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]

#71

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #53

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.

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. The impacts of trade are complex and I don't think we need to run headlong towards laws favoring large corporations, but it's a little over the top to say that it is obvious evil to agree to treat foreign companies equally to native companies. In ma…

>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).

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

#72

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:10 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…

> It is an easy experiment to do.

It's a flawed experiment, though. Literally the smallest possible sample size, extremely susceptible to the placebo effect, no controls.

I'd be interested in a large, rigorously controlled study on this, where the control group is fed convincing imitations of sweet (via artificial sweeteners) and processed (via presentation) foods. A single person's biased self-analysis isn't particularly valuable.

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

#73

Post by cwilkes » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:12 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?

In this case isn't it the business - government collusion that has high sugar tariffs making corn syrup an attractive case?

Without the government enforcing this perversion we might not be in this situation (probably in some other situation but who knows).

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

#74

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

eximius wrote: post #66

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…

I've cut out 90% of my sugar intake (no more soda), but I still hover around the same weight. :/

>I've cut out 90% of my sugar intake (no more soda)

Soda if just one of things with sugar (and diet soda has none anyway).

Most food, from McDonalds burgers to Chinese has loads of sugar.

And of course, losing weight is mostly a matter of reducing caloric intake. If you compensated for the sugar in sodas with extra food, you'll stay the same weight.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #27

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:14 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #71

maxerickson wrote: post #53

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. The impacts of trade are complex and I don't think we need to run headlong towards laws favoring large corporations, but it's a little over the top to say that it is obvious evil to agree to treat foreign companies equally to native companies. In ma…

> 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).

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

#77

Post by Brakenshire » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

noir_lord wrote: post #15

mpg33 wrote: post #6

I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. But I definitely think that products should have a large visible colorful graphic on the front showing the amount of sugar content.. separate from the basic black and white nutritional info label.

We have that in the UK. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/18/article-2344177-1A... Also have a standard more detailed breakdown on the back. It works well.

I think the UK 'traffic light' labeling is still voluntary.

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

#78

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

>No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them.

Forced for humans is not just "gun in the head", and it's not a binary either.

E.g. constant hammering with advertising on TV and internet can be an effective force for forcing people into stuff they wouldn't otherwise do.

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

#79

Post by Broken_Hippo » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:26 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.

Diet and exercise play different roles in keeping us healthy. You can be fairly overweight with a sugary diet while still being pretty active, just as you can lose weight by monitoring diet alone. Some of the problem of the changing villians is that we are still learning, and some of the problem of us not knowing more is pushback from sweetening industries.

I don't agree with all of the anti-sugar things. Probably shouldn't tax sugar itself, and in moderation it isn't a bad thing. Most folks don't have a lot of candy in their diet (because there are limits). But they do drink a good deal of sugary coffees and drinks when it would be better to eat a handful of fruit and drink some water. Most folks don't need the added sugar to feed their brain - fruit and vegetables and some grains wind up as that anyway.

It isn't sugar in and of itself that is such an issue, but that we tend to put it in everything, so our consumption is really high.

Sauces and prepackaged foods have an amazing amount of added sugar. The typical american breakfast is nearly a dessert. Cranberry juice, pushed as healthy, is generally sweetened, even if it is with concentrated fruit juice. All of these things add up especially when combined with lack of reasonable choices near you and large portion sizes. And trying to figure out what has added sugar and other such things has been proven difficult. And this is a major problem for folks trying to have some sort of balance in addition to being a problem for folks that are low-to-mid income and/or have little time to cook their own food as it gets harder to limit such things even in supposedly healthy food.

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

#80

Post by fsloth » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #53

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.

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. The impacts of trade are complex and I don't think we need to run headlong towards laws favoring large corporations, but it's a little over the top to say that it is obvious evil to agree to treat foreign companies equally to native companies. In ma…

Not enabling sovereign countries to protect industry of their choosing is a form of corporate protectionism. The established companies are protected from future competitors. Example: south koreas industry was bootstrapped by the government using every mean at their disposal - using methods that would probably be improbable in our present form global market. No Samsung, Lg or any of that could arise in current global market. Capitalism and free market are not the only methods to improve economic status - very much like protein is not the only form of food people need to eat.