Should sugar be controlled like tobacco and alcohol
Replies
-
Nearly 60 years ago tobacco companies began to be blamed for lung cancer and fought back. For years they tried to prevent governments from taking meaningful action , as late as 1994 their Ceos refused to take responsibility testifying "I believe nicotine is not addictive." a . Critics believe food companies may be behaving in a similar way.
Documents uncovered at the University of San Francisco provide a possible answer. It is the location of thousands of papers relating to tobacco litigation. Hidden among them are lessons from the Tobacco Wars. When obesity crisis exploded in the 1990's one man a Philip Morris executive was paying close attention, cigarette companies were facing $365 billion bill for smoking related illness. he wondered if the food giant they owned Kraft may find itself a similar positon .
Philip Morris executive warned them food companies would have to fight hard but can the trial lawyers be far behind.
At the highest level executives were made aware of the parallels between tobacco and food.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Ny4Et_NR0 0 -
What do you think of the argument that your fellow citizens (or insurance-payers, idk where you live but w/e) maybe *do* mind paying for the consequences of (hypothetically) your bad choices? Maybe *they* need the government to make better choices for you, irrespective of your literacy.
Every single human being on the planet does SOMETHING that could potentially (and probably does) impact insurance rates. Or whatever.
We all do SOMETHING. Even things that are healthy. I went rollerblading in June (exercise! healthy! good for your heart and your weight and whatever else!) and shattered my wrist. I had to have X-rays, surgery, physical therapy and I am still seeing the orthopedist.
Should we ban rollerblading because it's dangerous and can impact insurance costs? My insurance paid the vast majority of the costs, including all of the X-rays and sugery.
I don't smoke. I barely drink. NEVER drive drunk. I eat very healthy and have never been obese. And I wear my seatbelt in the car.0 -
JFC people are such stupid children sometimes.
ETA - let's just elect Feinstein queen, and wrap ourselves in bubble wrap to appease the dumb.0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie0 -
there are reasons on why there are winners and losers0
-
Congratulations on being so much smarter than the rest of us that you need the government to tell you what to eat.quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
And what about people who continue engaging in dangerous behaviors that often lead to injuries? Runners have a lot of injuries, constantly over time that require health care. As do many other people who engage in athletic endeavors and continue doing so regardless of constant injury.
Let's ban that. I'm sick of paying for all those pulled muscles and broken legs.0 -
Congratulations on being so much smarter than the rest of us that you need the government to tell you what to eat.quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
And what about people who continue engaging in dangerous behaviors that often lead to injuries? Runners have a lot of injuries, constantly over time that require health care. As do many other people who engage in athletic endeavors and continue doing so regardless of constant injury.
Let's ban that. I'm sick of paying for all those pulled muscles and broken legs.
% of runners? cost of injuries? % obese? % diabetic? false equivalence? ****ty analogies? baiting? ideological blindness? out out out0 -
agreed with using farm subsidies to grow organic.0
-
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.0 -
Because regulating, taxing, age limits, bans and outlawing have been so effective with alcohol, Tabaco , illegal drugs and underage drinking? I can see it now, sugar cartels sprouting up, run by middle aged women with twinkie obsessions.
Why oh why, can't people figure out this glaringly obvious piece of the "all you have to do is make a law and it will solve the problem" puzzle?
But this thread is fun. I think it needs a tad more anger though. I mean SUGAR KILLZ! :sad:
Now off to make my family HYOOGE at Dairy Queen . . .
0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Well it may be the result of a sugar overdose scrambling the brain cells.0 -
Personally, I think we should regulate the government more instead of the other way around.0
-
The "I'm smarter than all you plebes" card is auto-ignore in my book.quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.0 -
Nearly 60 years ago tobacco companies began to be blamed for lung cancer and fought back. For years they tried to prevent governments from taking meaningful action , as late as 1994 their Ceos refused to take responsibility testifying "I believe nicotine is not addictive." a . Critics believe food companies may be behaving in a similar way.
Documents uncovered at the University of San Francisco provide a possible answer. It is the location of thousands of papers relating to tobacco litigation. Hidden among them are lessons from the Tobacco Wars. When obesity crisis exploded in the 1990's one man a Philip Morris executive was paying close attention, cigarette companies were facing $365 billion bill for smoking related illness. he wondered if the food giant they owned Kraft may find itself a similar positon .
Philip Morris executive warned them food companies would have to fight hard but can the trial lawyers be far behind.
At the highest level executives were made aware of the parallels between tobacco and food.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Ny4Et_NR0
We agree with the OP, they should tax the beejeezus out of the stuff!!!0 -
Some people were being mean.
SOMEONE WAS MEAN ON THE INTERNETS? OMG!!!11!1!!!
You must be new here. It's an internet forum. That was not mean. That was called honesty.0 -
No. It's population control. Let the idiots continue to overeat, gain weight and develop diseases and die.0
-
No. It's population control. Let the idiots continue to overeat, gain weight and develop diseases and die.
That would only be the right answer if we didn't insist on trying to heal them.0 -
No. It's population control. Let the idiots continue to overeat, gain weight and develop diseases and die.
what about the skinny idiots?
there are lots of those too.
0 -
In a word, no.
Seriously, I work in healthcare and our bariatric surgeons don't advocate this. Good health is generally about genetics and self control. Regulate sugar and people will find something else to abuse. Especially people with addictive personalities.0 -
No, just no, and while we're at it, the government shouldn't be in the business of controlling peoples choices. So long as your choices don't adversely, and directly affect another individual, the government should have NO say in what you do. If you want to freebase opium, I say go nuts.
Rigger
The thing is, you don't live on some tiny little island by yourself. If you eat too much sugar, and end up immobile, odds are you;'re gonna go on medicare or Medicaid. The rest of us pay for that. If you smoke opium, fall asleep driving, and crash into a schoolbus, the rest of us could lose our kids.
'
I agree the original article is absurd, and regulating sugar isn't the answer. But I think the libertarian "my body my business" argument needs to acknowledge that there is a point where your choices affect the rest of us.0 -
No, just no, and while we're at it, the government shouldn't be in the business of controlling peoples choices. So long as your choices don't adversely, and directly affect another individual, the government should have NO say in what you do. If you want to freebase opium, I say go nuts.
Rigger
The thing is, you don't live on some tiny little island by yourself. If you eat too much sugar, and end up immobile, odds are you;'re gonna go on medicare or Medicaid. The rest of us pay for that. If you smoke opium, fall asleep driving, and crash into a schoolbus, the rest of us could lose our kids.
'
I agree the original article is absurd, and regulating sugar isn't the answer. But I think the libertarian "my body my business" argument needs to acknowledge that there is a point where your choices affect the rest of us.
Maybe the government should stop regulating perscription drugs, yah everyone can freebase heroiin, , oxycodin, the kids should be able to buy meth at the grocery store. They shouldn't mess with the drunk drivers, it is their right to drink and drive, maybe the rest of us should stay home and off the roads. Darn, all this government interference in our lives. Not only that they are making those food producers put labels on the products so we now can see what we are eating. Darn . Too much government. Yah. The drug companies should be able to make and market what they want, without all that government interference It is up to the consumer to determine if those new drugs will kill him .0 -
In a word, no.
Seriously, I work in healthcare and our bariatric surgeons don't advocate this.
right, because surgeons are ideally placed to comment on public policy0 -
.0
-
Add Nutrition classes to the school curriculum. Don't regulate alcohol tobacco or sugar. It's against everything I would like to believe "American"0
-
When will the insanity end.0
-
No, just no, and while we're at it, the government shouldn't be in the business of controlling peoples choices. So long as your choices don't adversely, and directly affect another individual, the government should have NO say in what you do. If you want to freebase opium, I say go nuts.
Rigger
The thing is, you don't live on some tiny little island by yourself. If you eat too much sugar, and end up immobile, odds are you;'re gonna go on medicare or Medicaid. The rest of us pay for that. If you smoke opium, fall asleep driving, and crash into a schoolbus, the rest of us could lose our kids.
'
I agree the original article is absurd, and regulating sugar isn't the answer. But I think the libertarian "my body my business" argument needs to acknowledge that there is a point where your choices affect the rest of us.
Maybe the government should stop regulating perscription drugs, yah everyone can freebase heroiin, , oxycodin, the kids should be able to buy meth at the grocery store. They shouldn't mess with the drunk drivers, it is their right to drink and drive, maybe the rest of us should stay home and off the roads. Darn, all this government interference in our lives. Not only that they are making those food producers put labels on the products so we now can see what we are eating. Darn . Too much government. Yah. The drug companies should be able to make and market what they want, without all that government interference It is up to the consumer to determine if those new drugs will kill him .
You're right, the war on drugs has eliminated drug use, the war on poverty has decimated poverty, the war on terror has put an end to terrorism. Prohibition didn't have a single adverse consequence, everything the FDA signes on to is safe, prescription drugs are never recalled, drunks don't drive because it's illegal, murder is a thing of the past. It's all so simple, congress passes a law and problems are magically solved, I don't know why I hadn't realized it. You're right, the government is perfect, we need more of it, chain me up, I submit.
Rigger0 -
Disclaimer: I don't eat foods with added sugar. I don't eat anything with HFCS.
NO. Sugar should not be controlled. Labeling should be improved. Folks should have access to information and then folks should make their own decisions.
(and schools should offer healthy foods)0 -
No, just no, and while we're at it, the government shouldn't be in the business of controlling peoples choices. So long as your choices don't adversely, and directly affect another individual, the government should have NO say in what you do. If you want to freebase opium, I say go nuts.
Rigger
The thing is, you don't live on some tiny little island by yourself. If you eat too much sugar, and end up immobile, odds are you;'re gonna go on medicare or Medicaid. The rest of us pay for that. If you smoke opium, fall asleep driving, and crash into a schoolbus, the rest of us could lose our kids.
'
I agree the original article is absurd, and regulating sugar isn't the answer. But I think the libertarian "my body my business" argument needs to acknowledge that there is a point where your choices affect the rest of us.
Maybe the government should stop regulating perscription drugs, yah everyone can freebase heroiin, , oxycodin, the kids should be able to buy meth at the grocery store. They shouldn't mess with the drunk drivers, it is their right to drink and drive, maybe the rest of us should stay home and off the roads. Darn, all this government interference in our lives. Not only that they are making those food producers put labels on the products so we now can see what we are eating. Darn . Too much government. Yah. The drug companies should be able to make and market what they want, without all that government interference It is up to the consumer to determine if those new drugs will kill him .
This debate is more about where you draw the line and why.
Generally, Libertarians believe that the government shouldn't keep people from hurting themselves, only from harming other people. For example, the classic libertarian "hell, drive drunk, if you hit anyone I don't care" is usually followed by the argument that as an adult who chose to drive drunk you knew what you were getting into. IE, if you get drunk and kill someone, the drinking does mitigate the charge--straight from "accident" to "premeditated murder."
On the other side, you have, well... this debate moving the line to the other extreme. One where The Government should keep the majority of people from eating a common naturally occurring non-narcotic substance because a percentage of people are deemed too dumb to learn when to put a fork down without some external control.
Pick the place you put the line of responsibility. Think hard about it, learn to defend those beliefs.0 -
Disclaimer: I don't eat foods with added sugar. I don't eat anything with HFCS.
NO. Sugar should not be controlled. Labeling should be improved. Folks should have access to information and then folks should make their own decisions.
(and schools should offer healthy foods)
Two thoughts on this:
(1) The current labeling is fine. I am very particular about when I eat added sugar and when I don't and am able to control that quite well. So when I eat an Oreo I know that I'm getting sugar and HFCS, and I don't care because the calories are worth it. When I eat Greek yogurt, I don't need added sugar and am happy not to get it.
(2) School lunches could be improved. I would love to see salads and fresh vegetables available at my daughter's elementary school. She has a fruit choice but the veggies are a bit questionable to non-existant (green beans but not much else and green beans are hardly the best choice) and the proteins are marginal. That said, she gets plenty of what she needs at home. I do feel for the kids who don't have more nutrition training at home though, and I would love to see the schools push to become "models" of healthy eating.
That said, it doesn't get me worked up. The responsibility for my kids' health falls to my wife and me. Period.0 -
You're great parents. Not everyone has your level of information/access. The schools can and should be a back up system of good information. It benefits everyone (pragmatically speaking) if the schools educate/model good sense nutrition.Disclaimer: I don't eat foods with added sugar. I don't eat anything with HFCS.
NO. Sugar should not be controlled. Labeling should be improved. Folks should have access to information and then folks should make their own decisions.
(and schools should offer healthy foods)
Two thoughts on this:
(1) The current labeling is fine. I am very particular about when I eat added sugar and when I don't and am able to control that quite well. So when I eat an Oreo I know that I'm getting sugar and HFCS, and I don't care because the calories are worth it. When I eat Greek yogurt, I don't need added sugar and am happy not to get it.
(2) School lunches could be improved. I would love to see salads and fresh vegetables available at my daughter's elementary school. She has a fruit choice but the veggies are a bit questionable to non-existant (green beans but not much else and green beans are hardly the best choice) and the proteins are marginal. That said, she gets plenty of what she needs at home. I do feel for the kids who don't have more nutrition training at home though, and I would love to see the schools push to become "models" of healthy eating.
That said, it doesn't get me worked up. The responsibility for my kids' health falls to my wife and me. Period.
I'm a pragmatist.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions