4 ms·

Maybe processed food producers should stop adding sugar/HFCS to everything under the sun. An example list: http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/

by zephjc 15y ago

Maybe processed food producers should stop adding sugar/HFCS to everything under the sun. An example list: http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods... Does HFCS REALLY need to be in NyQuil? In steak sauce? In vegetable soup?

ScottBurson 15y ago
The problem is, they do that because people buy more of the product when it has sugar in it. On the whole, I don't think pressuring the producers is going to get us anywhere. There may be specific cases where such pressure might work -- vegetable soup, perhaps -- but even then, that can only happen if enough consumers refuse to buy products containing gratuitous sugar. No, I think educating the public is really the only strategy available to us. Even regulation and taxation, which could be beneficial, can't happen without a certain number of informed consumers pushing for it.
- zephjc 15y ago
  Well, some of that is happening already. As people become educated about healthy eating, they investigate the ingredients lists more for what they're buying (becoming more health-conscious), and rejecting bad foods - letting their money do the talking. But I agree that health education in the US is the pits, and is the key to turning it around.
- tnicola 15y ago
  Educating the public will be hard as well. People lobby the government on behalf of sugar companies. Stevia, a low calory, low GI sugar substitute was unavailable in the US until very recently because the sugar companies lobbied the FDA to classify it as a 'drug' or a supplement and needed to be tested ad nauseum before it became available. All this allowed sugar and sweetener companies to prolong the entrance of Stevia into the market and not hit their profits. In addition to actually getting it classified as a drug, there is paid propaganda research out there saying that it is actually bad for you. Some handwaving arguement is presented without much evidence and a giant leap in order to frighten people. On such article can be found here. (done by quick Google search and I am in no way partial to this particular one. I am sure that there are more on the same subject) http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-reviews/100-stevia-dangers.html http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-reviews/100-stevia-d... When asked about dangers of stevia, this author says that it is dangerous, because it is not approved by the FDA. Hence, there is this vicious circle that even people who will seek out to educate themselves will come across these claims and perhaps continue to use sugar. Educating the public against products of the giant companies is an uphill battle. I am Canadian and Canadian doctors and nutritionists chuckle at this "not approved by the FDA - hence bad" arguement about stevia, but I am sure that if we were a major sugar country that it would be the same here as well.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
gerggerg 15y ago
It's really just the simple economics of demand + cost cutting.

by zephjc 15y ago

ScottBurson 15y ago

The problem is, they do that because people buy more of the product when it has sugar in it. On the whole, I don't think pressuring the producers is going to get us anywhere. There may be specific cases where such pressure might work -- vegetable soup, perhaps -- but even then, that can only happen if enough consumers refuse to buy products containing gratuitous sugar. No, I think educating the public is really the only strategy available to us. Even regulation and taxation, which could be beneficial, can't happen without a certain number of informed consumers pushing for it.

zephjc 15y ago
Well, some of that is happening already. As people become educated about healthy eating, they investigate the ingredients lists more for what they're buying (becoming more health-conscious), and rejecting bad foods - letting their money do the talking. But I agree that health education in the US is the pits, and is the key to turning it around.
tnicola 15y ago
Educating the public will be hard as well. People lobby the government on behalf of sugar companies. Stevia, a low calory, low GI sugar substitute was unavailable in the US until very recently because the sugar companies lobbied the FDA to classify it as a 'drug' or a supplement and needed to be tested ad nauseum before it became available. All this allowed sugar and sweetener companies to prolong the entrance of Stevia into the market and not hit their profits. In addition to actually getting it classified as a drug, there is paid propaganda research out there saying that it is actually bad for you. Some handwaving arguement is presented without much evidence and a giant leap in order to frighten people. On such article can be found here. (done by quick Google search and I am in no way partial to this particular one. I am sure that there are more on the same subject) http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-reviews/100-stevia-dangers.html http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-reviews/100-stevia-d... When asked about dangers of stevia, this author says that it is dangerous, because it is not approved by the FDA. Hence, there is this vicious circle that even people who will seek out to educate themselves will come across these claims and perhaps continue to use sugar. Educating the public against products of the giant companies is an uphill battle. I am Canadian and Canadian doctors and nutritionists chuckle at this "not approved by the FDA - hence bad" arguement about stevia, but I am sure that if we were a major sugar country that it would be the same here as well.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

gerggerg 15y ago

It's really just the simple economics of demand + cost cutting.