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]

#161

Post by MustardTiger » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #46

MustardTiger wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And Candida itself has quickly evolved to affect brain chemistry to induce people to eat more sugar. There is no evidence to support this sort of chemtrail level conspiracy theory nonsense.

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 has been a lot written on the subject

Yes, there has been a lot written. And there is no evidence.

>but I would ask you to try staying away from processed foods and sugar for a few weeks and see if you feel better. It is an easy experiment to do.

95%+ of the food I eat comes from my property. There's nothing processed to cut out. I feel no different than I did when I was eating little ceasars pizza and coke every day for a year. This "experiment" is not an actual experiment, and would not support the claim in question even if it were.

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

#162

Post by MustardTiger » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:47 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".

"Googling it brings up things I don't like so I'll call them fabricated". What is fabricated about it exactly? This is a man who directly lies all the time. He claims "sugar is toxic" and "sugar is poison". These are both outright lies, and not claims any respected scientist would make. The data doesn't even support his modest claims, much less his poison lies. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

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

#163

Post by jedharris » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

jedharris wrote: post #160

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,…

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. Le…

For example since corporations (etc.) have no interests, if their behavior impinges on the interests of even one person that behavior has to be stopped, unless someone can show that that more peoples' interests are served by that behavior than are harmed.

In the case of TPP the attempts to show how it benefits individuals rely on a lot of hypotheticals which doesn't wash if we take this stance. Everyone gains standing to stop corporations if their interests are affected, and the burden of proof is on those who want to permit some corporate behavior that anyone opposes.

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

#164

Post by tomatsu » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

forgetsusername wrote: post #99

tomatsu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fat was made the villain with faulty statistics. Sugar, on the other hand, is very obviously bad for you. It causes type 2 diabetes, it causes caries, and it also suppresses the feeling of satiety. Reducing your sugar intake is the easiest way to get into better shape. Exercise is important, but it won't undo all the damage. E.g. if you heavily drink and smoke, no amount of exercise will undo that. It's the same with…

> Sugar, on the other hand, is very obviously bad for you No, excess sugar is bad for you.

Given that it's so easy to overshoot your daily sugar budget, you should just try to avoid sugar in general.

E.g. if you eat some premade pasta sauce and some slices of toast, you're probably very close to exceeding your budget. So, it would be a good idea to not have a can of pop or some cookies.

Anyhow, if you only eat veggies and meat, you'll do just fine. The big problem is the added sugar found in most processed foods.

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

#165

Post by praptak » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #121

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…

how much sugar were you eating perviously?

Good question. I did not track the intake but it was dessert after lunch, something sweet to soften the 4pm energy low, something sweet to go with morning coffee, sweetened muesli or jam for breakfast. Small things that probably added to unhealthy amounts.

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

#166

Post by brudgers » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

jedharris wrote: post #160

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,…

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. Le…

The fictitious person legal construct has legal rights and institutional interests. I'm not sure how that maps to social rights and interests.

In any events, rights seem orthogonal to morality. At least if morality constrains some portion of the acts that a moral agent could do because a right is a license for a particular course of action.

Anyway, while changing the laws might produce the greatest benefit and utilitarianism might be a good basis for rational moral action, that's not really my immediate intent. My goal is more pragmatic discussion and less sloganeering.

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

#167

Post by tdkl » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 6:48 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…

I mentioned civil war because the people will see that the government who is supposed to be there for them is powerless. Combine that with the economic conditions (job shortages, which will even rise with automation), loss of middle class and higher taxes for pensions/welfare (add the uncontrolled immigration to the mix). The history has shown where all this ends.

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

#168

Post by legulere » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #130

legulere wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requires humans to be perfectly rational like a homo economicus [1], but in reality people aren't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

Your alternative with regulations requires politicians to be perfectly rational. Checkmate. The argument that people can't be rational and think for themselves, therefore they need other people (a political class) to decide for them, is, frankly, disgusting. No thanks.

They just need to be more rational than the general population. Usually politicians don't really decide things though, but they're putting the stuff experts tell them into laws and arbiter between interests.

You'll need governments deciding things anyway. Otherwise you can't come up with fair contracts when there's a difference of power in the parties of the contract (think e.g. costumer and manufacturer and food safety regulations), even when both sides are rational.

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

#169

Post by amelius » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

azdle wrote: post #138

amelius wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Anecdotally, I completely disagree. I've been eating a ketogenic diet (less than ~20 net grams per day) almost exclusively since May 2013 and have been lifting for the last 8 months and haven't needed for any carbs. While it's possible after a certain level some well-timed carbs can help you lift heavier than without, those won't be the kinds of sugars most people are eating. But, since I'm not looking to become a bo…

Well, you have to admit that a ketogenic diet is something else entirely. That is impressive, I personally don't know any people who could stick to it for such a long time.

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

#170

Post by finid » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #17

finid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come? Food is too expensive?

The amount of marketing designed to just confuse people about what's good for them. Organic, non-gmo, gluten-free, all natural, it's like a temple for upper middle class white people to reject 50 years of food science.

> it's like a temple for upper middle class white people to reject 50 years of food science.

I wonder what you mean by that...

Those designations (organic, non-gmo, gluten-free, natural) have their place. The practice of it is where consumers get cheated.