4 ms·

Probably, yes, IMO sugar needs to be regulated and taxed like alcohol.

by PieterH 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago
What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies?
- croon 10y ago
  > What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies? I don't understand your posit. Are you saying sugar would be taxed based on BS studies? The topic of discussion is that older studies have downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. If sugar was taxed it would be according to current studies. If fat was taxed it would not be. Is your question a thought experiment or what are you saying?
  - harmegido 10y ago
    She's saying that how can you be so sure that sugar is the culprit? 30 years ago, people were very sure that fat was the culprit. I actually do personally think that sugar is a main driver of these problems, but I get her point.
    - kardashian007 10y ago
      Fat is 9 kcal/g, while protein and simple carbs are about 4 kcal/g. And there is a pathway to absorb complex lipid rather than going through the effort of breaking them down. The nuances and complexities come in because of individual genetics, state of health and a myriad of interactions between the complexity of foods and their numerous and unpredictable interactions with a constantly changing system. In order to get a better picture of health and lifestyle consequences will require close to 24x7 monitoring of many parameters (quantified self). So, for example, it may be possible to find out allergies and almost allergies, interactions before they fully occur and inflammation promotion/reduction properties of lifestyle choices. Add software and deep learning, and there are almost endless possibilities for health and lifestyle micro- and macro-optimizations.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. Yes, and imagine if regulation was done based on these wrong studies, the harm it would have caused You would have regulated people out of good health (which is basically what corn subsidies do) People sometimes are too quick to favour regulation
barsonme 10y ago
I'm curious--why? What, really, is the point?
- fratlas 10y ago
  To prevent diabetes (and other sugar related health effects)? MSG is regulated in Aus, why not sugar?
  - matthiasl 10y ago
    How is sugar regulated differently to MSG in Australia? (Looking at Food Standards Australia, the requirements on MSG are that it's declared as an ingredient with an exception if it's naturally present in the food. How is that different to what's required for sugar? http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/msg/Pages/default.aspx http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/msg/Pages...)
  - twanvl 10y ago
    MSG sounds like a scary chemical, while sugar does not. Maybe we should call it a sucrose tax instead?
- PieterH 10y ago
  Taxes are widely used to raise prices and discourage consumption on unhealthy products. E.g. car fuel, tobacco, alcohol.
curiousgal 10y ago
I think appropriate labelling is a must. Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. I think regulation is a must only in countries with free healthcare, where sick people are treated with taxpayers' money. If that's not the case, people are free to do what they please with their own health as they're the sole ones footing bill.
- ThePawnBreak 10y ago
  > Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. I don't know of any country that doesn't have a very high tax on tobacco.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. Cigarettes, and the abusive tobacco industry, are a great example of why that technique fails. Tobacco companies, and now sugar companies, are happy to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the scientific evidence.

Probably, yes, IMO sugar needs to be regulated and taxed like alcohol.

by PieterH 10y ago

Probably, yes, IMO sugar needs to be regulated and taxed like alcohol.

raverbashing 10y ago

What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies?

croon 10y ago
> What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies? I don't understand your posit. Are you saying sugar would be taxed based on BS studies? The topic of discussion is that older studies have downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. If sugar was taxed it would be according to current studies. If fat was taxed it would not be. Is your question a thought experiment or what are you saying?
- harmegido 10y ago
  She's saying that how can you be so sure that sugar is the culprit? 30 years ago, people were very sure that fat was the culprit. I actually do personally think that sugar is a main driver of these problems, but I get her point.
  - kardashian007 10y ago
    Fat is 9 kcal/g, while protein and simple carbs are about 4 kcal/g. And there is a pathway to absorb complex lipid rather than going through the effort of breaking them down. The nuances and complexities come in because of individual genetics, state of health and a myriad of interactions between the complexity of foods and their numerous and unpredictable interactions with a constantly changing system. In order to get a better picture of health and lifestyle consequences will require close to 24x7 monitoring of many parameters (quantified self). So, for example, it may be possible to find out allergies and almost allergies, interactions before they fully occur and inflammation promotion/reduction properties of lifestyle choices. Add software and deep learning, and there are almost endless possibilities for health and lifestyle micro- and macro-optimizations.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. Yes, and imagine if regulation was done based on these wrong studies, the harm it would have caused You would have regulated people out of good health (which is basically what corn subsidies do) People sometimes are too quick to favour regulation

barsonme 10y ago

I'm curious--why? What, really, is the point?

fratlas 10y ago
To prevent diabetes (and other sugar related health effects)? MSG is regulated in Aus, why not sugar?
- matthiasl 10y ago
  How is sugar regulated differently to MSG in Australia? (Looking at Food Standards Australia, the requirements on MSG are that it's declared as an ingredient with an exception if it's naturally present in the food. How is that different to what's required for sugar? http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/msg/Pages/default.aspx http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/msg/Pages...)
- twanvl 10y ago
  MSG sounds like a scary chemical, while sugar does not. Maybe we should call it a sucrose tax instead?
PieterH 10y ago
Taxes are widely used to raise prices and discourage consumption on unhealthy products. E.g. car fuel, tobacco, alcohol.

curiousgal 10y ago

I think appropriate labelling is a must. Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. I think regulation is a must only in countries with free healthcare, where sick people are treated with taxpayers' money. If that's not the case, people are free to do what they please with their own health as they're the sole ones footing bill.

ThePawnBreak 10y ago
> Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. I don't know of any country that doesn't have a very high tax on tobacco.
DanBC 10y ago
> Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes. Cigarettes, and the abusive tobacco industry, are a great example of why that technique fails. Tobacco companies, and now sugar companies, are happy to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the scientific evidence.