Live data from Hacker News

Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

edition.cnn.com

31–40 of 197 posts

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#31

I'm not opposed to this but it strikes me as somewhat weak - if you think something is bad enough to ban visibility of it, why not just go all the way and ban the thing itself. Same with smoking, alcohol, etc. Of course, prohibition doesn't have a terribly successful history but the whole approach seems odd and inconsistent to me. I guess the rationale is a pragmatic de-normalising of toxic and addictive but currentl…

Because people won't accept outright bans for things that are popular. Change happens through a build up. You start small and keep moving the border of what people can accept until one day you get your desired effect. The slippery slope is essentially how policy is made.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#32

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

ads sort of control your freedom of choices paradoxically, through subconscious

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#33
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning advertising is very different from banning the products themselves. The intent of advertising is to increase consumption so the impact is more widespread than personal choices. It’s in effect a form of meme pollution.

Almost any kind of change starts small and then builds up. I don't see anything to indicate that banning ads isn't just the first step in the process. Cigarettes have become more and more restricted over time and they also started with banning ads. If this doesn't alarm you yet, then will you be alarmed once they start banning ads for meat?

This is a ‘slippery slope’ fallacy, and your example even demonstrates its unlikelihood. Cigarettes have been around for a very long time, and the act of smoking them long-term is basically terminal behavior (which we’ve also known about for quite a while). Many countries have banned advertising or limited it, but even in many ‘progressive’ countries (eg Germany) cigarette advertisement is still alive and well. And I don’t know of a country where smoking is entirely banned.

So I don’t see any risk at all of sugary drinks going the way of schedule 1 drugs (which, themselves, are also experiencing international wave of decriminalization). Is it impossible? No; but that’s no reason to fear de-advertising as a step towards a ban.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets." Which is the case in many countries including mine. When they enacted the law I was still a youngster driving his motorcycle, constantly speeding and doing those things people do in their 20s. I hated that law, then a few accidents and fractures later I realized that the "stupid" law probably saved my parents from the horror of outliving me. I'm also for 100%…

It's weird, I rode motorbikes off road as a teenager and wouldn't have dreamed of not wearing a helmet, heavy boots and gloves etc. Just bought a new bike to commute to new job (starting on a 125 and working my way up since not been on a bike for 20 odd years) and while a helmet was thrown in it'll be the first upgrade after proper jacket/pants. I still don't get why it's even a debate, I've cracked two bicycle helme…

This is like saying you don't get why some men don't always wear condoms. For some, riding without a helmet is vastly more pleasurable and thrilling.

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#36

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

Society pays a high cost for eating meat. It takes a lot of resources to grow meat for consumption. Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of things pointing towards how meat consumption isn't good for our health. So, let's ban advertising for meat products. Next step we levy heavy taxes on meat products and for the final step we outright ban it. After all, it's for your own good. The state knows best.

[deleted]

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#37

Usually I am for freedom to do anything you want as long as it does not impact other people. I am OK though with banning ads for sugary drinks because society pays a high medical cost for damage due to excess sugar addiction/use. This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. BTW, I worked in Singapore for a while in 2016. Wonderful place! People just seemed happy there, from business people to laborers. If…

There's a point there that I don't think gets enough discussion: As healthcare becomes increasingly socialized, personal unhealthy choices become an attack on society at large. Why wouldn't we ban sugary drinks altogether? Motorcycle riding even with a helmet? Maybe get rid of pasta. It's not clear to me where we should stop, if medical costs to society are a valid justification for reducing personal freedom...

[deleted]

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#38
I would agree with banning any ads for children under 18 years old, b/c they get bombarded with ads for junk food on all media channels. Plus I would agree with media campaigns teaching people that sugary drinks are a leading cause of obesity.

But I disagree with banning ads on sugary drinks specifically because I am increasingly concerned about recommending, taxing or banning foods based on weak scientific evidence and politicians are too quick to pull the trigger in favor of industries that donate money for their political campaigns.

First of all the evidence that sugar directly causes T2 diabetes is weak [1], even if there is an association between sugary drinks and metabolic syndrome, see for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17646581

You can associate sugar or fat or meat consumption with an increased risk for T2 diabetes, but fact of the matter is that it all comes down to calories, T2 diabetes having an _energy excess_ as the cause and the available evidence for that is pretty solid [3]. When energy excess happens, all markers will start indicating problems, your blood glucose, triglycerides, LDL, etc, all of them going up.

People like to focus on one macro-nutrient, or another and it is true that they aren't the same ... for example fructose might give you non-alcoholic fatty liver disease before glucose or saturated fat are able to. But only when consumed in excess, only when it's not burned for energy and the liver's glycogen stores are full, only then fructose starts to become a problem. And if you eat a lot in excess, it doesn't really matter what you eat, as you will get a non-alcoholic fatty liver.

Going back to sugary drinks ... the reason for why I agree with banning ads for children and teaching people that sugary drinks are toxic is because it has been shown in studies that sugary drinks are not satiating at all and will make people overeat. This has been seen in other foods as well, what researchers have called the "cafeteria diet" [2]. The more processed a food is, the less proteins or nutrients it has, the less satiating it is. And sugary drinks are among the worst.

But this isn't related to sugar, but to foods high in calories, low in nutrients and that make people overeat. Unfortunately because the "calories in, calories out" model appears to introduce "personal responsibility" into the mix, people are too eager to embrace other models, like the carbohydrate-insulin theory (CIM), which for now is a work of fiction [3].

The "calories in, calories out" model doesn't have to blame the victim however. The modern food environment is indeed more obesogenic and this can be explained with the effect of highly caloric, ultra-processed foods on our satiety signals, i.e. the main problem is in the brain, the more processed a food is, the more it induces drug-seeking behavior.

So why stop at sugary drinks? What about ice cream or donuts? What about white bread? What about deep fried stuff? Plenty of foods are super high in sugars or fat or a combination, with near zero nutrients.

[1] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2593601/scientific-basis-...

[2] https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/09/humans-on-caf...

[3] http://www.stephanguyenet.com/references-for-my-debate-with-...

Re: Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone was going to push the limit - how about exercise, it kills some people. The bleedin' obvious answer is where the benefits outweight the cost. Benefit obviously extends further than 'can kill with x% probability'. This is a useless post, try answering the question, or giving a framework within which it can be answered, instead of asking it.

It's not a useless post at all. It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity. For example, eating meat. I have heard a lot about how eating meat is harmful to people's health and our environment. Shouldn't we ban that as well?

> It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity

So from this you talk about banning them, right? Except you ban everything because everything has a risk, which is something no-one would accept. Alternative is you try and answer the question instead of asking it.

A utilitarian viewpoint.

A 'You-can-{smoke/drink/parachute/motorrace}-if-you-have-enough-money-to-cover-your-own-hospital-costs' approach.

An attempt to quantify where the line should be drawn, which is what I was getting at.

Or not ban them at all, as some people will propose, which certainly has some merit.

Hand over that decision to the government (which seems to be happening anyway) and wash your hands of it as an individual - the conformist approach.

And doubtless others.

Don't ask obvious questions, questions are easy, and this one is trivial to ask. Try to answer them instead.

Post reply on HN