And thus it starts - first move against sugar

[DrMA]

Mexico is restricting television advertising for high-calorie food and soft drinks, as part of its campaign against obesity, the government says.

BBC News - Mexico restricts soft drink TV ads to fight obesity

Can you envision a FDA CSP (center for sugar products) rising right next to the CTP? How about a FOPSCA [family obesity prevention and sugar control act]? Anti sugar and food zealots are bound to emerge. I wonder if they'll be led by some sort of failed engineer looking for a gravy train to ride into retirement.

 

[exnihilo]

It would appear that society is unable to control themselves. Then again, we make the laws we use to control ourselves... I'm thinking Anarchy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[DrMA]

It's really more about the money that it is control, IMO. Just wait for it, the next piece of news about sugar will say something about excise tax, with a very high likelihood of using the "for the chiiildren" justification.

 

[XJ-linux]

Your brain runs on sugar. That's all it does. They can only restrict it so much.

 

[Crunchy2k]

Your brain runs on sugar. That's all it does. They can only restrict it so much.

Maybe it is people with damaged brains from lack of sugar thinking these things up... The bans are not rational and only hurt ad supported TV shows. Whenever I look for the source of these recent demonizing projects, it traces back to the WHO. Many of those people's culture rate their wealth on the size of their bellies. LOL

 

[Kent C]

It's really more about the money that it is control, IMO. Just wait for it, the next piece of news about sugar will say something about excise tax, with a very high likelihood of using the "for the chiiildren" justification.

I know you mean money for programs but....

For some..... it is control: (net worth 2012 figures)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $10.28 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93 Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) $17.00 Million
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Il.) $1.3 Million

There are Republicans with as much or more but these, above, are some who signed the 'letter' to the FDA....

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) $10.38 Million
Sen. Richard Burr (R- N.C.) $3.1 Million
Sen. Rand Paul (R- Ky.) $398,003

 

[Berylanna]

Maybe it is people with damaged brains from lack of sugar thinking these things up... The bans are not rational and only hurt ad supported TV shows. Whenever I look for the source of these recent demonizing projects, it traces back to the WHO. Many of those people's culture rate their wealth on the size of their bellies. LOL

Trace a little further. Johnson & Johnson makes Splenda. And they have a pet health foundation, RWJF, Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. Creator of Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids. Study Predicts Tax on Calories in Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Would Reduce Consumption of Beverage Calories - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

 

[AndriaD]

I'm not against efforts to control obesity and diabetes, but I think there are better ways of going about it -- making basic nutrition a required course in school, for example. Most of the problem is that very few people have any real idea of HOW to eat, how to have a good diet in the modern world, or why they should eat well instead of all-processed crap. People seem to have this idea that if it's "good for you," then it must "taste bad," and nothing could be further from the truth!

Andria

 

[Berylanna]

I actually DO favor bans of unhealthy foods (unless provided by parents) on K-12 campuses, and of the rigorous labeling laws we now have. But I don't favor promoting chemical substitutes (except by doctors) so I think low-calorie drinks allowed on K-12 campuses, and/or exempt from 'sin' taxes, should be naturally low-calorie. (I don't support high 'sin' taxes on sweet drinks but one way to make up the $18b in tobacco taxes would be to spread the 'sin' taxes around at low levels to a lot of unhealthy things used by a lot more people. There are 2 uses of sin taxes. 1. to discourage something awful, and 2. to have recession/depression resistant revenue. A very low tax on sweets, fats, and, hey, couches and TV's!!! might be able to make up the $18 billion.)

 

[DoubleEwe]

In my opinion this is the start of something much needed. Anything that raises awareness of the obesity epidemic and gets people thinking about their part in it is a good thing.

I don't necessarily think the restriction of TV ads is a good thing though, we were all kids once and all know that kids love sweet things regardless of whether or not they are on TV.

The problem lies with the parents, they should be restricting the amount of 'crap' that the child has access to. Too many parents want an 'easy life' so are more likely to give in to the child's demands, rather than face the wrath of the sugar deprived imp.

As Andria says, there should be a greater emphasis put on educating people about food and nutrition. Portion size is also a factor (especially in the US restaurants), children given portions way above what they should be eating, along with 'larger parents*' giving their children food portions based on their own idea of what a portion should be.


*generally, but obviously not always.

 

[exnihilo]

You know, someone who's anorexic can be forced into a hospital to receive help, but someone who's double their "healthy" weight will be left alone, to continue grazing. I guarantee you obesity is much bigger drain on our insurance and health system than the opposite.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Anjaffm]

But.. but... sugar is addictive!!!! People do not want to eat sugar - they just do it to satisfy the craving!!! They have been hooked by evil Big Sugar!!!! So WE, the wonderful, caring Public Health Industry, we just HAVE to protect these addicts from themselves!!!! And as they are only addicts, worthless and weak-willed scum, of course WE do not give them any voice in the matter!!! We are Food Control! We control!!! And we get big fat paychecks for doing nothing but control! (Hey, this is a control-freak's dream, but do not tell that to the rabble. WE - Tobacco Control, Food Control, Mind Control - are the good guys, you know... )

Yeah, sugar sure is addictive, if you quote the right junk science
Addicted to Oreos? You truly might be

Of course, if you have half a brain, the matter looks a little different
Junk science of the week, possibly of the year



Welcome to the Slippery Slope.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/john-banzhafs-slippery-slope.html

As Stanton Glantz (founder of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights) said in 2006:

"The whole slippery slope argument is fallacious. It says that intelligent people aren't capable of making decisions."

In actual fact, Stanton Glantz is quite right in what he says. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because A leads to B, that B will inevitably lead to C, and that C will lead to Z. Lawmakers can draw the line at any time. Circumstances can change. What is deemed appropriate remedial action in one case might be deemed inappropriate in another case.

And yet, history shows that the slippery slope is no myth. Those who warn that prohibitions in one area will lead to prohibitions in other areas are portrayed as fear-mongerers in their own time but, with hindsight, have often been shown to be right. The slippery slope may be a logical fallacy but it is also a political reality. Politics is not always logical.

Fallacious indeed, eh?

Now just take a look at this "darling" proposal from New Zealand, described here:
Offsetting Behaviour: Slippery slopes: Gareth Morgan edition

Right now, eating unhealthy food is the easy choice. That needs to be flipped on its head. We’ll need to change fundamental things from fundraisers to rewarding good behaviour in our kids. Sausage sizzles and selling chocolate bars for a school trip, even free treats in airline lounges will all one day be shown up for they are – cheap and nasty ways to feed an addiction.

Fake food now kills as many people as cigarettes, and it is time to apply the same solutions as we did to that problem. There is a tried and tested formula to crack this problem – education, regulation, taxation and stigmatisation.

 

[vapero]

I do favor this ban,I live in Mexico and now we are the leading country in obesity.
They are not banning junk food they are banning the ads for it so kids aren't being constantly bombarded by ads saying it's cool to eat poor drink their junk.
Our government even made a law to make smaller portions of chips and bakery stuff so instead of a kid taking a 300calorie smack to school would take a 100 one

There is a big difference here regarding the vaping, this bam mostly targets the kids as you can still get the big bag of chips but there is a smaller better option to give the kids

Sent from my LG-P970 using Tapatalk 2

 

[vapero]

I have A3 year old and here is the 1 minute ad break after a 2 minute cartoon lineup
Cartoon,Cereal, cookies, candy candy, candy, toy, cookie, Candy, cartoon....
It really needs to stop

Sent from my LG-P970 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Berylanna]

I have A3 year old and here is the 1 minute ad break after a 2 minute cartoon lineup
Cartoon,Cereal, cookies, candy candy, candy, toy, cookie, Candy, cartoon....
It really needs to stop

Sent from my LG-P970 using Tapatalk 2

Oh, just so you know. A pressure group got Cheerios to make their original plain ones GMO-free, partly because it's often a child's first finger food, easy to pick up with small fingers. So they did, at considerable expense, because it was hard to find enough to supply for the product. And their reward? Sales remain unaffected. That bugs me, so I put it out on FB that we should buy Cheerios original. It happens to be one of my 3 favorite cereals, but for instance my daughter has been spending a LOT to get special organic Cheerios clones for her kids.

Then one of my followers pointed out that makes Cheerios a good choice for donating to Women-and-children's shelters. So I bought 4 boxes, donated 3, and plan to eat one. (trouble is that for me this month, with all that's going on, breakfast is coffee and a vape....)

But you just reminded me that I forgot to tell my daughter!!!! Doh!

 

[AndriaD]

In my opinion this is the start of something much needed. Anything that raises awareness of the obesity epidemic and gets people thinking about their part in it is a good thing.

I don't necessarily think the restriction of TV ads is a good thing though, we were all kids once and all know that kids love sweet things regardless of whether or not they are on TV.

The problem lies with the parents, they should be restricting the amount of 'crap' that the child has access to. Too many parents want an 'easy life' so are more likely to give in to the child's demands, rather than face the wrath of the sugar deprived imp.

As Andria says, there should be a greater emphasis put on educating people about food and nutrition. Portion size is also a factor (especially in the US restaurants), children given portions way above what they should be eating, along with 'larger parents*' giving their children food portions based on their own idea of what a portion should be.


*generally, but obviously not always.

I agree that the parents are the ones who should be in charge of this, since they're the primary caregivers, food givers, etc -- but being control-freak about it can really backfire. I have a friend who's always had trouble with her weight, even as a child; she's just got the body type that stores "extra" very easily. Her mom was an absolute TERROR about my friend eating sweets, so everytime the friend was at my house? She would pile in the cookies like they were going out of style tomorrow. And once this friend was grown and away from her mom's control, she went from "pleasingly plump" to morbidly obese, and has stayed there ever since. I think if her mom had been less domineering about it, she wouldn't have the issues with food that she has.

When my son was pre-school-age, he was absolutely forbidden chocolate or any "cola" type drinks, though when we went out to dinner, if they didn't have apple juice on the menu, we'd let him have a sprite or 7-up. My mom swore up and down I was "depriving that child" but I informed her I was trying to deprive him of acne and bad teeth, as I've suffered my whole life. Once he was in school, away at friends', etc, I figured my absolute control was gone, but we still didn't let him get too carried away with soda or candy. He did end up suffering about the usual amount with acne, or maybe just slightly more than usual, given his heredity, but his teeth are good, his weight is proportional, and he learned for himself that if you're not used to eating a lot of fats, they will make you SICK! So now he chooses *for himself* that "Lean Pockets" are better eating than "Hot Pockets" -- because of the fat content! He also knows from eating my cooking that "good for you" and "tastes great" are often the same thing!

But educating the parents -- that's the real necessity. We used to see a friend giving her kids Entenmann's crap FOR BREAKFAST... I'd be willing to bet those kids are obese now, and possibly diabetic.

Andria

 

[Uma]

As much as I've always hated food & drug commercials on air, I am totally against bans of any kind ... well except for the drugs, those need to be banned. They're nothing but advertisements for the drugs, prescriptions especially.
Parents use sweets to reward the kids for doing their chores, etc.. "You can pick one cereal or treat during this week's shopping, for doing all your homework, chores, whatever." Dangling a carrot just doesn't seem to work like a box of fruit loops does.
In short, it's the parents responsibility, NOT THE ..... governments of any form.

education is the key, not indoctrination or coercion.

 

[DoubleEwe]

I agree with you Andria (again ), it isn't about giving a total ban on junk food/sugary drinks, that just makes them all the more appealing to the deprived party and therefore more likely to be an issue when the reigns are released and they are 'allowed' to eat as they please (or away from the 'controller').

It is all about moderation.

Over here in the UK they have started taking measures to raise the issue with parents of obese/overweight children. My niece & nephew's school weighs the children at certain points of the year to see whether there is a problem. If the child is overweight then the school sends a letter home to the parents. I am not sure whether there are suggestions on what to do about it, but at least it informs the parent that it is not OK and they should think about how their parenting is affecting their child.

There have been ideas to fine the parents of obese children, due to the logic that the obesity is caused by the parents' choice of diet and therefore is a form of neglect.

The control has been in the parents' hands for long enough to be able to see that it is obviously not working, people do need to be told (in a lot of cases) what to do.

Yes, Uma, I agree, education is the key. Maybe instead of fines for the parents of obese children they should instead be made to go on 'healthy cooking/living' courses.

 

[AndriaD]

I agree with you Andria (again ), it isn't about giving a total ban on junk food/sugary drinks, that just makes them all the more appealing to the deprived party and therefore more likely to be an issue when the reigns are released and they are 'allowed' to eat as they please (or away from the 'controller').

It is all about moderation.

Absolutely!!! Even when I'm "dieting" I still allow myself *very small* treats, because if I'm miserable, then what's the point?

My mom had a good attitude, and technique: I was always just taught 'save some for someone else who might want some' -- teaching moderation with the cookies or whatever, while also teaching sharing and consideration for others. So my husband and I can easily share 1 candybar, or 1 *whatever* because he was taught the same thing. And neither of us has ever had a serious weight problem.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Oh, just so you know. A pressure group got Cheerios to make their original plain ones GMO-free, partly because it's often a child's first finger food, easy to pick up with small fingers. So they did, at considerable expense, because it was hard to find enough to supply for the product. And their reward? Sales remain unaffected. That bugs me, so I put it out on FB that we should buy Cheerios original. It happens to be one of my 3 favorite cereals, but for instance my daughter has been spending a LOT to get special organic Cheerios clones for her kids.

Then one of my followers pointed out that makes Cheerios a good choice for donating to Women-and-children's shelters. So I bought 4 boxes, donated 3, and plan to eat one. (trouble is that for me this month, with all that's going on, breakfast is coffee and a vape....)

But you just reminded me that I forgot to tell my daughter!!!! Doh!

I personally think the original Cheerios beat the stuffing out of any of their later offerings -- put bananas on Cheerios, pour the milk, and it smells EXACTLY like Juicy Fruit gum! Really glad to know that original Cheerios are GMO-free.

Andria