How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#111

Post by brudgers » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #102

brudgers wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the acts of legally constructed fictitious persons are amoral not evil [or good]. The legally constructed fictitious person is just a messier meat space version of the Etherium fueled Dao. A legally constructed fictitious person has marching orders and those orders are an ends justify the means mandate...as I was writing that I was thinking "constrained only by law" but that's some utopia we don't have. To me,…

If a tobacco company say starts giving cigarettes to 5 year olds to get them hooked you don't think that's evil? What difference does it make that a company is a bunch of people rather than one? I'll give you that it's trickier to deal with bad stuff done by a corporation. With an individual you can jail them but less so with a corp unless you can pin it on an individual.

No. Tobacco companies are not moral agents.

Such a scenario might well involve individuals engaged in banal evil and because individuals are moral agents, that's where blame and praise may accrue.

Anthropomorphizing a tobacco company muddies our thinking. A trade agreement is a document. The consequences of following the ideas in that document may be detrimental. But it is not a moral agent.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#112

Post by zzalpha » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #44

yodsanklai wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, but the concept of marketing still makes sense. We know that corporations devote a lot of resources in marketing. Is it ok to "brainwash" people into buying stuff that harm them?

My impression is that most forms of libertarianism would support the ability to take legal action against firms for dishonest marketing.

Huh? No.

Dishonest marketing does not infringe upon your property rights. I've never heard any libertarian claim that limiting speech, for any purpose, is justifiable base on libertarian ideals.

Where do you get that idea?

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#113

Post by dammitcoetzee » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

clearlyclear wrote: post #96

tdkl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just evil, I presume in the future there will be civil wars because of that - people who'll have enough vs. corporations.

I'm cutting past the corporation talk and going straight to the premise. It's one that we need to reject. The article starts off with the premise that we are currently suffering a health crisis. This is insane. It's an extreme, hyper-negative point of view. We live in the safest times in all of human history. If you're not living in a shanty town without running water and suffering from dysentery, you're doing pretty…

It's practically modern culture to be negative about everything. When there are two equally probable outcomes I've noticed that people tend to lavish on the negative one to exclusion and treat people with positive outlooks as annoying, chipper, ignorant, or immature. It's odd. My theory is that positivity requires some claim of responsibility over the outcome while negatively allows one to divorce themselves from it.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#114

Post by mattzito » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #92

mrfusion wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always get thrown off that plan by things like yogurt. Even plain yogurt lists a ton of sugar. I can't wait for the new labels that show added sugar.

In the US, plain yogurt would show any added sugar in the ingredients list (it would not reflect the amount). But it starts from milk, so there is lots of sugar it in.

There has been new legislation passed that starting..next year?..labels will have to show total sugar and added sugar, so you can realistically get a sense of how much is original vs. additive.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#115

Post by mark_l_watson » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #57

mark_l_watson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been a lot written on the subject. Some examples: http://bodyecology.com/articles/goodbye-sugar-cravings-what-... http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-8376/10-signs-you-have-candid... http://www.thecandidadiet.com/why-does-candida-need-sugar/ http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/1208/a_love_story_candid... http://www.olsonnd.com/sugar-and-candida/ I believe that people should keep track of what food they eat and d…

There's a lot written on astrology as well. Volume doesn't mean it's true. I wasn't able to find anything in PubMed on the causal connection as you describe, though I did find papers like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684604/ on "Archaea and Fungi of the Human Gut Microbiome: Correlations with Diet and Bacterial Residents" which describes the correlation. > Methanobrevibacter and Candida were positivel…

I think I might be wrong about this, so apologies, I stand corrected. For myself, staying away from processed foods (which means eating less sugar), has made me feel much better. As a result, when I read about the problems with Candida and it resonated with my own experiences and I came to biased conclusions.

I do take supplements specifically to reduce the amount of Candida in my gut (probiotics and caprylic acid) so my feeling of better heath in the last 4 or 5 years of avoiding processed foods might also be a result of these supplements and not just avoiding processed foods. I feel better, but I can't pinpoint why.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#116

Post by tim333 » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #101

praptak wrote: post #58

About 6 weeks ago I stopped ingesting sugar, to the extent that is practically possible. No candy & cakes, no sweet drinks and very diligent reading of labels on the non-obvious stuff. I do eat fruit but not processed into juice. Dropped 4 kg, everything tastes better, no energy drop at 4pm and the cravings disappeared within first two days. Friends report similar results. This was also much easier than my previous a…

Yes dropping sugar is the first step. But then after a while, you want to take it further, and you start exercising. And suddenly, you need sugars again!

You don't need actual sugar. Some carbs that the body turns to sugar perhaps.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#117

Post by throwaway5834 » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #84

microcolonel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this should be the most obvious dietary advice for the overweight. Cut out entire classes of sugar intake such as soda and candy, except perhaps once per month or week. Sadly, people can't take simple advice.

What a disgusting attitude you have. If it were as easy as you say, everyone would just do it. 36% of US adults are considered obese. It's obviously a lot more complicated and harder than taking "simple" advice.

Hold on, you have a giant non sequitur.

For example, suppose the conversation were about entrepreneurship, and your parent comment maintained that anybody coudl start a corporation "easily" and for about $100.

Now, suppose you replied:

>If it were as easy as you say, everyone would just do it. 97% of US adults have never owned a company.

>It's obviously a lot more complicated and harder than taking "simple" advice.

First, why am I using this example. Because we can all agree that actually, yes, anyone can pretty much start a corporation for $100. It's true. It's also true that 99% of people don't.

That doesn't make starting a corporation 'harder'. It takes certain steps, and you have to go through with it.

Whether 1%, 5%, 10%, or 75% of people have tried starting companies, has no impact on its difficulty.

Likewise, whether 20%, 30%, 50%, or 90% of people are obese, does not influence the dfificulty of not being obese.

Perhaps in the future only 1/10 people will be able to maintain an athletic, fit, weight. Perhaps they will have to throw away 80% of what they're served at restaurants, because they simply cannot order anything that does not have 2500 calories, whereas they want to eat 500.

This is not far from the status quo in America.

So, while it is certainly "easy" in a sense not to overeat, it's only "easy" in the same way as starting a corporation is "easy".

It's easy on paper.

If your parent argues that people should 'just do it' -- he's probably right.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#118

Post by chiefofgxbxl » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #68

superswordfish wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US sugar is listed without a DV% as well. People might reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of your daily recommended added sugar intake (per the article's 45g). I LOLed at https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition > MILKY WAY® is a delicious and indulgent treat that can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy. Of course it'…

No one would reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of the recommended daily sugar intake. The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already. IMO one great labeling victory has been restaurants that put calorie info on menus. Some of that has been by regulation, but regardless it's a good move.

> The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already.

This may be true, but this statement is also missing the (possibly large?) group of people that simply have no benchmark in their mind for how much sugar is acceptable.

I've read several competing articles about daily limits to added sugar, and the number I have in my mind is 80g/day max. Given that a teaspoon of sugar is roughly 4g, this amounts to 20 teaspoons of sugar per day! I've wondered if nutrition labels listing sugar in terms of teaspoons instead of grams would help people visualize exactly how much sugar they are consuming.

I would agree that those who care about sugar intake probably will avoid Milky Ways, but I'm also concerned that if we don't have a % DV on sugar, people will perhaps assume that there is no ceiling. Why do we have % DV for fat, carbs, etc., but not sugar? Hmm, well maybe it's that no amount of sugar you eat today will harm you.

As a curious experiment, walk down the street and randomly survey people for how many grams of sugar they think they should limit themselves to.

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#119

Post by josinalvo » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #38

twoodfin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you took my individual liberty (or that of my customers) very seriously.

Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds). But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a r…

I agree with you 100%.

But that is not usually considered libertarian.

A libertarian scheme would usually be like 'certification should be a business, and foods should be certified sugar free by a specific certification company, and bear that company's sugar-free logo'.

Which I think is highly impractical

Re: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]

#120

Post by Kenji » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:25 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #3

Jan_jw wrote: post #2

It's "interesting" to see the same methods that the tabacco lobby used are used again. We as a society haven't spent the past time in defending ourselves or our institutions any better then back in those days. Sad Indeed...

I wonder what point of view libertarians have on issues like this one. How can we regulate this without government intervention? what can we do to counter-balance the marketing power of those corporations?

My libertarian view: Let companies add as much sugar as they like and consumers shall decide what tastes and feels best. If there's too much sugar inside your food, nobody's gonna buy it. Not the government should decide how much sugar I eat, I should decide that. Everything else infantilizes the people. The only thing that should be illegal is actually lying about sugar content.