Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
1–10 of 176 posts
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#2But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#3But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.)
Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#4But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.
Well, they also taste pretty bad to some people.
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#5But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.
Do you avoid eating any sugar?
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#6But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
Government can pass laws
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#7Sugar Mandate next?
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#8But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.
What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.
The switch to sugar alternatives is already happening.
https://www.marketingweek.com/diet-coke-sales-overtake- classic-coca-cola/
"Compare this to the week before, when Diet Coke sales were at £10.4m and classic Coca-Cola £10.65m. The data shows Coca-Cola value sales were higher than Diet Coke every week for the past year until the brand overhaul and subsequent introduction of the sugar tax. Since then they have diverged with Diet Coke sales increasing at a faster rate than classic Coke." [2018]
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#9The nice thing about reducing sugar is that after a while your taste buds realize how insanely over-sweetened many products are in the US.
My current favorite example is bottled teas. When I was a kid I remember drinking Snapple, now I can't understand how I ever downed that stuff, it's like drinking syrup. If I'm lazy I'll get a bottle of unsweetened tea and mix it about 4-1 with sweetened tea. I get something that has a pleasant, natural, gently sweet taste, and even if I drink 3 of these a day I'm still getting a lot less sugar than a single glass of fully sweetened tea.
Re: Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.
Do you avoid eating any sugar?
I'm not super strict about it but when given the choice yeah I go for the substitutes.