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]

#81

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

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 always get thrown off that plan by things like yogurt. Even plain yogurt lists a ton of sugar. I can't wait for the new labels that show added sugar.

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

#82

Post by mattmanser » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

praptak wrote: post #59

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.

Unfortunately with AI warfare we might soon be at the point where the are no human soldiers who could rebel and take side of the people.

If you start concentrating the power of the army in fewer and fewer hands, they will become more powerful, not less.

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

#83

Post by bhouston » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #13

I despise the corn lobby more. They ensure the high tariffs on imported sugar in order to protect the corn prices to produce corn syrup instead of using raw sugar. Only the US has soft drinks made with HFCS simply because of the tariff on imported sugar.

Accord to the movie Sugar Coated (on Netflix here in Canada) and Dr. Lustig there is no meaningful difference between HFCS and normal sugar -- they are equally quite bad for you. Switching from HFCS to cane sugar will achieve nothing I believe if you keep the sugar intake the same.

What I believe happened is that at the same time HFCS came on the market there was also a larger push to put sugar into a lot of things in place of fat.

Thus the introduction of HFCS seems to correlate with the North America weight problem but the North American weight problem also correlates with the increase in sugar in our diet -- and I understand from Sugar Coated and Dr. Lustig that is the causitive correlation.

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

#84

Post by mattmanser » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #65

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 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.

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

#85

Post by mrfusion » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

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.

Or pictures of graphic obesity and diabetes complications like cigarette packs have. Or at least a surgeon generals warning.

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

#86

Post by d33 » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #82

praptak wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately with AI warfare we might soon be at the point where the are no human soldiers who could rebel and take side of the people.

If you start concentrating the power of the army in fewer and fewer hands, they will become more powerful, not less.

Could you elaborate? I didn't get your point.

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

#87

Post by bhouston » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:42 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.

I think sugar is additive, like tobacco, and with lots of bad health outcomes and because it is additive that is why it is hard to cut it out. Watch the movie Sugar Coated for one take on this line of reasoning.

It likely is as easy as cutting sugar out, just like smokers should cut cigarettes out, it is just hard to do because of the additives qualities of the drugs.

And like cigarettes, cutting down isn't really as effective as cutting it out nearly entirely, because a little bit of an additive drugs primes you for more.

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

#88

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #80

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…

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…

What's your point? Trade agreements are voluntary. If a country thinks it's better off outside a given trade agreement, it can just leave it behind.

They usually even have an explicit provision for withdrawal. For instance:

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp

So could South Korea use protectionism to build up internal industries today? Sure. But it might not want to, if a different set of choices were more likely to favor South Korea.

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

#89

Post by brudgers » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

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, anthropomorphizing fictitious persons is an intellectual landmine. A fictitious person is an 'it', no more a moral or ethical agent than a rock. A mountain of rock isn't evil when a slide buries a party of hikers. Gravity is a law of natural systems. The behaviors of legally constructed fictitious persons are in accord with the "laws" of those systems.

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

#90

Post by bhouston » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

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.

>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.