Singapore to become first country banning ads on sugary drinks

Post by intarga » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #155

Noumenon72 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fruit juice is different from sugar water in some ways (for example, apple juice has sorbitol, which promotes bowel movement), but in my view the differences don't matter and they should both be covered under this ban. That much sugar with no bulk is just unnatural and should be viewed as a dessert.

It's always nice when other people decide what I should eat on the assumption that I can't consume in healthy moderation.

Post by StapleHorse » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 9:58 AM UTC

jaclaz wrote: post #72

squarefoot wrote: post #14

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%…

Only as anecdata, I got my first motorcycle at 14 and that was several years before any Law made helmets compulsory. My dad (who also was a motorcyclist) when giving me the bike told me that the helmet and gloves were the keys to start the engine: "no helmet, no gloves, you cannot start the bike." A lot of friends didn't have the same imprimatur , and since it was not compulsory, rode happily their bikes without prot…

Post by tim333 » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 10:57 AM UTC

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #97

Just ban all ads and be done with it. Really don't understand why it's taking us (collectively) so long to get there.

Post by blub » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 12:37 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #170

blub wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you ban all ads -- less people will be using good products and services, and that will make our economy less effective." That's a strange conclusion, since all products, including terrible ones are advertised. In fact ads are essentially content-free and don't help people decide if a product is good or not. They have zero correlation with the quality of a product. Some countries like France and Germany have indep…

but they also allow the advertisers to use the test results in their ads. and that's effective. if i see a test-result in an ad i do pay attention (if i am in the market for that kind of product)

Post by lemmsjid » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

tus88 wrote: post #157

lemmsjid wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning products that a sub-population of people are effectively addicted to has a long, multi-instance history of not working and instead contributing to crime (see various drug prohibitions). A product being banned can actually be a form of advertising (or at least production of demand) by suggesting it is risky, cool, or potent in some way. On the other hand, banning advertising for a category of products, or rest…

Banning the sale of != banning the thing itself. If the goal was a massive reduction, not total elimination, I think it would work. Would many people really go to the black market to get sugary Coke when the supermarket has shelves of Diet Coke available?