View Poll Results: Do you approve such tax?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • In favore

    7 63.64%
  • Against

    2 18.18%
  • Abstain

    2 18.18%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 127

Thread: UK Sugar/obesity Tax

  1. #81
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foley View Post
    Oh yea. I call thin crust "fancy" pizza. That overpriced artisinal crap.

    I'm all about a regular pie no extra toppings. Also has to be in NY.
    Some places in NJ are good too but I've never found a good pizza outside these two states. People from other states have been like "I know one!" but it's always bad . I had an OK one in the D.C. area once. I do like mushrooms and eggplant on pizza. But plain is a classic for sure.

    @ Meherrin: I guess that's acceptable

  2. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foley View Post
    Are you saying people who think artificial sweeteners are bad are in the same thought process that vaccines cause Autism?
    The main reason artificial sweeteners are considered bad is simply because they are artificial. People spent a century trying to find something wrong with Saccharin and they thought they finally had a reason to ban it in the 70's. Ultimately it was found to be safe (extreme doses do cause cancer in rats, but the primate digestive process breaks it down differently). Similar health dangers have been postulated and refuted for Aspartame. But much like the anti-vaxxers clinging to refuted links between vaccines and autism, people keep linking artificial sweeteners to cancer.
    Note however that I did say "in general". Artificial sweeteners have certainly contributed to an over abundance of sweet tasting foods. Which has led to people expecting their food to be sweet. And when artificially sweet food is not available, people eat more sugar than they used to.

    S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie (night shift) S5-r3 Tyche (night shift) S7-r3 Chuckles (night shift)
    S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country (day shift) S5-r7(AEU) Office Space S19-r2 (SE) The Joker

  3. #83

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    The main reason artificial sweeteners are considered bad is simply because they are artificial. People spent a century trying to find something wrong with Saccharin and they thought they finally had a reason to ban it in the 70's. Ultimately it was found to be safe (extreme doses do cause cancer in rats, but the primate digestive process breaks it down differently). Similar health dangers have been postulated and refuted for Aspartame. But much like the anti-vaxxers clinging to refuted links between vaccines and autism, people keep linking artificial sweeteners to cancer.
    Note however that I did say "in general". Artificial sweeteners have certainly contributed to an over abundance of sweet tasting foods. Which has led to people expecting their food to be sweet. And when artificially sweet food is not available, people eat more sugar than they used to.
    It is, however, important to remember that people's biochemistries differ and that some people are sensitive to things that others are not.

    There are some people who have adverse reactions to all sorts of additives, including various sweeteners - headaches, flushing, etc. i find that sometimes in the rush to assert that various substances are not harmful in general, two things are forgotten: first, that they can cause significant adverse reactions in some people, and two, that human beings did not evolve in the presence of multiple artificially produced food additives, cleaning compounds, personal care products, plastics, etc, and we do not as yet know if there are subtle long-term reactions to the overall "chemical load."
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  4. #84
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    It is, however, important to remember that people's biochemistries differ and that some people are sensitive to things that others are not.

    There are some people who have adverse reactions to all sorts of additives, including various sweeteners - headaches, flushing, etc. i find that sometimes in the rush to assert that various substances are not harmful in general, two things are forgotten: first, that they can cause significant adverse reactions in some people, and two, that human beings did not evolve in the presence of multiple artificially produced food additives, cleaning compounds, personal care products, plastics, etc, and we do not as yet know if there are subtle long-term reactions to the overall "chemical load."
    Some humans are sensitive to almost anything. One of my sons has an allergic reaction to peach fuzz. Not the peach, just the skin. So he peels it first. Took a while to work that one out. My neighbor has headaches if he eats my beetroot (all organically grown, almost). Well, any beetroot really. I know if I eat lamb fat I will feel ill the next day. So the sensitivity thing is not about artificially produced, it's just us humans being sensitive.
    In terms of the overall chemical load, yes, we don't yet know the statistical overall effect, and we do know that some people don't cope with it. But we are still living longer every year, so the general effect is not greater than the benefits of modern medicine and diets.
    So, I'm on the side of test it and take that as true until better advice is available. Some people will fall through the gaps there and I do agree that there are limits to the current testing programs (some due to ethics), but we are an adventurous species. We should keep trying new things and if they fill a need, or even just taste good and don't hurt us, keep eating them. THAT is what we evolved to do.

    There is a lot of woo around some things, and sometimes it gets mixed up in reality.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  5. #85

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Some humans are sensitive to almost anything. One of my sons has an allergic reaction to peach fuzz. Not the peach, just the skin. So he peels it first. Took a while to work that one out. My neighbor has headaches if he eats my beetroot (all organically grown, almost). Well, any beetroot really. I know if I eat lamb fat I will feel ill the next day. So the sensitivity thing is not about artificially produced, it's just us humans being sensitive.

    In terms of the overall chemical load, yes, we don't yet know the statistical overall effect, and we do know that some people don't cope with it. But we are still living longer every year, so the general effect is not greater than the benefits of modern medicine and diets.
    So, I'm on the side of test it and take that as true until better advice is available. Some people will fall through the gaps there and I do agree that there are limits to the current testing programs (some due to ethics), but we are an adventurous species. We should keep trying new things and if they fill a need, or even just taste good and don't hurt us, keep eating them. THAT is what we evolved to do.

    There is a lot of woo around some things, and sometimes it gets mixed up in reality.
    I didn't mean to imply that only "artificial" things result in sensitivities for some people. My partner has multiple sensitivities to wholly "natural" foods. I just don't like either-or logic - the kind that says either something is completely safe for everyone or it is completely harmful to everyone. Manufactured chemical compounds, like naturally occurring chemical compounds, can be harmful, helpful, or neutral, and sometimes can be all three depending on circumstances, amounts, presence or absence of co-factors, and so on.

    You may have noticed I make these kinds of statements often. Life is often fuzzy. You can't put it into two beat little boxes.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  6. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    What's gross is I know a lot of people who don't drink pop, myself included. That means that someone has to consume a lot more than a gallon a week to average it out.

    Though really that's a can and a half a day. I know people who drink a liter of mountain few a day (Blegh).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  7. #87
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that only "artificial" things result in sensitivities for some people. My partner has multiple sensitivities to wholly "natural" foods. I just don't like either-or logic - the kind that says either something is completely safe for everyone or it is completely harmful to everyone. Manufactured chemical compounds, like naturally occurring chemical compounds, can be harmful, helpful, or neutral, and sometimes can be all three depending on circumstances, amounts, presence or absence of co-factors, and so on.

    You may have noticed I make these kinds of statements often. Life is often fuzzy. You can't put it into two beat little boxes.
    Indeed it is. But I do get weary of the grab and run brigade. Aspartame gives you cancer! Deodorant gives you cancer! Vitamin C cures cancer! It's all or nothing. I really do not understand the urge to believe woo-sters. Actually I do understand it, I just wish there was a way of suppressing it.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    What's gross is I know a lot of people who don't drink pop, myself included. That means that someone has to consume a lot more than a gallon a week to average it out.

    Though really that's a can and a half a day. I know people who drink a liter of mountain few a day (Blegh).
    I got you covered. I drink ~5 gallons of Diet Pepsi each week.

    S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie (night shift) S5-r3 Tyche (night shift) S7-r3 Chuckles (night shift)
    S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country (day shift) S5-r7(AEU) Office Space S19-r2 (SE) The Joker

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    I got you covered. I drink ~5 gallons of Diet Pepsi each week.
    Holy crap dude, that's three liters a day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  10. #90
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    I got you covered. I drink ~5 gallons of Diet Pepsi each week.
    As Trump has said before, "I've never seen a skinny person drink diet soda."

  11. #91
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    "I've never seen a skinny person drink diet soda."
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    "I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke."
    fixed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  12. #92

    Default

    As a counter point, the average American adult consumes just over half a gallon of beer, and 3/4 gallon of coffee each week, while I consume none.
    Also, I agree with Trump, Diet Coke tastes like ****.

    S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie (night shift) S5-r3 Tyche (night shift) S7-r3 Chuckles (night shift)
    S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country (day shift) S5-r7(AEU) Office Space S19-r2 (SE) The Joker

  13. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    The main reason artificial sweeteners are considered bad is simply because they are artificial. People spent a century trying to find something wrong with Saccharin and they thought they finally had a reason to ban it in the 70's. Ultimately it was found to be safe (extreme doses do cause cancer in rats, but the primate digestive process breaks it down differently). Similar health dangers have been postulated and refuted for Aspartame. But much like the anti-vaxxers clinging to refuted links between vaccines and autism, people keep linking artificial sweeteners to cancer.
    Note however that I did say "in general". Artificial sweeteners have certainly contributed to an over abundance of sweet tasting foods. Which has led to people expecting their food to be sweet. And when artificially sweet food is not available, people eat more sugar than they used to.
    I dont care for artificial products like that because the human body does not process it. Just like artificial MSG, these chemicals just go through you because your body cant process them.

    I guess thats the benefit? Your body wont process it so it will keep the sugar out of your diet?

    But our society has grown to think that water istoo boring. I cant believe that, water is my favorite thing to drink. Second to Tamarind Jarritos and Negra Modelos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    I got you covered. I drink ~5 gallons of Diet Pepsi each week.
    Damn.

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    As Trump has said before, "I've never seen a skinny person drink diet soda."
    This would probably be the first and only time I would + rep you, if I could.

  14. #94
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    I agree with Trump
    Out of context quote of the month.

  15. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    As a counter point, the average American adult consumes just over half a gallon of beer, and 3/4 gallon of coffee each week, while I consume none.
    Also, I agree with Trump, Diet Coke tastes like ****.
    I consume about half a gallon of coffee a week. But some days I don't have any. Just depends.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  16. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Out of context quote of the month.
    I thought re wording it to make it harder to take out of context, but ultimately decided to go all in and see if someone would go for it. Because really, Diet Coke is horrible.

    S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie (night shift) S5-r3 Tyche (night shift) S7-r3 Chuckles (night shift)
    S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country (day shift) S5-r7(AEU) Office Space S19-r2 (SE) The Joker

  17. #97
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RycorAbsinthe View Post
    We should be asking the important questions. Does the tax revenue go to actually helping people who are obese lose the weight and live better lives? Or schools/ roads. Just asking....
    Taxes aren't just for raising revenue, thus where the money for them goes is ultimately irrelevant. Dump it all in the general fund and be done with it, unless you have a political reason to tie it to something like the fedgov does with FICA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    PS. HFCS is just sugar. It might taste slightly sweeter, but you can just use less. The demonizing of something with a marginal difference to something else is just dumb. Not that we get much HFCS anyway, 'cos we have so much sugar cane.
    If HFCS was 'just sugar' then why do they list it separately. Also, HFCS has been shown to be less 'satiating', thus causing people who are craving sugar to drink more product to make up the difference. That and our over abundance of corn is why the domestic manufacturers like to use it so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  18. #98
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Taxes aren't just for raising revenue, thus where the money for them goes is ultimately irrelevant. Dump it all in the general fund and be done with it, unless you have a political reason to tie it to something like the fedgov does with FICA.
    I would agree with money allocated from one thing going to a direct offset for it in terms of public health. For example all sales taxes on alcoholic beverages going toward rehab/education programs, taxes from bars going to safe ride programs, taxes off tobacco products going toward funded free quit kits etc. The patches worked super well for me but the price on them was awful. I bought the gigantic patches and cut them in half (then quarters later on) just to make them affordable.

    Sometimes I'm tempted to go back on the patch again just for the dreams. Oh my god the dreams were epic. I've never banged so many supermodels.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  19. #99
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    I would agree with money allocated from one thing going to a direct offset for it in terms of public health.

    Pointless. Only reason Social security is funded via payroll taxes instead of income taxes is to segregate it into a separate budgetary category to make it harder to repeal it or cut it. From a standpoint ignoring the BS of politics it doesn't actually matter. From the standpoint of someone from CA, strict spending mandates on revenue sources is a really horrible idea. Just dump it into the general fund and then fund cessation programs out of the general fund.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  20. #100
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,694

    Default

    If the money is put into the general fund and allocated for the purposes I described, what is the difference in the end?
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  21. #101
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    If the money is put into the general fund and allocated for the purposes I described, what is the difference in the end?
    The difference is that the funding isn't mandated towards a specific program, which is important in and of itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  22. #102
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    If HFCS was 'just sugar' then why do they list it separately. Also, HFCS has been shown to be less 'satiating', thus causing people who are craving sugar to drink more product to make up the difference. That and our over abundance of corn is why the domestic manufacturers like to use it so much.
    Politics. Corn syrup is very cheap (and still subsidized). It is also easier to use (being a syrup 'n all). The amount less satiating is minimal. And only in a few studies. But if you replaced all of it with cane sugar syrup, there would be very little difference. It certainly is not the demon it's made out to be. And it did not cause any epidemics of obesity on its own. Sure, get rid of all the subsidies. Grow something more nutritious. But use a bit of science rather than biased beat ups.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  23. #103
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Politics. Corn syrup is very cheap (and still subsidized). It is also easier to use (being a syrup 'n all). The amount less satiating is minimal. And only in a few studies. But if you replaced all of it with cane sugar syrup, there would be very little difference. It certainly is not the demon it's made out to be. And it did not cause any epidemics of obesity on its own. Sure, get rid of all the subsidies. Grow something more nutritious. But use a bit of science rather than biased beat ups.
    Satiation is incredibly important. In this case it could mean the difference between two servings and three servings. At 150 cal per serving that's 54,750 cal/year (assuming average +1 per day), or 15.6 pounds per year of fat. Also we have a huge lobby for HFCS due to corn, which tends to both put pressure to shut down legitimate studies that might show negative effect while also funding their own studies to their own benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  24. #104
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Satiation is incredibly important. In this case it could mean the difference between two servings and three servings. At 150 cal per serving that's 54,750 cal/year (assuming average +1 per day), or 15.6 pounds per year of fat. Also we have a huge lobby for HFCS due to corn, which tends to both put pressure to shut down legitimate studies that might show negative effect while also funding their own studies to their own benefit.
    But satiation isn't that different. It is if you compare fructose to glucose or even sucrose, maybe. But HFCs is not just fructose, and cane sugar is not just sucrose. They are not so different. Yes lobbying and money talks. But it can't shout down actual science for long. People like sweet things. They eat or drink too much. The companies that sell it make a lot of money. That money talks too.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  25. #105
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    But satiation isn't that different. It is if you compare fructose to glucose or even sucrose, maybe. But HFCs is not just fructose, and cane sugar is not just sucrose. They are not so different. Yes lobbying and money talks. But it can't shout down actual science for long. People like sweet things. They eat or drink too much. The companies that sell it make a lot of money. That money talks too.
    How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

    so much credible scientist we have, pay the money get the research results before it is published and investigated! job well done! win-win both party, however, people get fat because of sugar!

    like warnings on cigarettes, on soft drinks they should put, consuming much of this may cause obesity and diabetes!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  26. #106
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    And that is still happening. Every time you see a headline like "sugar kills" or "Fat reduces heart attacks" it is a handpicked version of something (if it even has any support). It's true that the sugar industry did better than the cattle industry for quite a while. But the basic problem is that people eat too much. That has far more to do with social conditioning than what some pyramid or scientific study says. Or, in simple terms. McDonalds rather than CSR (or whoever your big sugar is). Demonizing anything in particular just blinds you to reality.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  27. #107
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Demonizing anything in particular just blinds you to reality.
    I was just showing how money runs science to falsify findings, and demanded labeling to help people cut on sugary drinks, pure sugar is empty calories, it just consume your daily caloric intake without providing you with any nutrition whatsoever, moreover it is addictive!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  28. #108
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    I was just showing how money runs science to falsify findings, and demanded labeling to help people cut on sugary drinks, pure sugar is empty calories, it just consume your daily caloric intake without providing you with any nutrition whatsoever, moreover it is addictive!
    It's not addictive in the true sense. It's just something we really like, so keep doing. There's othing wrong with the occasional empty calorie. It's the excess that is the problem.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  29. #109
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    It's not addictive in the true sense. It's just something we really like, so keep doing. There's othing wrong with the occasional empty calorie. It's the excess that is the problem.
    and many of those who drink soda, drink usually, rather than occasionally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  30. #110
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    And that is still happening. Every time you see a headline like "sugar kills" or "Fat reduces heart attacks" it is a handpicked version of something (if it even has any support). It's true that the sugar industry did better than the cattle industry for quite a while. But the basic problem is that people eat too much. That has far more to do with social conditioning than what some pyramid or scientific study says. Or, in simple terms. McDonalds rather than CSR (or whoever your big sugar is). Demonizing anything in particular just blinds you to reality.
    Why do people eat to much... could it be that the receptors in the brain want something but HFCS doesn't send the proper signals so they feel less satisfied... hmmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  31. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Why do people eat to much... could it be that the receptors in the brain want something but HFCS doesn't send the proper signals so they feel less satisfied... hmmm...
    I'm just a fat ***.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  32. #112
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Why do people eat to much... could it be that the receptors in the brain want something but HFCS doesn't send the proper signals so they feel less satisfied... hmmm...
    Do you seriously think only HFCS makes people fat? Think about it. The availability of it is the main driver. But if you drop HFCS and replace it with just as much cane sugar, the result is the same.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  33. #113
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Do you seriously think only HFCS makes people fat? Think about it. The availability of it is the main driver. But if you drop HFCS and replace it with just as much cane sugar, the result is the same.
    Except that people don't. When they replace HFCS with cane sugar they use less cane sugar because it is more satiating. Also I did not say that it was only HFCS making people fat, but it sure as hell isn't helping. Like all things it is a variety of issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  34. #114
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Except that people don't. When they replace HFCS with cane sugar they use less cane sugar because it is more satiating. Also I did not say that it was only HFCS making people fat, but it sure as hell isn't helping. Like all things it is a variety of issues.
    Then you should come over here. Our soda has cane sugar and we have just the same issues. Although I did see recently that the fad of drinking bottled water has had an impact. Stupidly expensive though.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  35. #115
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    I don't know why people drink too much soda (I already did that when I was in the US), except that it is cheaper than the all good sparkling water!

    I couldn't find good selection of fruit juices/nectars/drinks there, hardly like the selection here! We have more than 20 different fruit juices. This is the long shelf life ones

    And you could easily go to a juice shop where you can order fresh juice, sometimes frozen fruits specially some mango variety if not in season, and you can make sure that they don't add sugar to the juice.

    yes and I remember now, we have some of those fresh juices in the with fast expiry period, soldat some places, like those at whole food market or something like that I've seen someplace in Cali.

    Now I prefer the fruit as food, except sometimes for fresh pomegranate! and alltimes lemon/lime juice for salad dressing

    as for soda, get the sparkling water it is amazing, and it taste better than pepsi or coke!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  36. #116
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Then you should come over here. Our soda has cane sugar and we have just the same issues. Although I did see recently that the fad of drinking bottled water has had an impact. Stupidly expensive though.
    Considering that the obesity rate for Men/Women in America is 35%/40.4% and in Australia it's 27.5%/28.5%, statistically I'd be better off. It's not all sugar of course, but considering how often our food manufacturers use it as a filler it's a pretty big issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  37. #117
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    but considering how often our food manufacturers use it as a filler it's a pretty big issue.
    doesn't they put in every single processed food, at least, one ingredient derived from either corn or soya?
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  38. #118

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    doesn't they put in every single processed food, at least, one ingredient derived from either corn or soya?
    Sometimes it seems that way. One of many reasons why we buy very few processed foods. Let's see, we buy bread (whole grain and seed bread), cranberry concentrate (no sugar added, though), tomato paste (nothing in it but tomatoes and water though), ginger ale (with stevia), pasta, alcoholic beverages....
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  39. #119
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    doesn't they put in every single processed food, at least, one ingredient derived from either corn or soya?
    Typically yes, I'd also add canola to that list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  40. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Sometimes it seems that way. One of many reasons why we buy very few processed foods. Let's see, we buy bread (whole grain and seed bread), cranberry concentrate (no sugar added, though), tomato paste (nothing in it but tomatoes and water though), ginger ale (with stevia), pasta, alcoholic beverages....
    They have ginger ale with stevia? Is it Canada dry?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •