Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

corporateeurope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

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

#171

Post by Jedd »

jahnu wrote: post #152
chillwaves wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

  > We're talking about cutting out a food category
  > and presumably replacing it with another.
Pretty much, yes, depending on how you categorise foods.

  > I don't know of any convincing evidence this
  > results in weight loss. Open to information of
  > course!
Plenty of evidence exists - where have you already looked?

Atkins - probably the most famous. Tim Ferris - relatively recent. Both good starting points for some large (though in some cases you'll find some insufficiently formal) studies.

The 2014 US film 'Fed Up' goes into some good detail about why this particular food category is bad for you - including a lovely animated graphic about a half hour in.

The actual article (did you read it?) this story points to has a box on p24 that describes this too - the 'a calorie is not a calorie'. That box includes several links to some more scientific research on the subject.

The underlying problem is that the sentiment you've expressed - replacing one food category with another can't possibly be effective at reducing weight / risk of disease, improving well-being, etc - is one that the sugar industry is very happy with, and regrettably is very widely held.

To many people it's intuitive that all energy is equal in terms of what your body does with it. Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

Do some searches on things like 'evidence of weight loss with low-carbohydrate diets' maybe append 'high fat' for some interesting variants.

You'll find some good studies, plus an abundance of anecdotes (blogs basically :) of people who've maintained or increased their raw energy input, while reducing their weight, through dietary changes alone.

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

#173

Post by tzs »

tim333 wrote: post #148
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.

I just looked up the Mexico dispute and: >The dispute centered on Mexico's adoption of a 20 percent tax on the use of high-fructose corn syrup in soft drinks, Mayer Brown said. The financial impact was significant because Mexico is the world's second-largest market for soft drinks. >The tax illegally favored Mexico's domestic sugar producers over U.S.-owned producers of high-fructose corn syrup, the firm said. It doe…

Wouldn't that tax also favor U.S. sugar producers over Mexican producers of HFCS, and favor Mexican sugar producers over Mexican HFCS producers, and favor U.S. sugar producers over U.S. HFCS producers?

It does unlevel the playing field, but the tilt is on the sugar/HFCS axis, not the US/Mexico axis. I don't see why that should not be allowed, unless it can be shown that the US has more HFCS producers and Mexico more sugar producers so that it will disproportionately favor Mexicans AND it was enacted to accomplish that rather for some geographically neutral purpose.

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

#174

Post by jahnu »

Jedd wrote: post #171
jahnu wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> We're talking about cutting out a food category > and presumably replacing it with another. Pretty much, yes, depending on how you categorise foods. > I don't know of any convincing evidence this > results in weight loss. Open to information of > course! Plenty of evidence exists - where have you already looked? Atkins - probably the most famous. Tim Ferris - relatively recent. Both good starting points for some la…

Surely you can link me the best studies?

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

#175

Post by baddox »

zzalpha wrote: post #112
baddox wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've read a ton of libertarian stuff, and my impression is that they generally oppose dishonesty from one party in a commercial transaction.

It's not very different for a cigarette manufacture to claim their product is healthy than it is for a construction company to agree to build you a house but then stop halfway through despite receiving payment. I think it's pretty clear that both would be opposed by most or all prominent forms of libertarianism.

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

#176

Post by a_thro_away »

vixen99 wrote: post #47
a_thro_away wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could we not buy "sugar products" when it is added without knowledge everywhere? Wouldn't your point of view also require removing labels; after all gov. regulation put them there. Sugar corp would sell to ag corp, with no transparency. How would we know how much sugar and compare? I know that humans over the past 50 years have been terrible judges on their own.

No it isn't added everywhere. Not to fruit, vegetables, raw cereals, dairy products, meat or fish. If you feel you have to buy food industry products (those that undergo some kind of processing) then don't most of them offer low sugar or sugar free options? Finally it comes down to industry meeting human preferences. Change those and the industry will change. I agree it's often a problem but why not carry a lens to c…

Yes, it is added everywhere, by often by methods you cannot tell. Fruit for example, is selected and bred for more sugar. Cows can be manipulated for more sugar, then dairy products. And again, since no government regulation was allowed, there will be no labels to even read, in that world. And I kindly disagree you can change human, innate, preferences on the whole. Unless you regulate them, which I understand is an anathema.
Post reply on HN