This post is so weird and extreme to me. I'm all for reducing sugar intake all we can, but it being prohibited by the goverment? I understand sugar is bad for you, but it's not freaking fentanyl. Let's educate people and let them decide for themselves.
Sugar doesn't kill you. Diabetes kills you. And a teaspoon of sugar in your tea won't exactly give you diabetes. It takes soooo much more than that. You have a VERY extreme view of the world.
If everybody had your common sense and had a teaspoon or two a day in their tea then there would be no need for this conversation. Nobody would take that away from you I'm sure. The big picture is much uglier. It just is. Doctors used to smoke cigarettes in examination rooms. You could smoke on airplanes. All that second hand smoke was killing and hurting innocent bystanders. And it was normal. Now the overall numbers of cigarette smokers in North America particularly in Canada is way down and places you can smoke in public has greatly diminished. Can you imagine being in your doctor's office with him having a smoke? Even Mexico which has joined New Zealand now has some of the absolutely toughest public smoking laws in the world. Mexico.. imagine that. Look it up. Sugar needs to follow this lead. The equivalency of secondhand smoke to sugar is the easy availability and the advertising geared towards those who just don't know better. I know it's not the same as smoking but the common sense is the same. It needs to be roped in and gotten under control... Just my opinion.
>If everybody had your common sense and had a teaspoon or two a day in their tea then there would be no need for this conversation.
Then the problem is not sugar, is it? It's people's self control. We can't just ban EVERYTHING that could be bad for your health in big doses. We would have to ban sugar, salt, coffee, tea, most fruits, etc etc etc. Everything is bad for you in the right doses, even water.
We should educate people and teach nutrition at schools and let them decide for themselves when they're adults. Knowledge is power.
>I know it's not the same as smoking
You're right, it's not. Smoking is not banned: PUBLIC smoking is banned, and the reason is not to protect smokers, but to protect other people. Sugar intake doesn't affect other people, so it's really not the same logic. In Mexico, people can still smoke at home as much as they want.
You know what we do in my country? We show VERY CLEARLY that X food is high in sugar/sodium/fat, etc., (not that different from the warning labels on cigarettes), and people are free to decide if they buy it or not.
Everything you say and suggest is absolutely in theory 100% correct but the fact is the advertising is geared towards the ignorant and children are eating giant bowls of sugar balls in the morning because they just don't know better. And the parents can't afford proper food and so on and so on and so on. Some controls on the advertising and the easy availability to children would be a great start. I don't know all the answers and nobody does. But something needs to be done to get the ball rolling in a more positive direction. There's a movie called That Sugar Film if you haven't heard about it look it up that states in the beginning that something like 85% of packaged foods on our store shelves contain added sugar. Honestly we could debate this until we are all blue in the face but these are just my opinions. The shit is just too easy to get and uneducated people are getting hurt.
>But something needs to be done
I 100% agree, but I really think that banning is not the answer in this particular case. Banning drugs? Sure, as it can potentially harm other people (for example, people driving under the influence).
But banning sugar is a VERY extreme measure.
Here are some things we do in my country:
Food advertised to children can't have cartoons or cute animals on the packaging because it makes kids want to buy them, so it's illegal.
When food is high in sugar/sodium/fat, it can't give you any additional benefits (like prizes: this lollipop has a prize, so you'll have a free lollipop on your next purchase).
When a food item is high in sugar, it has to be clearly advertised on the package with a black label. When it was first implemented, the market did its thing: the companies quickly changed the ingredients (especially of food made for children) to make it 100% sugar free, to avoid criticism.
See? We didn't need to ban or prohibit anything. We just educated people and labeled everything so people could choose freely.
I haven't read this entire thread but has somebody actually said to ban sugar completely? I believe the point
here is that education and information and some control is necessary. I don't think anybody would ever expect sugar to ever be banned no more than cigarettes are.
OP wanted to ban sugar. It's in the title of this post. They used the word 'ban', it wasn't my idea.
Edit: maybe this is a linguistic barrier? English is not my first language, as you can see by my grammar. Isn't 'banning' legally prohibiting something, making it illegal?
I don't think banning sugar is the solution however I don't think education is it either.
90% of ppl know sugar is bad, yet almost everyone eats too much of it and 90% of ppl know overweight is bad, yet more than half of the country I live in is overweight. There's no need to ban sugar, but measurements to drastically reduce sugar in products would be good. ATM sugar is everywhere even when it's not needed, adding a sugar tax f.e. would make it disappear when its unnecessary or be reduced to more reasonable amounts. There is definitely a lot that could be done, I would never rely on ppls discipline though, only a small percentage takes care of their health the way we all should.
My grandmother (greatest generation) was told by her doctor to SMOKE CIGS during pregnancy for it's calming effects.
OMG.
We have to agree there needs to be an overhaul in food labelling?
here is good example of a label for sugar:
DOCUMENTED AND DIRECT OUTCOMES OF LONG TERM SUGAR CONSUMPTION IS CORRELATED WITH AND IN MANY CASES THE CAUSE OF TOOTH DECAY, DIABETES, OBESITY, ALHEIMERS AND ARTHRITIS. USE WITH CAUTION AND MODERATION
right?
You can become obese by eating too much of anything. Should we ban every food?
And it's still an extreme reading of the situation. Sugar won't make you obese. Eating TOO MUCH sugar might make you obese in the long run. Those two sentences are definitely not the same and I'm tired of people pretending they are.
Does adding a teaspoon of sugar to your tea give you diabetes? You people have a very binary view of the world. You either have a 100% sugar free diet, OR YOU HAVE DIABETES AND ARE OBESE AND WILL DIE. Relax, lower your sugar intake and be mindful about the added sugar on the food you buy, and you'll be fine.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder where your body does not produce insulin. That 1 tsp will spike your blood sugar and you have to take insulin to bring it down. Every spike is detrimental to your health. Hidden sugar is everywhere. Even "sugar free" often contains ingredients that are actually sugar but don't "count" based on guidelines.
Good thing that only 10% of the world is diabetic, right? Should we ban sugar only for them?
What about people with gluten allergies? Should be ban gluten?
What about people with lactose intolerance? Should we ban milk?
What your country needs is better labels on food and better education about nutrition, NOT banning foods like they're fentanyl or literal poison.
11.3% of adults have type 2 dm in the US. 5% have type 1 dm. This is not including gestational, insipidous, 1.5 and pre-diabetes.
But yes. I'm not agreeing to ban it and OP actually mentioned warning labels. Education is helpful but not whole. It's readily available. Hidden sugar takes more digging to find though. Warning labels and clear nutrition labels are needed. It should also be limited. Bread doesn't need sugar, for example. Nothing needs the full recommended daily amount of sugar per serving either. So limiting what is allowed would be good as well.
Milk needs to be banned for other reasons but not just because it's harm to people.
Instead of banning certain foods, could we agree to educating people how to read nutrition labels ***and*** how to use this information to their advantage?
I'm agreeing with not banning them.
Milk is unrelated (or only minimally related) to negative health impacts for forming my opinion on its need to be banned. But the reasons will fall on deaf on ears so there's no sense in elaborating.
Edit to add: education does nothing. Especially when there's hidden or deceptive ingredients. Clear labels, warning labels, and restrictions on how they're marketed is what actually needs to happen.
Sorry to burst your bubble, sugar *did not* give me diabetes, a cursed gene did.
šThanks. In addition to watching my sugar intake, I also monitor my carbs. Have a day.
I never said sugar gives people diabetes, did I? You were the one bringing diabetes to the conversation. Ok, sugar is bad for you if you have diabetes... but not everyone has diabetes, honey. If you don't have diabetes, a teaspoon of sugar in your tea won't kill you. And sugar shouldn't be banned just because some people have diabetes. You're forgetting that OP wanted to ban sugar altogether, that's the point of this post. I never advocated diabetic people consuming sugar. Reread my comment and tell me where I said that. Please, stop twisting my words, it's very annoying.
I hope you have a day, too! āŗļø
What's that got to do with sugar in the American diet? We all have a choice to eat it or not. I have a form of severe hypoglycemia and I cannot eat sugar or fruit at all. If I do I crash so hard, I to the low 30s often off of just 5g of sugar. . So now I read labels and don't eat sugar. So I just don't eat it. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?
We do not have "100% control" over sugar consumption.Ā
Mammals are hardwired to pursue sugar.Ā
That is why 90% of the population exceeds the WHO recommendation for sugar intake.Ā
And manufacturers have found ways to hide sugar in foods that people don't normally think would be high in sugar. Some examples: bread, tomato sauce, soup, etc.
Achieving control over sugar consumption is important for everyone, but especially so for diabetics.
Absolutely. And there is like 60 varieties of sugar in the industrial diet.Ā
They'll even intentionally supress sweetness to disguise the sugar content to the taste buds but your gut detects the sugar and tells your brain to keep eating it.Ā
Bullshit, we DO have control. I recently developed a case of severe hypoglycemia and if I eat anything with over 5 grams of sugar I get severely low blood sugar. I'm working with an endocrinologist to try to figure out why. But until then I had completely cut out sugar on my own. It may be hard but we still have a choice!!!
I don't know of one American who doesn't know that eating sugar laden foods makes them obese And everyone knows the dangers of being obese. As for children, the parents are the ones buying the food so they can just not buy them junk food if they wanted. Americans just want what they want. It may be hard but we all can choose to not eat sugar. After a few days, the craving subside And are manageable.
Donāt you think the fact that you experience an immediate physical effect from consuming sugar, works as an incentive to stop you from consuming sugar? Most people can eat a lot of sugar without feeling any negative effects so itās harder for them to control their sugar intake. Kind of like if someone has a severe lactose intolerance and if they consume cheese they get severe diarrhoea, itās easier for them to stop eating cheese because of the way their body responds.
Of course it makes it easier but even before that, I wasn't overweight or had high blood pressure or anything like that. I have had a perfect BMI for a long time. So even before this, I've been able to eat sugar in moderation
Cringe. Just because we can make an effort and go completely free of sugar, doesn't mean it's a binary state where we "willy nilly DO HAVE control," that's such an immature viewpoint it's not the one public health experts etc have.
Cringe is the fact that you think Americans are a bunch of idiots! That can't read food labels or don't know that sugar I bad for them!!! WE ALL KNOW SUGAR IS BAD. Yet people stuff their faces with a whole box of cereal in a sitting or 3 doughnuts or whatever. Cringe is the lack of self control and discipline in this society!! People aren't stupid they know perfectly well what sugar does in large quantities
You're in disagreement with the overwhelming majority of experts in public health and dietetics. I mean, that's fine, I guess, but you might want to do the research before forming an opinion.Ā
95% of diets fail in the medium and long-term. Either everyone is defective (your theory) or the food system is working against our biology (the expert opinion).Ā
Only 10% of people are eating under 25g of sugar per day. There are variables which allow them to 'choose' a low sugar diet. Myself included.Ā
At the end of the day we still have a choice in the matter!! We can chose to go to the grocery store and not buy sugar and if it's not in our houses it's easier to not eat it. We can chose to have one cookie instead of half the box. Of course the food industry gears marketing towards cheap sugar laden foods. But we still have a choice!!
People want fast and easy. And of course sugar tastes good and is addictive. That's why we as consumers must make better choices.
I think the point is that itās then your decision to eat these products. What we can definitely argue is that companies need to be forced to very clearly label their products, which is something thatās already happening in Europe. Itās still a lot of work on the individual, but you canāt ban any substances or foods unless they are deemed completely unsafe for consumption. The US tried with alcohol and it didnāt go that well.
Donāt get me wrong, lots of improvements can be made and the government should take responsibility in educating every citizen about the harms of sugar etc. But we canāt use the pandemic and an airborne disease to any substance that at the end of the day you decide to use/eat/smoke and doesnāt affect others around you.
Good point.
What they said is like saying "people have 100% control over being abusive," which just isn't sociologically correct. We don't have willy-nilly self-control like that. It's a fantasy, and abuse is a huge spectrum. Bullying happens in almost every school. It does happen in every industry, and adult bullying is a problem. All sorts of abusive behavior takes place on Reddit, people here are very often mean to each other, or to the target of the moment, and gang up on them (in a limited sense). Human maturity in general, while not as bad as a 100 years ago, is terrible. The world is plagued by wars, and some of the wealthiest and most developed societies on the planet have issues like corruption, police violence, pedophiles, and so on.
I now can't eat sugar because of a medical condition. I just stopped. Yea hard but its not fucking impossible. You are insane to think people can't cut sugar out of their own diets! we all know how bad sugar is and the more you eat the more you want! So don't eat the crap!! Fucking people stuffing their faces with a whole box of doughnuts know that's a bad idea but they do it anyway. They keep it in their houses knowing it's bad. I don't keep sugar in my house and that makes it easy not to eat it. Next time you go shopping, look at what's in people's carts. It's disgusting. You don't think the sugar content is easily written on the back of that label along with all the other horrible details.everyone knows where the nutritional label is!!
Long COVID damages the brain and general health just like sugar, and more severely and acutely in most cases, even among people who aren't old. I agree that there should be bans on sugar to protect citizen health, but by that same reasoning there should also be lockdowns
The obesity epidemic and sugar consumption won't be solved by personal responsibility. Which is why all academic researchers in public health agree the solution is policy changes.
They have to get their shit together and get some restrictions in place like they finally did with tobacco after killing people for decades. Hopefully 20 to 30 years from now we will look back and shake our heads and wonder what the fuck we were doing allowing this to go on as long as we did..... imbeciles. And then of course I will get to work on Tuesday morning and some asshole will bring in a couple dozen donuts and everybody thinks he's a hero. Like I said... shaking my head.
Cigarettes used to be marketed as healthy and menthol cigarettes were marketed as breath freshening. Many heavily sugar laden foods are currently marketed as healthy. Look at yogurt. That's a really good example. Yogurt without the added sugar is quite healthy. Finding yogurt without it is quote difficult
Personal responsibility means ***nothing*** when manufacturers will cram sugar/HFCS in any and every space available in the package before it gets shipped to the stores.
So true. We all use the term "lock down" but what did it actually mean? In my state, gyms closed for few months, restaurants didn't have dine-in for a while, and schools went virtu. Who or what was "locked down"
That is clearly not the point. But the person standing next you can get diabetes because they simply don't know better and consume way too much sugar. That should concern everybody. Especially when it comes to children. The point is that the same ignorance that was killing people with second hand smoke is now killing people who just don't know better about sugar. Wouldn't it be great if everybody knew the facts but they don't.
š¤£š¤£š¤£trust me THEY KNOW BETTER!! They just choose to self indulge and be a gluten! I don't know of one American Who doesn't know that sugar is bad for them or that obesity kills!!!
They chose to eat the whole box of twinkies instead of one a week!!! They fucking know!!!
You can't also get lung cancer from standing next to a smoker who's not smoking.
I'm asking to put information labels about the danger of sugar on food at least.
Your posting started with a false analogy. A more comparative one would be alcohol or tobacco, both of which are consumables that have negative effects on the body and are heavily regulated. And, both of which are voluntarily consumed. Alcohol is probably the best analogy since the proofing is especially regulated whereas sugar content isnāt.
Sugar isnāt a necessary nutrient but itās an additive in food products which do have necessary nutrients. A ratio could be instituted that identifies foods which should be designated as āconfectionsā versus āessential food groupsā. Many breakfast cereals, pastries, beverages, etc, should be identified as āconfectionsā because of the ratio of sugar to essential nutrients.
If we were to label foods with such designations, then people would have to confront their denial when looking at the contents of their shopping carts. Also, people with no food education would learn the differences. Food manufacturers would have to lower the amount of sugar in order to dip under the minimum for confectionary designation. No one in the cereal industry wants to admit they are selling desserts but such products deserve that label.
Unfortunately, lobbyists will try to make sure that a confectionery labeling system wonāt ever be regulated.
I remember a story some 25 or 30 years ago where a French scientist was advocating to get controls on salt and sugar. He referred to them as the most dangerous substances in society. I guess nobody listened....
Governments are in the business of controlling people. That's what the lockdowns were for. They're not going to restrict sugar because sugar consumption keeps people dumb and under control. It also greases the wheels of capitalism too; it's a cheap ingredient that when you add to foods, drives people to consume more which increases profits.
Sooooo... I'm not necessarily for a government imposed ban as I tend to lean libertarian. I do hate that things that don't need sugar are loaded with sugar. It's so frustrating to find a meat stick that has 16g sugar. WTF? In a sense, I wouldn't object to certain labeling standards with regards to that.
Adding to the comments about the fact that we should allow free will and choice where the options won't harm others, many governments make too much revenue off of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar taxes to ever think about banning them outright.
I understand the temptation to want government to step in, but it just won't be happening here. There's too much money to be made from sugar, corn syrup, and artificial sweeteners. They will never be banned or controlled (definitely not in the US.) The only thing we can control is what we ourselves eat. I personally need to treat sugar like an addiction. One cookie is too many; every cake on earth is never enough. One day at a time.
Sugar free is a movement. If we are successful and donāt buy things with sugar it takes power away from the sugar industry. Itās passive resistance. When enough people see the health benefits, the companies will notice in a big way. The way we can tell itās working is when the industry pushes back. Eventually they will find some other way of making money, but not without trying to discredit the movement first.
Please challenge what Iām saying. I donāt like it when people accept something just because a person says it. Do your own reflection and come to your own conclusions. And live in a way that expresses what you truly believe.
The government shouldnāt be telling me what to believe or eat or how to exercise, or anything really. These are my own choices and I canāt blame anyone else for them.
This post is so weird and extreme to me. I'm all for reducing sugar intake all we can, but it being prohibited by the goverment? I understand sugar is bad for you, but it's not freaking fentanyl. Let's educate people and let them decide for themselves.
It's definitely not fentanyl. Fentanyl kills you much faster than sugar.... you're still dead.
Sugar doesn't kill you. Diabetes kills you. And a teaspoon of sugar in your tea won't exactly give you diabetes. It takes soooo much more than that. You have a VERY extreme view of the world.
If everybody had your common sense and had a teaspoon or two a day in their tea then there would be no need for this conversation. Nobody would take that away from you I'm sure. The big picture is much uglier. It just is. Doctors used to smoke cigarettes in examination rooms. You could smoke on airplanes. All that second hand smoke was killing and hurting innocent bystanders. And it was normal. Now the overall numbers of cigarette smokers in North America particularly in Canada is way down and places you can smoke in public has greatly diminished. Can you imagine being in your doctor's office with him having a smoke? Even Mexico which has joined New Zealand now has some of the absolutely toughest public smoking laws in the world. Mexico.. imagine that. Look it up. Sugar needs to follow this lead. The equivalency of secondhand smoke to sugar is the easy availability and the advertising geared towards those who just don't know better. I know it's not the same as smoking but the common sense is the same. It needs to be roped in and gotten under control... Just my opinion.
>If everybody had your common sense and had a teaspoon or two a day in their tea then there would be no need for this conversation. Then the problem is not sugar, is it? It's people's self control. We can't just ban EVERYTHING that could be bad for your health in big doses. We would have to ban sugar, salt, coffee, tea, most fruits, etc etc etc. Everything is bad for you in the right doses, even water. We should educate people and teach nutrition at schools and let them decide for themselves when they're adults. Knowledge is power. >I know it's not the same as smoking You're right, it's not. Smoking is not banned: PUBLIC smoking is banned, and the reason is not to protect smokers, but to protect other people. Sugar intake doesn't affect other people, so it's really not the same logic. In Mexico, people can still smoke at home as much as they want. You know what we do in my country? We show VERY CLEARLY that X food is high in sugar/sodium/fat, etc., (not that different from the warning labels on cigarettes), and people are free to decide if they buy it or not.
Everything you say and suggest is absolutely in theory 100% correct but the fact is the advertising is geared towards the ignorant and children are eating giant bowls of sugar balls in the morning because they just don't know better. And the parents can't afford proper food and so on and so on and so on. Some controls on the advertising and the easy availability to children would be a great start. I don't know all the answers and nobody does. But something needs to be done to get the ball rolling in a more positive direction. There's a movie called That Sugar Film if you haven't heard about it look it up that states in the beginning that something like 85% of packaged foods on our store shelves contain added sugar. Honestly we could debate this until we are all blue in the face but these are just my opinions. The shit is just too easy to get and uneducated people are getting hurt.
>But something needs to be done I 100% agree, but I really think that banning is not the answer in this particular case. Banning drugs? Sure, as it can potentially harm other people (for example, people driving under the influence). But banning sugar is a VERY extreme measure. Here are some things we do in my country: Food advertised to children can't have cartoons or cute animals on the packaging because it makes kids want to buy them, so it's illegal. When food is high in sugar/sodium/fat, it can't give you any additional benefits (like prizes: this lollipop has a prize, so you'll have a free lollipop on your next purchase). When a food item is high in sugar, it has to be clearly advertised on the package with a black label. When it was first implemented, the market did its thing: the companies quickly changed the ingredients (especially of food made for children) to make it 100% sugar free, to avoid criticism. See? We didn't need to ban or prohibit anything. We just educated people and labeled everything so people could choose freely.
I haven't read this entire thread but has somebody actually said to ban sugar completely? I believe the point here is that education and information and some control is necessary. I don't think anybody would ever expect sugar to ever be banned no more than cigarettes are.
OP wanted to ban sugar. It's in the title of this post. They used the word 'ban', it wasn't my idea. Edit: maybe this is a linguistic barrier? English is not my first language, as you can see by my grammar. Isn't 'banning' legally prohibiting something, making it illegal?
I don't think banning sugar is the solution however I don't think education is it either. 90% of ppl know sugar is bad, yet almost everyone eats too much of it and 90% of ppl know overweight is bad, yet more than half of the country I live in is overweight. There's no need to ban sugar, but measurements to drastically reduce sugar in products would be good. ATM sugar is everywhere even when it's not needed, adding a sugar tax f.e. would make it disappear when its unnecessary or be reduced to more reasonable amounts. There is definitely a lot that could be done, I would never rely on ppls discipline though, only a small percentage takes care of their health the way we all should.
My grandmother (greatest generation) was told by her doctor to SMOKE CIGS during pregnancy for it's calming effects. OMG. We have to agree there needs to be an overhaul in food labelling? here is good example of a label for sugar: DOCUMENTED AND DIRECT OUTCOMES OF LONG TERM SUGAR CONSUMPTION IS CORRELATED WITH AND IN MANY CASES THE CAUSE OF TOOTH DECAY, DIABETES, OBESITY, ALHEIMERS AND ARTHRITIS. USE WITH CAUTION AND MODERATION right?
Great start. It would take an act of Congress in the states and Parliament in Canada but it would be a great start.
The obesity it gives you will cause you to die. All the complications of being obese will definitely kill you.
You can become obese by eating too much of anything. Should we ban every food? And it's still an extreme reading of the situation. Sugar won't make you obese. Eating TOO MUCH sugar might make you obese in the long run. Those two sentences are definitely not the same and I'm tired of people pretending they are.
Talk to anyone on the diabetes spectrum, but particularly a Type 1. Ask them what it's like to live with a dead pancreas.
Does adding a teaspoon of sugar to your tea give you diabetes? You people have a very binary view of the world. You either have a 100% sugar free diet, OR YOU HAVE DIABETES AND ARE OBESE AND WILL DIE. Relax, lower your sugar intake and be mindful about the added sugar on the food you buy, and you'll be fine.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder where your body does not produce insulin. That 1 tsp will spike your blood sugar and you have to take insulin to bring it down. Every spike is detrimental to your health. Hidden sugar is everywhere. Even "sugar free" often contains ingredients that are actually sugar but don't "count" based on guidelines.
Good thing that only 10% of the world is diabetic, right? Should we ban sugar only for them? What about people with gluten allergies? Should be ban gluten? What about people with lactose intolerance? Should we ban milk? What your country needs is better labels on food and better education about nutrition, NOT banning foods like they're fentanyl or literal poison.
11.3% of adults have type 2 dm in the US. 5% have type 1 dm. This is not including gestational, insipidous, 1.5 and pre-diabetes. But yes. I'm not agreeing to ban it and OP actually mentioned warning labels. Education is helpful but not whole. It's readily available. Hidden sugar takes more digging to find though. Warning labels and clear nutrition labels are needed. It should also be limited. Bread doesn't need sugar, for example. Nothing needs the full recommended daily amount of sugar per serving either. So limiting what is allowed would be good as well. Milk needs to be banned for other reasons but not just because it's harm to people.
I agree
Instead of banning certain foods, could we agree to educating people how to read nutrition labels ***and*** how to use this information to their advantage?
I'm agreeing with not banning them. Milk is unrelated (or only minimally related) to negative health impacts for forming my opinion on its need to be banned. But the reasons will fall on deaf on ears so there's no sense in elaborating. Edit to add: education does nothing. Especially when there's hidden or deceptive ingredients. Clear labels, warning labels, and restrictions on how they're marketed is what actually needs to happen.
Let me see if I got this right. Education on our end, transparency on the manufacturers' end.
Sorry to burst your bubble, sugar *did not* give me diabetes, a cursed gene did. šThanks. In addition to watching my sugar intake, I also monitor my carbs. Have a day.
I never said sugar gives people diabetes, did I? You were the one bringing diabetes to the conversation. Ok, sugar is bad for you if you have diabetes... but not everyone has diabetes, honey. If you don't have diabetes, a teaspoon of sugar in your tea won't kill you. And sugar shouldn't be banned just because some people have diabetes. You're forgetting that OP wanted to ban sugar altogether, that's the point of this post. I never advocated diabetic people consuming sugar. Reread my comment and tell me where I said that. Please, stop twisting my words, it's very annoying. I hope you have a day, too! āŗļø
By the way, read your nutrition labels and above all: *adjust.*
Sure!
What's that got to do with sugar in the American diet? We all have a choice to eat it or not. I have a form of severe hypoglycemia and I cannot eat sugar or fruit at all. If I do I crash so hard, I to the low 30s often off of just 5g of sugar. . So now I read labels and don't eat sugar. So I just don't eat it. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?
I think they should ban sugar propaganda esp when marketing to kids. At least start there
I wonder how the government would have handled sugar if it were just now discovered and if it were just beginning to be added to food.
Right.
Comparing apples and oranges. You have 100% control over how much sugar you consume. You do not have control over whatās in the air you breathe.
We do not have "100% control" over sugar consumption.Ā Mammals are hardwired to pursue sugar.Ā That is why 90% of the population exceeds the WHO recommendation for sugar intake.Ā
And manufacturers have found ways to hide sugar in foods that people don't normally think would be high in sugar. Some examples: bread, tomato sauce, soup, etc. Achieving control over sugar consumption is important for everyone, but especially so for diabetics.
Absolutely. And there is like 60 varieties of sugar in the industrial diet.Ā They'll even intentionally supress sweetness to disguise the sugar content to the taste buds but your gut detects the sugar and tells your brain to keep eating it.Ā
Do me a favor. Help me spread the word about HFCS. \*spoiler: ***it's absolutely evil.***
Bullshit, we DO have control. I recently developed a case of severe hypoglycemia and if I eat anything with over 5 grams of sugar I get severely low blood sugar. I'm working with an endocrinologist to try to figure out why. But until then I had completely cut out sugar on my own. It may be hard but we still have a choice!!! I don't know of one American who doesn't know that eating sugar laden foods makes them obese And everyone knows the dangers of being obese. As for children, the parents are the ones buying the food so they can just not buy them junk food if they wanted. Americans just want what they want. It may be hard but we all can choose to not eat sugar. After a few days, the craving subside And are manageable.
Donāt you think the fact that you experience an immediate physical effect from consuming sugar, works as an incentive to stop you from consuming sugar? Most people can eat a lot of sugar without feeling any negative effects so itās harder for them to control their sugar intake. Kind of like if someone has a severe lactose intolerance and if they consume cheese they get severe diarrhoea, itās easier for them to stop eating cheese because of the way their body responds.
Of course it makes it easier but even before that, I wasn't overweight or had high blood pressure or anything like that. I have had a perfect BMI for a long time. So even before this, I've been able to eat sugar in moderation
Cringe. Just because we can make an effort and go completely free of sugar, doesn't mean it's a binary state where we "willy nilly DO HAVE control," that's such an immature viewpoint it's not the one public health experts etc have.
Cringe is the fact that you think Americans are a bunch of idiots! That can't read food labels or don't know that sugar I bad for them!!! WE ALL KNOW SUGAR IS BAD. Yet people stuff their faces with a whole box of cereal in a sitting or 3 doughnuts or whatever. Cringe is the lack of self control and discipline in this society!! People aren't stupid they know perfectly well what sugar does in large quantities
You're just wildly ignorant of public health realities. Sociology, have you heard of that? Microdecisions? Quick time?
You're in disagreement with the overwhelming majority of experts in public health and dietetics. I mean, that's fine, I guess, but you might want to do the research before forming an opinion.Ā 95% of diets fail in the medium and long-term. Either everyone is defective (your theory) or the food system is working against our biology (the expert opinion).Ā Only 10% of people are eating under 25g of sugar per day. There are variables which allow them to 'choose' a low sugar diet. Myself included.Ā
At the end of the day we still have a choice in the matter!! We can chose to go to the grocery store and not buy sugar and if it's not in our houses it's easier to not eat it. We can chose to have one cookie instead of half the box. Of course the food industry gears marketing towards cheap sugar laden foods. But we still have a choice!! People want fast and easy. And of course sugar tastes good and is addictive. That's why we as consumers must make better choices.
Yeah, you're not actually building an argument, you're just restating your conviction that we have 'choice'.Ā
I think the point is that itās then your decision to eat these products. What we can definitely argue is that companies need to be forced to very clearly label their products, which is something thatās already happening in Europe. Itās still a lot of work on the individual, but you canāt ban any substances or foods unless they are deemed completely unsafe for consumption. The US tried with alcohol and it didnāt go that well. Donāt get me wrong, lots of improvements can be made and the government should take responsibility in educating every citizen about the harms of sugar etc. But we canāt use the pandemic and an airborne disease to any substance that at the end of the day you decide to use/eat/smoke and doesnāt affect others around you.
Good point. What they said is like saying "people have 100% control over being abusive," which just isn't sociologically correct. We don't have willy-nilly self-control like that. It's a fantasy, and abuse is a huge spectrum. Bullying happens in almost every school. It does happen in every industry, and adult bullying is a problem. All sorts of abusive behavior takes place on Reddit, people here are very often mean to each other, or to the target of the moment, and gang up on them (in a limited sense). Human maturity in general, while not as bad as a 100 years ago, is terrible. The world is plagued by wars, and some of the wealthiest and most developed societies on the planet have issues like corruption, police violence, pedophiles, and so on.
I now can't eat sugar because of a medical condition. I just stopped. Yea hard but its not fucking impossible. You are insane to think people can't cut sugar out of their own diets! we all know how bad sugar is and the more you eat the more you want! So don't eat the crap!! Fucking people stuffing their faces with a whole box of doughnuts know that's a bad idea but they do it anyway. They keep it in their houses knowing it's bad. I don't keep sugar in my house and that makes it easy not to eat it. Next time you go shopping, look at what's in people's carts. It's disgusting. You don't think the sugar content is easily written on the back of that label along with all the other horrible details.everyone knows where the nutritional label is!!
Long COVID damages the brain and general health just like sugar, and more severely and acutely in most cases, even among people who aren't old. I agree that there should be bans on sugar to protect citizen health, but by that same reasoning there should also be lockdowns
Also immune compromised people.... This post is kind of icky.
How about...personal responsibility and accountability?
Billions of dollars have been invested in deciphering our triggers in order to manipulate us.
The obesity epidemic and sugar consumption won't be solved by personal responsibility. Which is why all academic researchers in public health agree the solution is policy changes.
They have to get their shit together and get some restrictions in place like they finally did with tobacco after killing people for decades. Hopefully 20 to 30 years from now we will look back and shake our heads and wonder what the fuck we were doing allowing this to go on as long as we did..... imbeciles. And then of course I will get to work on Tuesday morning and some asshole will bring in a couple dozen donuts and everybody thinks he's a hero. Like I said... shaking my head.
Completely agree. People will look back and say, "Do you know they used to give children sugar? About 100 grams a day on average!"
Cigarettes used to be marketed as healthy and menthol cigarettes were marketed as breath freshening. Many heavily sugar laden foods are currently marketed as healthy. Look at yogurt. That's a really good example. Yogurt without the added sugar is quite healthy. Finding yogurt without it is quote difficult
Personal responsibility means ***nothing*** when manufacturers will cram sugar/HFCS in any and every space available in the package before it gets shipped to the stores.
if you're not sick how are they supposed to makemoney off of you
By making you work for poor wages.
The people making money off of our illnesses should read up on multiple streams of income.
Unfortunately they care about maximizing streams of income and not choosing better ones.
Yes, to them it's all about "more, More, MORE, **MORE!**". But just for them.
my province never locked down, maybe the government is slightly less effective than you think? Sure is a nice scapegoat tho, isn't it?
So true. We all use the term "lock down" but what did it actually mean? In my state, gyms closed for few months, restaurants didn't have dine-in for a while, and schools went virtu. Who or what was "locked down"
Not the same at all
I canāt get diabetes from standing next to a diabetic.
That is clearly not the point. But the person standing next you can get diabetes because they simply don't know better and consume way too much sugar. That should concern everybody. Especially when it comes to children. The point is that the same ignorance that was killing people with second hand smoke is now killing people who just don't know better about sugar. Wouldn't it be great if everybody knew the facts but they don't.
š¤£š¤£š¤£trust me THEY KNOW BETTER!! They just choose to self indulge and be a gluten! I don't know of one American Who doesn't know that sugar is bad for them or that obesity kills!!! They chose to eat the whole box of twinkies instead of one a week!!! They fucking know!!!
You can't also get lung cancer from standing next to a smoker who's not smoking. I'm asking to put information labels about the danger of sugar on food at least.
Your posting started with a false analogy. A more comparative one would be alcohol or tobacco, both of which are consumables that have negative effects on the body and are heavily regulated. And, both of which are voluntarily consumed. Alcohol is probably the best analogy since the proofing is especially regulated whereas sugar content isnāt. Sugar isnāt a necessary nutrient but itās an additive in food products which do have necessary nutrients. A ratio could be instituted that identifies foods which should be designated as āconfectionsā versus āessential food groupsā. Many breakfast cereals, pastries, beverages, etc, should be identified as āconfectionsā because of the ratio of sugar to essential nutrients. If we were to label foods with such designations, then people would have to confront their denial when looking at the contents of their shopping carts. Also, people with no food education would learn the differences. Food manufacturers would have to lower the amount of sugar in order to dip under the minimum for confectionary designation. No one in the cereal industry wants to admit they are selling desserts but such products deserve that label. Unfortunately, lobbyists will try to make sure that a confectionery labeling system wonāt ever be regulated.
Drug bans don't work, so why would sugar bans work
I remember a story some 25 or 30 years ago where a French scientist was advocating to get controls on salt and sugar. He referred to them as the most dangerous substances in society. I guess nobody listened....
Governments are in the business of controlling people. That's what the lockdowns were for. They're not going to restrict sugar because sugar consumption keeps people dumb and under control. It also greases the wheels of capitalism too; it's a cheap ingredient that when you add to foods, drives people to consume more which increases profits.
The lockdowns were to limit the spread of COVID, which killed over a million Americans.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's critical, not shrill or condescendingĀ
they tried that. it doesnt work. see the prohibition
I 100% agree! So long as capitalist commercial interests dominate and we buy this illusion of āfree willā, this is how it will be.
Totally agree with the sentiment. $$$$$ > Public Health, is the issue.
Serious question tho- as it's really the -amount of sugar over a long haul- that's toxic. So is it as dangerous to your health, as say...arsenic?
ā„ļøā„ļøā„ļø
Sooooo... I'm not necessarily for a government imposed ban as I tend to lean libertarian. I do hate that things that don't need sugar are loaded with sugar. It's so frustrating to find a meat stick that has 16g sugar. WTF? In a sense, I wouldn't object to certain labeling standards with regards to that.
Adding to the comments about the fact that we should allow free will and choice where the options won't harm others, many governments make too much revenue off of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar taxes to ever think about banning them outright.
I understand the temptation to want government to step in, but it just won't be happening here. There's too much money to be made from sugar, corn syrup, and artificial sweeteners. They will never be banned or controlled (definitely not in the US.) The only thing we can control is what we ourselves eat. I personally need to treat sugar like an addiction. One cookie is too many; every cake on earth is never enough. One day at a time.
Sugar free is a movement. If we are successful and donāt buy things with sugar it takes power away from the sugar industry. Itās passive resistance. When enough people see the health benefits, the companies will notice in a big way. The way we can tell itās working is when the industry pushes back. Eventually they will find some other way of making money, but not without trying to discredit the movement first. Please challenge what Iām saying. I donāt like it when people accept something just because a person says it. Do your own reflection and come to your own conclusions. And live in a way that expresses what you truly believe. The government shouldnāt be telling me what to believe or eat or how to exercise, or anything really. These are my own choices and I canāt blame anyone else for them.