The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:08 am 
Offline
God of the IRC
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: The United States of DESU
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... tary-says/

Quote:
Sugar should be regulated like alcohol, tobacco, commentary says
By Ryan Jaslow

(CBS) Should the government regulate sugar, just like it regulates alcohol and tobacco?

A new commentary published online in the Feb. 1 issue of Nature says sugar is just as "toxic" for people as the other two, so the government should step in to curb its consumption.

The United Nations announced in September that chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes contribute to 35 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the commentary. The U.N. pegged tobacco, alcohol, and diet as big risk factors that contributed to this death rate.

Two of those are regulated by governments, "leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked," the authors, Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argued.

They said that over the past 50 years, sugar consumption has tripled worldwide. That's also helped contribute to the obesity epidemic - so much so that there are 30 percent more obese people in this world than there are malnourished people.

But how does sugar compare to alcohol?

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it's unavoidable, there's potential for abuse, it's toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it's everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it's toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism.

"Many people think that obesity is the root cause of these diseases," they wrote. But 40 percent of normal-weight people are developing diseases like diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, heart and liver disease. "Obesity is not the cause; rather, it is a marker."

That's why it's time that the government steps in and regulates sugar in ways similar to tobacco and alcohol, the authors wrote. That includes taxes, age restrictions and other policies to control the distribution of sugar.

"We are now seeing the toxic downside," co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, told WebMD. "There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient."

Dr. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, told HealthPop that she agrees that it's time for policy changes, since many Americans take in roughly 25 percent of their daily calorie intake through sugar.

"I don't think people have any idea how many calories they take in when they take in soft drinks - particularly because they are consumed in such large quantities," Nestle said. She thinks regulation could eventually be possible, since many local governments are already enacting policies to curb sugar in schools or tax sodas.

"If you have enough of those, the federal government can step in."

Industry groups disagreed with the science and implications of the commentary.

The Sugar Association said it disputes some of the statistics presented - namely the tripled sugar consumption rates, which it said were based on "incomplete science" in a statement emailed to HealthPop.

"We are confident that the American people are perfectly capable of choosing what foods to eat without stark regulations and unreasonable bans imposed upon them," read a prepared statement from the Sugar Association.

The American Beverage Association added in a separate statement, "Moreover, an isolated focus on a single ingredient such as sugar or fructose to address health issues noted by the World Health Organization to be caused by multiple factors, including tobacco use, harmful alcohol use, an unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity, is an oversimplification"

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Everything is toxic in large enough quantities. Obviously, we need EVERYTHING to be regulated. Let the government set your diet.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Imagine how healthy we might be without sugar / HFCS in EVERYTHING.

I support this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:49 pm
Posts: 330
I support this as well, enough with personal choice. The government can tell us all what to eat and drink. Also since there are so many STD's who we can sleep with, when and how often as well. And since not everyone is good at certain things they need to tell us what we should do for a living, and give all of our money to them so they can take care of us.

:roll:

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Why don't we just put fat people in prison? We can chain them exercise bikes/treadmills that are hooked up to generators and use them generate clean energy until they drop back into the bottom end of healthy weight ranges.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
I don't know ...

We could stop treating patients by the numbers and as numbers and start considering the fact that there more differences between each of us than there are total people on the planet.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Yes, always remember you are unique.

Just like everybody else.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
To be perfectly honest, it is fairly ridiculous to regulate alcohol and not fructose and sucrose. (which is just glucose bound to fructose and acts almost identically in your body) Sugar is quite addictive and probably just as bad for you as alcohol.

Also, high fructose corn syrup is not some kind of super-deadly form of sugar. It's almost identical to plain old sugar in its health effects. The only reason it's so problematic is because of tariffs, sugar is expensive while HFCS is not, so companies can use more of it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:35 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
To be perfectly honest, it is fairly ridiculous to regulate alcohol...

Ya'know, I agree with you 100%.

Quote:
...and not fructose and sucrose. (which is just glucose bound to fructose and acts almost identically in your body) Sugar is quite addictive and probably just as bad for you as alcohol.

Also, high fructose corn syrup is not some kind of super-deadly form of sugar. It's almost identical to plain old sugar in its health effects. The only reason it's so problematic is because of tariffs, sugar is expensive while HFCS is not, so companies can use more of it.

Oh, wait. No I don't.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I remember talking about this many years ago when they were going after smokers so hard. Everyone thought I was crazy when I posed the question: what's next.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Rorinthas wrote:
I remember talking about this many years ago when they were going after smokers so hard. Everyone thought I was crazy when I posed the question: what's next.

We're in the same boat here. I remember talking with a group of liberals who thought I was a complete fool for insisting that nationalizing health care would ultimately, and quickly, lead to an elimination of personal choice concerning anything that had even the most tangential relationship to human health.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Liberals don't ban things, they just want you to pay extra for the **** they don't like.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
Liberals don't ban things, they just want you to pay extra for the **** they don't like.

Hello there, you must be new. Allow me to introduce you to: the EPA, the FDA, gun control, ect.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I don't think we can draw the same conclusions for or against alcohol regulation as we can for sugar. The primary reason have to do with impairment of judgment on alcohol as opposed to its harmfulness that I don't think exists as badly as sugar.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Rorinthas wrote:
I don't think we can draw the same conclusions for or against alcohol regulation as we can for sugar. The primary reason have to do with impairment of judgment on alcohol as opposed to its harmfulness that I don't think exists as badly as sugar.

Says you. The true argument is utilitarian.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:13 am 
Offline
Bru's Sweetie

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:04 am
Posts: 2675
Location: San Jose, CA
I'll be the judge of what I put into my body, thank you very much! I don't need the government telling me what I can or cannot eat or drink...my doctor does a fine job of that right now, thanks (not that he knows any better either, but we shall see).

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:30 am 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
I can't wait for the fat acceptance lobby to get in their wheeled scooters and go lobby congress.

Is anyone actually surprised that someone is suggesting regulating sugar? Things like this will have to be done incrementally if the government wants to take over healthcare.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:14 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Perhaps I should have said should. I don't want to ban alcohol despite my own opinions toward it (though I have have no problem with dry municipalities). However it's well proven that it restricts judgment and reaction times so I think are current regulations as I am familiar with them are fair.

As far as license for sale goes, it should largely be a mechanism to ensure the age statute is enforced.

Those who want to drink can drink fairly freely so long as they are old enough (or supervised by their parents) and stay off the roadway until they are sober.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Khross wrote:
I don't know ...

We could stop treating patients by the numbers and as numbers and start considering the fact that there more differences between each of us than there are total people on the planet.


Yes, but that doesn't make sense from a business model. If this process/treatment/drug corrects this issue in 99% of the people, guess what? It sucks if you're in the 1%.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
They'll come for salt next... :popcorn:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline
God of the IRC
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: The United States of DESU
No popcorn for you!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Or potted meat product.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:53 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Lydiaa wrote:
They'll come for salt next... :popcorn:

First they came for the sugar,
And I did not speak out because I did not have a sweet tooth.
Then they came for the salt,
And I did not speak out because salt tends to overdry and bury flavors.
Then they came for the fresh herbs,
And I did not speak out (that's a lie) because I could replace it with a dryed product (that's another lie).
Then they came for the spices,
And I did not speak out because sometimes simplicity is a very good thing.
Then they came for the bacon,
And I killed those cocksuckers dead, cause don't ever **** with my bacon.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:17 am 
Offline
Solo Hero
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:32 pm
Posts: 3874
Location: Clarkston, Mi
ALOL!!!

Really, I want to add something else but I can't get "don't ever **** with my bacon" out of my head.

_________________
Raell Kromwell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I don't think anyone here disagrees that regulating sugar is a bad idea. I'd also point out that the article is talking about regulating it like alcohol which is far from banned in any western country I can think of, not banning it.

That said, assuming it had regulations similar to alcohol in overall effect (not in exact wording; I don't think anyone is advocating in laws allowing people to be arrested while driving after eating a Snickers, or saying you have to be 21 to eat it), what kind of effects would that have- and let's try to discuss something based on regulations that would be likely to be actually enacted, not based on what the slavering regulation monster fantasies would be. Reality would probably be bad enough.

For example, down here sugar cane farming would be affected, and I can imagine it would be anywhere from inconvenient to disastrous for the sugar cane farmers. While it might be nice to not have sugar cane farms right along the river (trust me, trying to get 20 illegals out of 50 acres of sugar cane is.. not fun; you can't see 3 feet in there and it's always muddy as hell) that could be really bad for the local economy. I'm fairly sure sugar cane is farmed in a lot of poorer countries as well, and regulations could be devastating to their sugar industry as well.

That gives me an amusing thought. Since these poorer countries are almost invariably nonwhite, doesn't that make regulating sugar "racist" according to standard liberal criteria of "if it's disadvantageous for nonwhites, it's racist regardless of what it's real purpose is or anything else."?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 332 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group