
How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf] - Jan_jw
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/a_spoonful_of_sugar_final.pdf
======
mark_l_watson
This also shows the true evil of the TTP and TTIP trade deals: corporations
can sue any government if their laws affect the corporation's profits. Pure
evil. The article has the example of Mexico being sued for their protective
laws.

~~~
tdkl
It's not just evil, I presume in the future there will be civil wars because
of that - people who'll have enough vs. corporations.

~~~
clearlyclear
I'm cutting past the corporation talk and going straight to the premise. It's
one that we need to reject.

The article starts off with the premise that we are currently suffering a
health crisis. This is insane. It's an extreme, hyper-negative point of view.
We live in the safest times in all of human history. If you're not living in a
shanty town without running water and suffering from dysentery, you're doing
pretty well. If your sitting in your climate-controlled house in suburbia,
sipping your soda thinking "Man, I'm killing myself with this sugary drink",
you are choosing to be miserable. You have decided not to enjoy the wonderful
world in which we live. You have decided to focus on an oblique health threat
that starving humans through out history have dreamed about. Exporting that
self-imposed misery to others is impolite at best if not pure evil.

With this kind of hyper-negative thinking, we could advance medicine to the
point that we become immortal with eternally youthful regenerating bodies, but
we would go hunting for a way for french fries and sodas to still be evil
somehow. Like these things are some sort of modern day werewolf.

The premise is laughable at best. Dangerous at worst. It's neither sane nor
healthy to think like this.

You mention civil war. The war here would boil down to the noble cause of
killing people to protect us from the health threats of sugar. That's insane!
We must reject this thinking.

~~~
dammitcoetzee
It's practically modern culture to be negative about everything. When there
are two equally probable outcomes I've noticed that people tend to lavish on
the negative one to exclusion and treat people with positive outlooks as
annoying, chipper, ignorant, or immature. It's odd. My theory is that
positivity requires some claim of responsibility over the outcome while
negatively allows one to divorce themselves from it.

~~~
refurb
I also think it's human nature. Humans are always looking to better
themselves. Take someone from 1900 and bring them to 2016. They would think
they are living in paradise...for a while. Then they would get used to it and
start thinking about everything that's wrong and how to fix it.

Now, on the plus side it's that drive that improves the human condition. But
it comes with a lot of negatives too.

------
praptak
About 6 weeks ago I stopped ingesting sugar, to the extent that is practically
possible. No candy & cakes, no sweet drinks and very diligent reading of
labels on the non-obvious stuff. I do eat fruit but not processed into juice.

Dropped 4 kg, everything tastes better, no energy drop at 4pm and the cravings
disappeared within first two days. Friends report similar results.

This was also much easier than my previous attempts at "cutting down" sugar.

~~~
amelius
Yes dropping sugar is the first step. But then after a while, you want to take
it further, and you start exercising. And suddenly, you need sugars again!

~~~
azdle
Anecdotally, I completely disagree. I've been eating a ketogenic diet (less
than ~20 net grams per day) almost exclusively since May 2013 and have been
lifting for the last 8 months and haven't needed for any carbs. While it's
possible after a certain level some well-timed carbs can help you lift heavier
than without, those won't be the kinds of sugars most people are eating. But,
since I'm not looking to become a body builder I'll probably never need to
worry about that.

~~~
amelius
Well, you have to admit that a ketogenic diet is something else entirely. That
is impressive, I personally don't know any people who could stick to it for
such a long time.

------
coldcode
I despise the corn lobby more. They ensure the high tariffs on imported sugar
in order to protect the corn prices to produce corn syrup instead of using raw
sugar. Only the US has soft drinks made with HFCS simply because of the tariff
on imported sugar.

~~~
bhouston
Accord to the movie Sugar Coated (on Netflix here in Canada) and Dr. Lustig
there is no meaningful difference between HFCS and normal sugar -- they are
equally quite bad for you. Switching from HFCS to cane sugar will achieve
nothing I believe if you keep the sugar intake the same.

What I believe happened is that at the same time HFCS came on the market there
was also a larger push to put sugar into a lot of things in place of fat.

Thus the introduction of HFCS seems to correlate with the North America weight
problem but the North American weight problem also correlates with the
increase in sugar in our diet -- and I understand from Sugar Coated and Dr.
Lustig that is the causitive correlation.

~~~
hippich
weight-wise sugar has only half of fructose, and fructose is main offender. So
yes, too much sugar is bad, but if you compare gram to gram, fructose is
worse.

~~~
aexaey
As far as I understood, "high fructose" in HFCS is only high relative to the
corn syrup that was hydrolyzed, but not processed with isomerase, i.e.
essentially compared to corn syrup with no fructose at all.

Most commonly used HFCS varieties contains 42% or 55% fructose [1], which
compares well with 50% in sucrose.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Compo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Composition_and_varieties)

------
Jan_jw
It's "interesting" to see the same methods that the tabacco lobby used are
used again. We as a society haven't spent the past time in defending ourselves
or our institutions any better then back in those days. Sad Indeed...

~~~
yodsanklai
I wonder what point of view libertarians have on issues like this one. How can
we regulate this without government intervention? what can we do to counter-
balance the marketing power of those corporations?

~~~
monkeybuz
Just don't buy sugar products.

Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers
are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by
regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the
big corps themselves.

~~~
legulere
That requires humans to be perfectly rational like a homo economicus [1], but
in reality people aren't.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus)

~~~
monkeybuz
No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to
choose them. Just live healthy and promote your lifestyle to other persons,
that is the best thing you can do for yourself and for any other person
without harm.

~~~
yodsanklai
> You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them

It's not that simple. For instance, kids aren't free to choose what they eat
or drink and they can't make rationale decisions. Many adults lack the proper
information and so on...

------
mpg33
I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. But I definitely think that
products should have a large visible colorful graphic on the front showing the
amount of sugar content.. separate from the basic black and white nutritional
info label.

~~~
superswordfish
In the US sugar is listed without a DV% as well. People might reconsider a
Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of your daily recommended added sugar intake
(per the article's 45g).

I LOLed at
[https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition](https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition)

> MILKY WAY® is a delicious and indulgent treat that can be enjoyed as part of
> a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.

Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy. Of course it's
unhealthy, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

~~~
wyldfire
No one would reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of the recommended
daily sugar intake. The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways
and similar candies already.

IMO one great labeling victory has been restaurants that put calorie info on
menus. Some of that has been by regulation, but regardless it's a good move.

~~~
chiefofgxbxl
> The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies
> already.

This may be true, but this statement is also missing the (possibly large?)
group of people that simply have no benchmark in their mind for how much sugar
is acceptable.

I've read several competing articles about daily limits to added sugar, and
the number I have in my mind is 80g/day max. Given that a teaspoon of sugar is
roughly 4g, this amounts to 20 teaspoons of sugar per day! I've wondered if
nutrition labels listing sugar in terms of teaspoons instead of grams would
help people visualize exactly how much sugar they are consuming.

I would agree that those who care about sugar intake probably will avoid Milky
Ways, but I'm also concerned that if we don't have a % DV on sugar, people
will perhaps assume that there is no ceiling. _Why do we have % DV for fat,
carbs, etc., but not sugar? Hmm, well maybe it 's that no amount of sugar you
eat today will harm you_.

As a curious experiment, walk down the street and randomly survey people for
how many grams of sugar they think they should limit themselves to.

------
Kenji
I cut back my sugar intake for half a year (bread, chocolate, sodas, etc.) and
felt worse, my digestion becoming more erratic and irregular. Right now, I am
enjoying a couple of pieces of delicious chocolate while laughing about the
people who demonize certain classes of food. We know embarrassingly little
about our digestion. Who knows, in 30 years we will say proteins are the devil
and then we go back to hating fats. You have to go absolutely crazy on sugars
to cause diabetes. We are talking about 'regularly skipping meals and then
compensating by eating a couple of chocolate bars' crazy.

------
agravier
Look up Dr. Lustig's talks and articles for more in depth explanations on the
effects of sugar on physiology.

~~~
MustardTiger
The known fraud? Sure, look him up.

~~~
kristiandupont
Would you care to elaborate on that? Googling "dr lustig fraud" brings up
mostly what looks like fabricated "debunking" articles from things like "The
Scam Report".

~~~
MustardTiger
"Googling it brings up things I don't like so I'll call them fabricated". What
is fabricated about it exactly? This is a man who directly lies all the time.
He claims "sugar is toxic" and "sugar is poison". These are both outright
lies, and not claims any respected scientist would make. The data doesn't even
support his modest claims, much less his poison lies.
[http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-
ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-
fructose-alarmism/)

------
fuzzfactor
The purpose of sugar is to have a spoilage-resistant renewable commodity
capable of filling and refilling cargo ships to a net wealth density greater
than most any choice having similar features at the time, over three hundred
years ago.

To put this in perspective, that was about the same time that colonies in
North America were being founded also by multinational corporations for the
benefit of multinational corporations, often funded by venture capitalists
among the royalty of Europe.

Sugar is a truly fungible material, exchangable at prevailing rates in any
port. A single type of cargo that could pay its own way just about anywhere,
allowing relatively greater voyage flexibility, in a world where logistics has
always played a significant part.

While being the trader's or marketer's dream; concentrated chemical crystals
which are habit forming in some way, with everyone everywhere being a
potential repeat retail customer for "life".

The enthusiasm for this wealth from many different directions would be
expected to have yielded very effective lobbyists to officials around the
world for many generations by now. Once consumption has leveled to the
sustainable growth rate, excess gains can more likely be made through
manipulation.

Centuries of that has ended up supporting very strong plantation-type
economies, often to the destruction of large numbers of a variety of different
species, with human suffering very prominently included.

Continuous removal of wealth from Haiti, mandated long term US-Cuban non-
relationship, and loss of Everglades wildlife by the millions are just some of
the obvious casualties.

You, the consumer make it all possible.

It's not just for sweetening your coffee in the morning.

Now don't get me started on coffee . . .

------
greenspot
White sugar is crack. Highly addictive, creating fidgets who can't focus for 5
minutes chasing the next instant gratification. White sugar and wheat shake up
one's blood sugar like no other.

On the one side, I am wondering that people are still consuming sugar—the last
years more and more news/facts/studies pop up putting sugar in the right
light. On the other side, addicted people usually say about their drugs that
they make them feel good and that they are not addicted and keep consuming.
But one big problem that it's quite hard to resist sugar. It's key ingredient
of most products in a super market.

~~~
whamlastxmas
There is no link between high sugar intake and hyperactivity.

------
davidgerard
Actual title:

A spoonful of sugar: How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU

------
meira
I don't feel very comfortable with this "anti-sugar" campaign. In a recent
past, the villain was fat, now is sugar. I don't think both of them is the
problem, the problem is a life without sports and workout. And sugar is the
best energy source for the brain, as far as I know.

~~~
tomatsu
Fat was made the villain with faulty statistics.

Sugar, on the other hand, is very obviously bad for you. It causes type 2
diabetes, it causes caries, and it also suppresses the feeling of satiety.
Reducing your sugar intake is the easiest way to get into better shape.

Exercise is important, but it won't undo all the damage. E.g. if you heavily
drink and smoke, no amount of exercise will undo that. It's the same with
sugar. Exercise won't undo all those insulin spikes.

It's true that we need glucose, but we need it at a slow and steady rate. We
don't need it at a rate which causes a massive insulin response. If your body
actively combats the amount of sugar in your bloodstream, you apparently
overdid it.

Non-processed food without added sugars is a good way to get a little bit of
sugar over the course of several hours. The absorption rate is delayed by
fibers. That's why fruits are fine while juice isn't.

The big problem with avoiding processed food is that it's really inconvenient.
Cooking, just like exercise, takes time and effort.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _Sugar, on the other hand, is very obviously bad for you_

No, _excess_ sugar is bad for you.

~~~
tomatsu
Given that it's so easy to overshoot your daily sugar budget, you should just
try to avoid sugar in general.

E.g. if you eat some premade pasta sauce and some slices of toast, you're
probably very close to exceeding your budget. So, it would be a good idea to
not have a can of pop or some cookies.

Anyhow, if you only eat veggies and meat, you'll do just fine. The big problem
is the _added_ sugar found in most processed foods.

