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

41–50 of 176 posts

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

#41

Post by MustardTiger »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #22
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.

Let me try to make you more comfortable with it: it is all about food corporations trying to block scientific studies and consumers' rights for fair package labeling, etc. also, do some reading on the harmful Candida bacteria in our guts. Some Candida is natural but too much sugar, as we see in processed foods, causes a harmful level of Candida. And Candida itself has quickly evolved to affect brain chemistry to indu…

>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.

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

#42

Post by analog31 »

monkeybuz wrote: post #4
yodsanklai wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just don't buy sugar products. Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the big corps themselves.

Without a government, there can be no corporations. A corporation is a creature of regulation. You can already operate a business under fewer regulations by forming a sole proprietorship or general partnership. Why don't people do that? The entitlement of liability limitation afforded by corporate regulation is what makes it possible for businesses to be bigger than a certain nominal size. Something like the "sugar industry" might not exist at all without that entitlement.

Likewise, if the individuals forming a sugar industry marketing or lobbying entity could be held personally liable for the actions of that entity, it probably wouldn't exist. That's the closest thing I can think of to a concept of business law in a libertarian sense: If you own a certain fraction of General Motors, then you're responsible for a fraction of GM's debts, if those debts exceed its assets.

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

#43

Post by theprotocol »

baddox wrote: post #11
yodsanklai wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The concept of a "lobby" wouldn't make very much sense in a world with little or no government regulation.

Exactly, libertarianism cuts both ways. The protective regulations that the companies lobby for wouldn't exist in the first place in a system like that.

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

#44

Post by baddox »

yodsanklai wrote: post #20
baddox wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of a "lobby" wouldn't make very much sense in a world with little or no government regulation.

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.

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

#45

Post by superswordfish »

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.

That woo is everywhere now though. Not sure why you're bringing race into it.

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

#46

Post by mark_l_watson »

MustardTiger wrote: post #41
mark_l_watson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me try to make you more comfortable with it: it is all about food corporations trying to block scientific studies and consumers' rights for fair package labeling, etc. also, do some reading on the harmful Candida bacteria in our guts. Some Candida is natural but too much sugar, as we see in processed foods, causes a harmful level of Candida. And Candida itself has quickly evolved to affect brain chemistry to indu…

>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 depending how they feel, modify their particular diets accordingly.

My wife and I have reduced the processed foods we eat, and try to avoid sugar, and it seems to have had a great effect on how we feel and general health.

If you are a skeptic that is fine, skepticism should be the default, 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.

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

#47

Post by vixen99 »

a_thro_away wrote: post #29
monkeybuz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just don't buy sugar products. Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the big corps themselves.

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 check the small print on the package.

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

#48

Post by Brakenshire »

monkeybuz wrote: post #24
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

No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them. Just live healthy and promote your lifestyle to other persons, that is the best thing you can do for yourself and for any other person without harm.

I don't think promoting your lifestyle to others is something that has any force, even if any of us were interested in evangelism. People pick up their everyday behaviour largely from what they perceive as normal, and mass media, which is filled with adverts and even the programming heavily decided by commercial factors, has enormous power to dictate what is normal. At the grass-roots, parents have a degree of power to set a concept of normality for their kids, but that's also strongly driven by peer-pressure which is in turn driven by mass media.

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

#49

Post by tomatsu »

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.

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. Exercise won't undo all those insulin spikes.

It's true that we need glucose, but we need it at a slow and steady rate. We don't need it at a rate which causes a massive insulin response. If your body actively combats the amount of sugar in your bloodstream, you apparently overdid it.

Non-processed food without added sugars is a good way to get a little bit of sugar over the course of several hours. The absorption rate is delayed by fibers. That's why fruits are fine while juice isn't.

The big problem with avoiding processed food is that it's really inconvenient. Cooking, just like exercise, takes time and effort.

Post reply on HN