Sugar addict in next plane seat in long haul flight is definitely "second hand sugar". Some people being addicted to sugar makes food makers add sugar where it's not needed or increase it's quantity a lot. So you have harder time limiting your sugar input.
> "Sugar addict in next plane seat in long haul flight is definitely "second hand sugar". What? How? They can as much sugar as they like, none of it is getting into me. No airline has ever force-fed me sugar.
I think the commenter is referring to an obese passenger.
How about we start treating alcohol like smoking? For example ban alcohol advertising like we have with tobacco and I bet society would improve in a lot of unforeseen ways (besides the obvious reduction in alcohol related deaths and diseases and family issues).
Alcohol helps people socialize and is significantly harder to get addicted to. It's also far less harmful when consumed in moderation, no matter how many elusive studies want to push how "there is no safe alcohol dosage" because you might have 15% more risk of cancer in 30 years or something. I agree advertising is bad but you're going to have a hell of a hard time convincing billions of people that they should stop socializing the easy way.
Sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose while white bread is only long chains of glucose, unless sugar was added to it too (only a thing in the US AFAIK).
Sugar is needed for yeast to raise the dough. It's common everywhere not in the US alone. I'm in Europe and most bread has sugar added during preparation. Small amounts but still sugar.
Added sugar is not necessary for yeast. The yeast is breaking down and using the carbs naturally present in wheat. The simplest breads, like french baguettes, are only made with flour, water, salt and yeast. Sugar is added to many commercial breads because it can make production easier and more consistent and sell more to consumers, but it's not added because it's necessary.
More importantly how about eating meat like smoking? That is a much more closer comparison. Don't believe me? Get educated, peon.
Why do you consider smoking is bad for you? You get lithium from smoking tobacco and lithium increases the production of white blood cells like neutrophils which destroy bacteria and debris in the body. Lithium also helps to stabilise the mood probably because some studies suggest bacteria can affect mood in humans, an area the medical profession largely ignore. Neutrophils also consume sugar before consuming bacteria, perhaps another way to keep bacterial infections managable. Either way, is smoking really that bad considering the smoke raises liver enzymes as do the charred parts of meat cooked using sources of infrared radiation.
One other point about smoking which has been recognised by the meat industry is that gas treated meat using carbon monoxide as a preservative helps to stall the growth of bacteria, and smokers will also be inhaling carbon monoxide which can stay in the red blood cells for upto around 6-8hrs. No studies exist to show if this inhaled carbon monoxide has an antibacterial effect in the body but its possible carbon monoxide besides killing a person in high enough quantity could also have an antibacterial effect considering there are about 6lb of bacteria in the average body carrying out all sorts of functions some good some not.
So is smoking really that bad or is it a fast way to self medicate considering anything inhaled will get straight into the bloodstream where it can have an immediate effect before the liver breaks these chemicals down into metabolites, some of which can also have an effect on the body as noted in various pharmaceutical drug studies and illegal drug studies such as cocaine?
Sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose while white bread is only long chains of glucose, unless sugar was added to it too (only a thing in the US AFAIK).
Sugar is needed for yeast to raise the dough. It's common everywhere not in the US alone. I'm in Europe and most bread has sugar added during preparation. Small amounts but still sugar.
Sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose while white bread is only long chains of glucose, unless sugar was added to it too (only a thing in the US AFAIK).
Sugar is needed for yeast to raise the dough. It's common everywhere not in the US alone. I'm in Europe and most bread has sugar added during preparation. Small amounts but still sugar.
The yeast metabolises that sugar.
I think people are talking about adding sugar for taste, beyond what the yeast can metabolise, which is common in US food culture but not generally elsewhere.
It'd be much harder than cigarettes to define and enforce, and more prone to loopholes. What's a "sugary food"? Grams of sugar? They'd just sell fun-sized. Percentage mass? That could impact fruit. Added sugar? What is "non-added sugar"? Specific product categories like soda and candy? They'd just walk the line with things like "sweetened sparkling water". I support the idea in principle, and I hope they figure out a…
Foods with added sugar should be an easy starting point.
That it doesn't work in Russia is far from proof that it couldn't work elsewhere. Edit: Prohibition on advertising is not prohibition on alcohol. I reject the relevance of this suggested equivalency. There is no risk of organized crime getting supercharged by a prohibition on alcohol advertisements .
It significantly shifts the onus on people who want it banned to prove it would work though. "In country X they do policy Y and it works/doesn't work" is a much stronger argument than "Yeah but in our country it's different."
That it doesn't work in Russia is far from proof that it couldn't work elsewhere. Edit: Prohibition on advertising is not prohibition on alcohol. I reject the relevance of this suggested equivalency. There is no risk of organized crime getting supercharged by a prohibition on alcohol advertisements .
{ "Advertising increases demand for a product.", "Banning advertising does not reduce demand for a product." } I think you really do gotta pick one there, because each implies the other's opposite. You don't really even need two different studies to demonstrate "demand is higher in the presence of advertising" and "demand is lower in the absence of advertising". It's mathematically impossible to experimentally demons…
It could also be the case that advertising changes which particular product people choose (say, which brand of beer), but doesn't affect the demand for beer overall.
How about we start treating alcohol like smoking? For example ban alcohol advertising like we have with tobacco and I bet society would improve in a lot of unforeseen ways (besides the obvious reduction in alcohol related deaths and diseases and family issues).
For most people, alcohol isn’t addictive in the same way that smoking or sugar is. If you eat stuff with a lot of sugar it makes things without sugar actually taste worse. Whereas drinking alcohol doesn’t make water taste worse or whatever. Also alcohol only kills 80k or so Americans per year, way less than smoking or sugar.