Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Options
Replies
-
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
Ok, but here's the rub... the added sugars are no different chemically and have no different effect in the body than the natural sugars. In fact, the added sugars are simply sugars extracted from natural plants like beets and sugar cane, so what is the difference or problem with them?1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
1 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
the uk food labels don't hide anything........I call you on that one
Well I don't know how it is now as I live in Aarau but when I was living in London, the term mainly used was hidden sugars.0 -
I think "hidden sugar" isn't added sugar (is the sugar in a cookie "hidden"?). It's added sugar in savory items. But still it's not "hidden" (it's on the label) and it plays quite a small role in total sugar consumption, which is kind of surprising given the absurd amount of discussion about it.
Why are people so into the notion of "hidden sugar"? I think they like to pretend they were trying to eat healthfully and "tricked" into consuming lots of sugar (basically, a denial of responsibility).3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think "hidden sugar" isn't added sugar (is the sugar in a cookie "hidden"?). It's added sugar in savory items. But still it's not "hidden" (it's on the label) and it plays quite a small role in total sugar consumption, which is kind of surprising given the absurd amount of discussion about it.
Why are people so into the notion of "hidden sugar"? I think they like to pretend they were trying to eat healthfully and "tricked" into consuming lots of sugar (basically, a denial of responsibility).
Yes you are right, and have phrased it better. It is the added sugar in something one would deem healthy or not an unhealthy food.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
She is asking you about your specific concerns, and to what extent you are aware of the science behind it.
Too much of ANY food, eaten to the exclusion of a nutritionally balanced diet, whether sugar, broccoli, or water, can have a negative effect on your health.1 -
the question was only "should junk food be taxed."
But I asked you a follow-up, specifically to your "it should, because obesity is a crisis." If the question is "what should be done about obesity," which I think it is, focusing on solutions that can be implemented would be ideal.
The ONLY way we ever get a federal tax on (some) junk food (which I'm not saying I support, I mostly am interested in the wonkier aspects of it and policy about obesity in general) is if we try it out in the local and state arenas first, end up with good evidence that it is helpful, and then promote it. Basically, it makes sense to me for different localities and states to try different things, so we see what works.The answer is unequivocally "yes." Junk food consumption has negative externalities, therefore it should be taxed.
I generally support dealing with negative externalities by making the seller/buyer pay for the costs of them, sure, but here I am not sure that it's right to say that "junk food consumption" has negative externalities. Excessive consumption of CALORIES does, and so does not eating a healthful diet (which is not caused by junk food).
Also, again, we have a debate about what "junk food" even is. To discuss this reasonably we need an understanding of how it would work. And what are the taxes considered? How is that different than the Australia and Chicago sales taxes discussed above? Yes, fewer items are "taxed" but these don't seem to have made a difference, and I don't think it's because people in Chicago are currently going to Indiana to eat restaurant food.CAN junk food be taxed? Likely the answer is no. There are too many interested aligned against it, and face it, American in particular LOVE being fat, disgusting, slovenly *kitten*. It's our brand.
Disagree with your last bit (I think Americans dislike and are embarrassed to be so fat, I know I am/was).
It does seem politically a non-starter, among other things because it has been politicized in a stupid way.As for how you could practically pass and implement such a tax. I don't know. But I bet there are a few PhDs out there that have done more research on the topic and could propose some good ideas.
I haven't seen anything reasonable for "junk food" as a broad category, but only the soda tax concept and sugar. But I'd read it if you bring it to my attention (or someone else does).
Given all this, I think focusing on other approaches makes more sense, although if various localities want to experiment with versions of it, eh, works for me.1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
Yes, I am.
Excess consumption of sugar can have a negative effect - i.e. where it contributes to a person eating too many calories, but sugar consumption in and of itself is neither good nor bad (barring certain medical conditions).
I know, you already gave the example of feeding a diabetic 2 tablespoons of sugar, but the same effect would happen if you were to give that same diabetic person a bowl of pasta or any other such starchy food (that does not contain added or intrinsic sugar) - they all break down to sugar in the body and can cause the same insulin/glucose issues as the table sugar.2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
She is asking you about your specific concerns, and to what extent you are aware of the science behind it.
Too much of ANY food, eaten to the exclusion of a nutritionally balanced diet, whether sugar, broccoli, or water, can have a negative effect on your health.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sugar-health-effects-body-brain-2016-9/#gout-15
This provides a good basis of what I am arguing and has good follow up sources for you to read too. My original argument was that sugar is a serious cause for detrimental health and provides a burden to the UK's health service (where treatment is at no cost) due to the health issues it brings. That debate was engaged with Jane, yet has somehow been deviated to here where I sense people are implying sugar isn't an issue. That is fair and each to their opinions, but I believe that sugar provides a greater risk to I'll health than one too many broccoli's.1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
In the context of a calorie controlled diet, where one is at a healthy weight, and sugar is consumed in moderation as part of an otherwise balanced diet - yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Why do you believe otherwise? I've asked repeatedly, what specific negative health consequences do you believe sugar consumption causes, for an otherwise healthy individual as mentioned above by @janejellyroll ?2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
She is asking you about your specific concerns, and to what extent you are aware of the science behind it.
Too much of ANY food, eaten to the exclusion of a nutritionally balanced diet, whether sugar, broccoli, or water, can have a negative effect on your health.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sugar-health-effects-body-brain-2016-9/#gout-15
This provides a good basis of what I am arguing and has good follow up sources for you to read too. My original argument was that sugar is a serious cause for detrimental health and provides a burden to the UK's health service (where treatment is at no cost) due to the health issues it brings. That debate was engaged with Jane, yet has somehow been deviated to here where I sense people are implying sugar isn't an issue. That is fair and each to their opinions, but I believe that sugar provides a greater risk to I'll health than one too many broccoli's.
I'm sorry but that article is hilarious. In every bullet point it states obesity is the issue and then tries to dress it in a way that makes it look like sugar is the cause of the obesity and condition whilst also saying it's the excess calories that overconsumption of sugar can cause that's the problem. None of it has sugar as the actual basis of the issue.6 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
She is asking you about your specific concerns, and to what extent you are aware of the science behind it.
Too much of ANY food, eaten to the exclusion of a nutritionally balanced diet, whether sugar, broccoli, or water, can have a negative effect on your health.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sugar-health-effects-body-brain-2016-9/#gout-15
This provides a good basis of what I am arguing and has good follow up sources for you to read too. My original argument was that sugar is a serious cause for detrimental health and provides a burden to the UK's health service (where treatment is at no cost) due to the health issues it brings. That debate was engaged with Jane, yet has somehow been deviated to here where I sense people are implying sugar isn't an issue. That is fair and each to their opinions, but I believe that sugar provides a greater risk to I'll health than one too many broccoli's.
Treatment isn't "no cost" people still pay for it through taxes and prescriptions are charged for......obese people aren't the main drain on the NHS......would you believe health tourism takes more £ out if the nhs than obesity...one of the biggest drains is the elderly and their treatment/upkeep
It is no cost when you are factoring amount of visits, type of visit etc against for example here in Switzerland, where medical insurance is needed that still doesn't cover the full cost. That's on top of the taxes on your pay. In the UK not everyone is a taxpayer yet is entitled to free health services. Then there is the difference in factoring tax brackets and who has the greater benefit from such a system. To argue that the % paid in taxes on wages (which is distrubuted to various free scheme's in the UK) means you've paid for a hospital visit is ludicrous. Prescriptions are also sold at cost.0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
I understand your confusion. The term hidden sugars in the UK is used as a term for added sugar. So for example, healthy fruit juices have "hidden sugar". We too have the labelling, yet it is the distinction between natural sugars and these "hidden sugars" which is the main concern.
But what is the specific concern, if the total sugar content is called out? What negative effect do you believe that the "hidden" or "added" sugars cause, and are you aware that biochemically, the two are broken down into the same molecules in our bodies?
Are you saying that sugars do not have a negative effect on ones health?
She is asking you about your specific concerns, and to what extent you are aware of the science behind it.
Too much of ANY food, eaten to the exclusion of a nutritionally balanced diet, whether sugar, broccoli, or water, can have a negative effect on your health.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sugar-health-effects-body-brain-2016-9/#gout-15
This provides a good basis of what I am arguing and has good follow up sources for you to read too. My original argument was that sugar is a serious cause for detrimental health and provides a burden to the UK's health service (where treatment is at no cost) due to the health issues it brings. That debate was engaged with Jane, yet has somehow been deviated to here where I sense people are implying sugar isn't an issue. That is fair and each to their opinions, but I believe that sugar provides a greater risk to I'll health than one too many broccoli's.
Treatment isn't "no cost" people still pay for it through taxes and prescriptions are charged for......obese people aren't the main drain on the NHS......would you believe health tourism takes more £ out if the nhs than obesity...one of the biggest drains is the elderly and their treatment/upkeep
It is no cost when you are factoring amount of visits, type of visit etc against for example here in Switzerland, where medical insurance is needed that still doesn't cover the full cost. That's on top of the taxes on your pay. In the UK not everyone is a taxpayer yet is entitled to free health services. Then there is the difference in factoring tax brackets and who has the greater benefit from such a system. To argue that the % paid in taxes on wages (which is distrubuted to various free scheme's in the UK) means you've paid for a hospital visit is ludicrous. Prescriptions are also sold at cost.
but still obesity ISNT the drain on the NHS the papers like to make out......old people are the biggest drain and the second is wasting resources......fat/drunks/junkies come after the NHS wasting it's own resources.......
I didn't make out that it was the number one drain, only stating that it is a heavy burden, which you seem to have backed me up on.0 -
The US government considers ketchup a vegetable. What do they know about health? No to more taxes on anything, we're taxed to death already!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions