods as "True Factsâ„¢"; which, by the way, is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

For those who are talking about rule breaking, let me make something clear. Yes, there is a rule saying people should be civil, however we also have a rule about responding to the arguments made in a thread. Jumping at strawmen and blaming someone else for creating them is not only not responding to the arguments that were made, it's also far from being civil. I would also say citing the rules to a person as a form of "threat" (or what have you) for the display understandable annoyance when there's already 2 mods in the thread and another that posts were run past prior to posting is very questionable itself, especially when it is very easy to PM a mod or direct attention to a possible violation even in the thread itself where it's known mods will see it.


Latest example in this thread:
Quote
but 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 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.

Now, if you can otherwise demonstrate how such fallacies apply to his argument then please show me, though I also request that you use proper argumentation to do so because I find it very hard to accept criticism of an argument when said criticism can't even hold up to itself.

Could Vene be nicer in his retorts? Yes, he could, but he starts off that way and resorts to snarking when it has been clearly demonstrated that nicety is wasted and undeserved. I agree that makes it a bit abrasive, but being abrasive is sometimes the only way to get a person to realise what one is actually saying.



Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.



And now to add something to the original discussion: I found a study (here (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/165/18/2122)) showing that it is actually not the poor who are being hit the hardest with the increase in obesity. I also want to reiterate that not all calories are equal. It was something I grew up with my entire life as a simple fact as my father was insulin dependent diabetic, so I keep being surprised that people don't realise the enormity of difference in the type of calories.

Yes, carbohydrates are technically sugars, but as far as diets (in the technical sense, not just the new-fad-to-lose-weight-fast type) are concerned there is a large difference between carbohydrates and simple sugars. You will not get diabetes from eating lots of pasta (the noodles) or rice, as they are loaded with carbohydrates which take a bit of energy to break down into simple sugars for later use, and also spreads out the intake of the broken down sugars. Straight simple sugars come in the time frame taken to eat them and require no energy to be broken down like carbohydrates do. This is why after eating a candy bar you'll feel the energy quickly, but eating spaghetti will give you good, long lasting energy even if it takes a short while before you feel it kick in.

As Vene already posted a study about, it's not just the amount of calories but the type that's important. 200 calories of sugar is vastly different than 200 calories of protein, especially as that protein is also used to create muscle and other tissue whereas excess sugars are stored as fat. Even if for whatever reason it was to put the same amount of weight on a person it would manifest differently because the calories are not the same.

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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Shane for Wax on February 03, 2012, 06:44:41 pm
This has not just happened in this thread. But I acquiesce on this point. I will however attempt to take a look at the actual topic at hand.

-----------------
With that said I really, really do not like the idea of setting age limits for sugar. Nor do I like the fact that the original source for this article requires a subscription or for me to somehow be in a profession that grants me access to it. So I am left with having to see what WSJ (a publication I don't entirely trust to be accurate when it comes to science) has said. Instituting an age limit on this has been done in small areas before. Outright banning High Fructose Corn Syrup has been done before. We have loads of commentary on what happens when you do this. People always find a way. You forbid something for a younger person they will find a way to do it and do it dangerously.

You tell a 16 year old they can't smoke, what do they do? They go and find a way to do it. Tell an 18 year old they can't drink with their college buddies what do they do? The get their 22 year old college mate to buy the beer. They will find a way. They will even do it dangerously. Many kids who have drank before they are legally allowed have fucked up their bodies doing it because they don't know how to be responsible with it.

You tell little 9 year old Timmy at Halloween he can't have candy and you know what he'll do? Cry and shout and stomp his feet then sneak a candy bar from mom's purse.

I am not saying this always happen and that everyone does it. But it happens. In households where sugary treats are banned you have children sneaking to their friend's house for a Three Musketeers.

Let's hop over to zoning restrictions. Sometimes the only time you eat is if you go to that local McDonald's for a 99c burger. Are we going to make it so that food in the store is cheaper and better to ingest? Healthier foods by and large are more expensive. You can see it just by stopping in your local Wal-Mart. Look at the microwaveable meals. Which is cheaper? The one that isn't as healthy as the weight watchers meal next door. People can, if they try, get good food for cheaper but it's harder in the cities. We've been over this before. Multiple people recognized the problem.

Look at the fruits and vegetables. Look at their prices per pound. You can get frozen and canned food for cheaper than that. Fresh fruit and vegetables are by and large better to ingest, yes?

Here in the US our fresh fruits are more expensive than our processed. Yet hop over to Europe and look around you. Cheaper (even with the change in currency) fresh fruit and veg. You have the poorer people barely eating the potatoes and the like but it's also what they can most afford. They are malnourished even with the 'fresh fruit'. It's why famines hurt them the most.

So what to do? As was mentioned subsidize the farms. I don't think putting restrictions will help. Better labeling will, definitely. So long as you also educate the people about what's within the can or the box. People for the most part don't understand what the numbers mean. They don't know what those ingredients are. Ask someone in the grocery store next time what Riboflavin is. Will they be able to tell you? 9 times out of 10 I'm sure they won't. They cannot tell you it's also called Vitamin B2. The probably wouldn't be able to begin to tell you what its use is.

A lot of us had health class. How many remember what they learned there? For a lot of people it was an optional course and they rarely paid attention. Me? I only remember taking care of an egg and then we had talks about STDs. I don't remember a damn thing about diets and vitamins and minerals and vegetables. But I know we had that. I know it but I can't remember ever talking about it. The textbooks have the information but damn if people can remember it.

So where do we start? We start in the schools while also putting into action some subsidies. Putting a restriction as it is laid out in the article should be a last resort. But I'm scared we've gotten to that last resort phase. If need be we can also offer free health classes that give some sort of 'reward' for going. Get people to refresh their knowledge on the subject. People don't take kindly to being told 'this is bad' and then they are given no reason why. We don't like seemingly arbitrary rules. 'Because I said' doesn't work. For the most part you are educating adults. Don't treat them like children.

I probably got something wrong in there, but it's how I see things as they are.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Cataclysm on February 03, 2012, 06:48:43 pm
tl;dr

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.

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

Yeah, that would help with a lot more too.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Lithp on February 03, 2012, 06:49:08 pm
Quote
Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.

They only do that if you're asshole enough to read the word "prohibition" & completely disregard the remaining context of the thread. Frankly.

Ask & ye shall receive (http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/vene's-being-a-dick/). Did it because I don't trust the argument to just die out in a post or two.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: SugarfreeJazz on February 03, 2012, 07:22:23 pm
Relevant http://justlikesugarinc.com/ (visit the intro page)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: m52nickerson on February 03, 2012, 07:56:16 pm
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.

That point is debatable.

The ratio of fructose and glucose are slightly different depending on the type of high fructose corn syrup used.

Also a few studies have found differences between them, such as...
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eatingwell/sugar-corn-syrup_b_1250010.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eatingwell/sugar-corn-syrup_b_1250010.html)
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Kit Walker on February 03, 2012, 10:55:51 pm
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".
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TheL on February 04, 2012, 09:51:21 am
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".

I agree with this post n its entirety.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 04, 2012, 01:27:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Kit Walker on February 04, 2012, 01:48:33 pm
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.

Fair point. My post was somewhat directed at people who were saying "X won't solve the problem, Y would be more helpful".
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: GLaDOS on February 04, 2012, 02:17:52 pm
In my opinion, the use of HFCS in food products needs to be restricted, as it is much worse than corn syrup [1]. The US government should also stop the practice of mass subsidies of corn, as a large 4.1% of subsidized corn becomes hight fructose corn syrup ]. Over the past 17 years, the US has directly spent 16.9 billion dollars on corn syrup subsidies [2]. The US government also has Tariffs on the import of sugar in place, making it corn syrup cheaper and sugar more expensive (the tariff raises the cost of sugar by $1.25 for each $1) [3]. This tariff should be repealed. This is my opinion. I do NOT believe that we should be regulating the sale of it, just the usage in manufacturing.
Sources:
1. http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf
2. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/09/ag-subsidies-fund-junk-food-report-says/
3. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/01/28/sugar-tariffs-cost-americans-3-86-billion-in-2011/
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: sandman on February 04, 2012, 08:23:43 pm
In my considered opinion, This quote:

Quote from: vene
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).

....does not constitute "hiding behind Oriet's mod status. Are there any other incidents in which people think he has done this?
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Quasirodent on February 05, 2012, 03:33:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 05, 2012, 03:53:10 pm
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.


So? It still tells you how many grams of sugar total are in the product. Look at the carbohydrates in the DV% section for goodness sake!
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 05, 2012, 03:56:58 pm
There is also the issue of when somebody has an allergy to, say, cane sugar and not to the others. Listing different chemical compounds as the same thing can lead to some very real issues. And Mira is right that if you look underneath the number of grams of carbohydrates you see the total amount of sugar in the food (kind of like how if you look under fat you see how much is trans fat or saturated fat).
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Quasirodent on February 05, 2012, 04:01:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Mira on February 05, 2012, 04:13:24 pm
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.

It is a carbohydrates section. It tells you how many grams of sugar are in there. Take a look at a label.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: Vene on February 05, 2012, 04:14:40 pm
Here is an example:
(http://nutritiondata.self.com/images/help/nfl_example.png)
Of 17 grams of carbs, 13 of them are sugars. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
Post by: TheL on February 05, 2012, 11:00:16 pm
Yes, but I still hear the old "don't buy it if one of the first 3 ingredients is sugar" rule.  Which doesn't work as well if you are only looking for a single 5-letter word starting with "S."

Still better than nothing, though.