Thread: Sugar is Toxic and addictive, should it be regulated?

Don't tell Bloomberg.

Anything in excess causes health problems.
Ban everything.
Ban stupid people.

Sure why not? In this little world you and your fellow travelers live in, the rest of the world is too stupid to take care of themselves.

Coming soon... warning labels on cookie packages

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Anything in excess causes health problems.
Ban everything.
Ban stupid people.

Fair enough.
Now then, the health care system will have to then take care of a bunch of diabetic stupid people, and since they'll probably would not have been successful, the successful people, once again, have to pay for someone else's stupidity.

So the choices appear to be pretty stark:

1. More government intrusion and limitation of choice from the people, outlawing sugar
2. Successful get soaked for more money, paying for stupid people's choices
3. Not cover sugar induced diabetes, and allowing these people to suffer the consequences of their choices
4. Heavily promote public education and service messages to limit the consumption of sugar

Did I miss any?
Hardly a list of enviable choices to chose from.
#3 is out, as the emotionally charged argument for letting grandma die isn't a realistic option.
So you are left with the other 3.

Of these, I'd chose #4. Allows people to chose, does cause some cost shifting, but hopefully not too much.

Name your poison.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Fair enough.
Now then, the health care system will have to then take care of a bunch of diabetic stupid people, and since they'll probably would not have been successful, the successful people, once again, have to pay for someone else's stupidity.

So the choices appear to be pretty stark:

1. More government intrusion and limitation of choice from the people, outlawing sugar
2. Successful get soaked for more money, paying for stupid people's choices
3. Not cover sugar induced diabetes, and allowing these people to suffer the consequences of their choices
4. Heavily promote public education and service messages to limit the consumption of sugar

Did I miss any?
Hardly a list of enviable choices to chose from.
#3 is out, as the emotionally charged argument for letting grandma die isn't a realistic option.
So you are left with the other 3.

Of these, I'd chose #4. Allows people to chose, does cause some cost shifting, but hopefully not too much.

Name your poison.

Well, permitting the sale of addictive toxic substances as a choice is already a part of our culture, however we do impose a ban on the sale to minors, after all, we don't expect 6 year olds to make the best choices. At the least remove baby formula from the market that contains as much sugar as soft drinks.

HFCS is more toxic that sucrose, it's politically tough to go against the corn lobby, but maybe a fructose tax? Since it's Fructose that does the damage.

We have parts of the US now, where over 15%(and rising) of the adult population is diabetic, that is unsustainable, no health care system in the world would be able to handle the long term costs of such a population.

Everyone loves sugar, that's the problem, well not if you keep it under 100 calories a day.

Originally Posted by goober

Well, permitting the sale of addictive toxic substances as a choice is already a part of our culture, however we do impose a ban on the sale to minors, after all, we don't expect 6 year olds to make the best choices. At the least remove baby formula from the market that contains as much sugar as soft drinks.

HFCS is more toxic that sucrose, it's politically tough to go against the corn lobby, but maybe a fructose tax? Since it's Fructose that does the damage.

We have parts of the US now, where over 15%(and rising) of the adult population is diabetic, that is unsustainable, no health care system in the world would be able to handle the long term costs of such a population.

Everyone loves sugar, that's the problem, well not if you keep it under 100 calories a day.

Lads,

I will tell you Europe's general way of tackling this....

1. Reduction in sugar content in baby foods (legislation)
2. Clearer Labeling on all products
3. Ban on Advertising unhealthy foods and food outlets on Childrens TV Channels/Ban .
4. Ban on all perscription drugs on TV (has never been allowed)

The general attitude is that the food producers spend billions a years convincing the general public to buy there products the government has a far less budget to encourage to eat healthy... But the country suffers if the people eat unhealthly...

Something needs to be done as the US has a huge obesity epidemic and all those people will need much more expensive medical care than more healthy countries.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Something needs to be done as the US has a huge obesity epidemic and all those people will need much more expensive medical care than more healthy countries. I think expecting food manufacturers to do something when they are the ones selling the shit food is a bit much but as half of you seem to hate any form of government involvement it's all you're left with.

Peter,
Bang on... America seems incapable of tackling this issue... They can't seem to get past the 'government involvement' thing to see that they are spending 18% of GDP on Healthcare. France the highest in Europe is spending 11.5% of GDP, UK is under 10%... France is number one in the world...

What Europe has is large state run Universal Health Insurance... So there is a political and financial will to control the general populations health... In America there is no will...

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Peter,
Bang on... America seems incapable of tackling this issue... They can't seem to get past the 'government involvement' thing to see that they are spending 18% of GDP on Healthcare. France the highest in Europe is spending 11.5% of GDP, UK is under 10%... France is number one in the world...

What Europe has is large state run Universal Health Insurance... So there is a political and financial will to control the general populations health... In America there is no will...

You could have stopped with "So there is a political and financial will to control the general population" there, and been more accurate.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Peter,
Bang on... America seems incapable of tackling this issue... They can't seem to get past the 'government involvement' thing to see that they are spending 18% of GDP on Healthcare. France the highest in Europe is spending 11.5% of GDP, UK is under 10%... France is number one in the world...

What Europe has is large state run Universal Health Insurance... So there is a political and financial will to control the general populations health... In America there is no will...

In Europe there is a general will to control everything people do. We have many here now who want to be just like Europe. They want to Government to tell them what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and why they did it. That, in my eyes, is not freedom.

It seems that the right is lost without someone to tell them what to think about this issue.

Are they in favor of feeding infants sugar based formula?
Are they in favor of providing school children with toxic snacks?
Because people are making money doing it, so it must be OK.....

In a couple of days the right will formulate their response, and the sheep will bleat it in unison, just like they did with ObamaQuester......

I think you're mistaking the government being in food safety with a lack of freedom.
Also the Government's here don't control us we just don't have this strange idea that government is somehow the problem.

Having good food standards is not a sign of tyranny and if you think it is then may I suggest you look at what tyranny is because I have a feeling the people living in real tyrannies have a bit more to worry about than an annoying health inspection regime for restaurants.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I think you're mistaking the government being in food safety with a lack of freedom.
Also the Government's here don't control us we just don't have this strange idea that government is somehow the problem.

Having good food standards is not a sign of tyranny and if you think it is then may I suggest you look at what tyranny is because I have a feeling the people living in real tyrannies have a bit more to worry about than an annoying health inspection regime for restaurants.

Good food standards is one thing. It's quite another to take a common baking ingredient and ban it. It is also something quite different banning sodas that happen to be sold by a certain size. Tyranny may be one explanation. Another is the continued erosion of freedom to chose as well as living by the consequences of those choices.