5 ms·
They'd still be responsible for killing millions and sickening billions of people via sugar addiction. I guess human bodies are exempt from being considered pa
by koboll 5y ago
They'd still be responsible for killing millions and sickening billions of people via sugar addiction.
I guess human bodies are exempt from being considered part of the natural world.
- tcskeptic 5y agoIs your position really that no one should be allowed to produce products that are unhealthy? This seems incredibly invasive.
- wahnfrieden 5y agono one mentioned banning and the OP is about recognition not enforcement
- Raed667 5y agoWe already do this with a bunch of criteria/ rules for food to be sold to humans and animals. Lobbying and advertisers have just made us think that drinking a cup of sugar is an acceptable option.
- dagw 5y agoWe don't have to ban them, but we definitely don't have to support and laud them either. Tolerate and shame, like we do with tobacco companies, seems like a reasonable approach. And to disclose my own biases, I'm 100% on team "Full Sugar Soda" and will definitely choose no soda over sugar free soda every time.
- timeon 5y ago> I guess human bodies are exempt from being considered part of the natural world. Still this seems to be like moving the goalposts.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoDon’t we generally define natural as not human made? Makes sense then that less humans improves the natural world.
- theonemind 5y agoIn the context of regulating or evaluating company behavior, yes, it would not make sense to consider human bodies as the planetary environment.
- pverghese 5y agoMaybe some of us take some resposibility for what we want to eat or drink and dont need government intervention to control it.