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]

#151

Post by jahnu » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #123

jahnu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably just reduced your calorie intake. There is scant evidence that those sources of carbs matters at all in the sense that they are somehow worse than other sources of calories. But fair play to you for doing something. It's genuinely admirable.

>There is scant evidence that those sources of carbs matters at all in the sense that they are somehow worse than other sources of calories. what about glycemic index? Surely foods with high GI are demonstrably worse?

As far as I'm aware there are no studies that clearly show that replacing potatoes bread etc with equivalent calories in other forms results in weight loss.

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

#152

Post by jahnu » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #139

jahnu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably just reduced your calorie intake. There is scant evidence that those sources of carbs matters at all in the sense that they are somehow worse than other sources of calories. But fair play to you for doing something. It's genuinely admirable.

One type of macro food group affects insulin resistance. Carbs. All calories are not created equal, just ask any diabetic (and there are many many of them to ask).

We're talking about cutting out a food category and presumably replacing it with another. I don't know of any convincing evidence this results in weight loss. Open to information of course!

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

#153

Post by raphinou » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

meira wrote: post #7

I don't feel very comfortable with this "anti-sugar" campaign. In a recent past, the villain was fat, now is sugar. I don't think both of them is the problem, the problem is a life without sports and workout. And sugar is the best energy source for the brain, as far as I know.

The problem is that sugar is literally everywhere leading to an over consommation without realising it, which can lead to health problem.

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

#154

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 4:50 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.

That 36% of US adults are considered obese does not make it obvious that losing weight is any more complicated than cutting sugar & carbs.

First, "common sense" dietary advise is that fats are bad. That's why you see foods marketed as low-fat. Because common sense dietary advice has been focused on the wrong thing (fat instead of sugar/carbs), most people's conception of "eating healthy" is wrong.

Second, the route to being financially healthy and stable is incredibly simple: spend significantly less that you make. Yet some how a huge percentage of people in the US spend beyond their means. Could it not also be the case with cutting sugar & carbs that even if people actually knew what they needed to do, they still would not do it?

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

#155

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #124

bhouston wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. I think there should be in Canada because we have a public health care system and the effects of sugar intake puts stresses on public health care, and those that who binge on sugar should be forced to pay for their higher costs on public health - I should not be subsiding their preventable issues.

what about athletes and body builders who do carb/sugar loading? What about ppl who eat greasy food and don't exercise? Als, Wouldn't this merely penalize poor people with long hours and long commutes, poor people who are forced to live in food desserts, poor people who only have enough cash to buy bad food, poor people who have to feed a family of 5 on minimum wage.

A few things:

1. I think most athletes who purposely ingest a lot of carbs are probably not using sugar to accomplish this.

2. Greasy food is not actually bad for you. Grease is essentially fat, which is about as healthy as you can get. In a typical fast food meal, the greasy burger is the healthy part (minus the bun). It's the fries and soft drink which are the unhealthy part.

3. Grains are an incredibly affordable source of calories (it depends on the grain, but for the most part they are all upwards of 2,000 calories for $1). I don't think anybody's in danger of starving if sugar is more expensive.

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

#156

Post by fuzzfactor » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

The purpose of sugar is to have a spoilage-resistant renewable commodity capable of filling and refilling cargo ships to a net wealth density greater than most any choice having similar features at the time, over three hundred years ago.

To put this in perspective, that was about the same time that colonies in North America were being founded also by multinational corporations for the benefit of multinational corporations, often funded by venture capitalists among the royalty of Europe.

Sugar is a truly fungible material, exchangable at prevailing rates in any port. A single type of cargo that could pay its own way just about anywhere, allowing relatively greater voyage flexibility, in a world where logistics has always played a significant part.

While being the trader's or marketer's dream; concentrated chemical crystals which are habit forming in some way, with everyone everywhere being a potential repeat retail customer for "life".

The enthusiasm for this wealth from many different directions would be expected to have yielded very effective lobbyists to officials around the world for many generations by now. Once consumption has leveled to the sustainable growth rate, excess gains can more likely be made through manipulation.

Centuries of that has ended up supporting very strong plantation-type economies, often to the destruction of large numbers of a variety of different species, with human suffering very prominently included.

Continuous removal of wealth from Haiti, mandated long term US-Cuban non-relationship, and loss of Everglades wildlife by the millions are just some of the obvious casualties.

You, the consumer make it all possible.

It's not just for sweetening your coffee in the morning.

Now don't get me started on coffee . . .

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

#157

Post by tim333 » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #111

tim333 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Things don't need to be moral agents to be good bad or evil. I had a good bath and a bad haircut but neither of those are moral agents.

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

#158

Post by taxicabjesus » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

kristiandupont wrote: post #51

MustardTiger wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The known fraud? Sure, look him up.

Would you care to elaborate on that? Googling "dr lustig fraud" brings up mostly what looks like fabricated "debunking" articles from things like "The Scam Report".

There is no difference between glucose in sugar and glucose in starch, except that starch molecules are useless to the body when they get into the blood.

People whose livers are damaged have some difficulty processing fructose, but that is not the sugar's fault.

Dr. Lustig has made a name for himself by demonizing sugar. I do not believe that sugar is the demon it's commonly made out to be.

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

#159

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #76

coldtea wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mexico was sued because they effectively installed a tariff, not just because the law affected the profits of multinationals. They had agreed not to install such tariffs. That agreement is still for not affecting the profits of multinationals... (Though of course there is no shortage of "free-market-trumps-all" advocates to point out that such tarrifs hurt the local economy etc).

Sure, big companies are best positioned to take advantage of trade agreements. So what. It still makes sense to examine the totality of the impacts. For example, I'm pretty curious about what impact NAFTA has had on illegal immigration from Mexico. Who knows if it has been significant, but surely it isn't zero (the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico is down substantially since it passed).

>Sure, big companies are best positioned to take advantage of trade agreements. So what.

So, tremendous stealing of resources from the economy at large, increasing inequality and deterioration of society?

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

#160

Post by jedharris » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #89

mark_l_watson wrote: post #21

This also shows the true evil of the TTP and TTIP trade deals: corporations can sue any government if their laws affect the corporation's profits. Pure evil. The article has the example of Mexico being sued for their protective laws.

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,…

Interesting position. This implies that corporations, by default, have no social rights or interests at all -- while humans, by default, have all human rights and interests.

I kind of like this. No free speech or even property ownership rights for corporations, unless we decide it is in our interest. Only humans can be the source of rights or interests.

It will involve a pretty big reworking of the laws, however. Let's get started!