Genuine question, trying to cut out non-fruit based sugars.
When you eat food, it takes your body time to digest it all, so you get a slow and steady blood sugar flow. However, when you eat smoothies, all of that food is already nearly ready to be absorbed, so your blood sugar spikes and it's a tremendous burden on your liver to handle all of that food value all at once. Needless to say, smoothies are really not for diabetics or athletes! This is the number one issue with smoothies. A slow and steady blood sugar / nutrition delivery is better for everything.
Outside of that is the sugar issue. Sugar and sweeteners are in everything and people naturally gravitate towards recipes with sugar in it, whether they realize it or not; maybe you aren't using fruit juice, but now you're sweetening with a ton of bananas, or now carrots, etc. We're just helplessly addicted to it.
A third, less known issue is that fruit now adays has been so domesticated that it really has very little nutritional value (esp compared with its wild cousins). It's right up there with milk on "why are we telling people to eat this" type of FDA questions. If you google "healthy smoothie", all you will see are yummy fruit-based smoothies which really are hardly healthy.
If you are after fiber, there are much better things to eat. So in general, fruit smoothies are just not healthy at all no matter what. The really gross-tasting cross-fit type smoothies full of wheatgrass, kale, and other vegetables are much better for you, but who's going to subject themselves to that kind of punishment; might as well eat a salad, at least there's some fat from the dressing. Regarding fiber specifically, flaxseed and chiaseed can be mixed into just about anything with very little taste effect. Beans and lentils are high in fiber.
Honestly, even a no-sugar fiber drink mix would probably be better for your body as a whole than a smoothie.
I will say that I drink a smoothie as a (post workout) meal 1-2x per week and the ingredient that really alters that composition is almond butter (and quite a bit of it - 1/3 cup or more).
Nut butters, yogurt and oats should be primary ingredients and fruits should be sparingly added just for a bit of flavor (I throw in 8-10 blueberries which is plenty).
Non-starchy non-sugary vegetables should be primary ingredients if you're not looking for a calorie bomb, though it sounds like you are. Let's say you're feeling generous and your almond butter edges up to half a cup. That's over 700 calories before any of your other ingredients.
It's not healthy to eat whole fruit (like bananas and apples) from the local grocery store?
It's also perfectly healthy to eat a ripe banana if you are doing a physical activity, as the insulin spike will likely help your muscles use the sugar and you won't store it.
With the exception that eating high GI carbs/sugar before doing a high intensity activity is not problematic, because it will be consumed directly by the muscles as "fuel" and might even improve performance. But yes otherwise (ie the majority of the time) I agree.
>What about smoothies?...
You can't expect us to just give a blanket answer to that question. Anyone who does give you a blanket answer is full of it. It's all going to depend on what you put in the smoothie.
If you're just mashing together bananas and, say, spinach or blueberries, along with some crushed ice? Well, yeah, that's obviously no different than eating bananas and spinach or blueberries. That's what our teeth have done for millennia... mash up bananas.
But if you're adding sugar filled vanilla milk? (Or vanilla soy milk, or vanilla almond milk, or etc etc etc, you get the picture.) Well, now the whole thing is not that good for you is it? But it's not the bananas, or the spinach, or the blueberries, or the blackberries, or what have you that all of a sudden become bad...
it's the sugary vanilla milk and yogurt that you dumped into the smoothie that makes it bad.
I really can't understand why anyone would put sugar in a smoothie. Blending a banana and a couple of berries tastes already very sweet.
This is a good, overview on the concept: http://time.com/5301984/can-you-eat-too-much-fruit/
Edit: Other commentators posted great resources.
Yes, you do start with whole fruit. But then you stick it into a piece of food processing equipment and process the bajeezus out of it. That seems to have an effect on how your body digests it. One of the noteworthy differences is that it makes it a lot easier for your digestive system to extract the calories from it. So your body's going to see it as a more sugary food than if you hadn't used a machine to pre-digest your food a bit before eating it.
I've also heard tell that liquids just aren't as filling as solids. Meaning that liquefying your food before eating it makes it easier to over-consume.
Except that enzymes from salvia already started digestion.
Advised by whom? You could always chew less.
> I doubt
Why bother doubting or not doubting? People actually study this.
I've no idea how replicable that result is, but I'd still take that over a hypothesis that hasn't been tested at all.
then it's pretty much the same as a "...hypothesis that hasn't been tested at all...".
Some people do study this if you want to dig through papers. Here's one I found after a few seconds of googling: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19110020
* - Worse means different things in different contexts. If you drink a cup of oil, you'll probably get oily diarrhea instead of absorbing the calories. I'm not sure which is worse in that case.
The first recipe I find is 1 banana, 2 cups of strawberries and 1/2 cup of yogurt and a 1/2 cup of milk, resulting in two servings.
I would definitely eat that unsmashed so I imagine the smoothie version is fine, and it's only 200 calories. Still definitely a dessert type snack though.
Sure a glass of orange juice may have "health" benefits like vitamin C or may be good for your heart, but only if we ignore the globs of sugar in it. The liquor industry has to get better PR people. They could be selling vodka and orange juice screwdrivers as a health drink.
It's the power of industry advertising and media. I bet most people today still think fruit juices are healthy and even encourage their children to drink "healthy" juices.
Fruit has sucrose. Sucrose splits into glucose and fructose. Calories and glycemic index aside: glucose good, fructose bad. The fiber in fruit helps block the metabolism of fructose, protecting the liver.
Dr Lustig's video was my intro to this stuff. It's hard to watch, but I haven't read anything yet that contradicts any of it.
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Update: Downvoted for science. Yay! I need something to kick my HN addiction. Stop doing this to myself.
Only with champagne.
I mean if the context was “to deal with a crime we just shoot the accused” I’d get your point.
Not really seeing “put technical details of product on package in a way that is quick and easy to digest” as such a big deal.
So what if it costs Coke sales? Since when do I owe them fealty?
Ah, but from the other comments on fruit juices here we see that "easy to digest" is bad for you, so Coke cares about your brain health! :)
Then they would just make bottles with very wide bases ...
-Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources-
A can of coke have well over 25g
Do they? seems like a weird random number.
I can't find a specific source for a ceiling of 5 g/day, but it's pretty uncontroversial that more added sugar is never better. The lower you set your maximum intake, the harder it is to maintain, since sugar is added to so many foods.
5 g/day is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff that's lower than official recommended maximums, but this doesn't imply that there should be no limit. Pick one. Or start with "as little sugar as practical," log how much sugar you end up consuming under this plan (using a food diary, food scale, etc.), and adjust as needed.
Gatorade for athletes.
> this doesn't imply that there should be no limit.
Who is even claiming these things. :/
I don't know what this means. Are you referring to the manual that came with human existence or are you referring to what the FDA says?
To address your analogy, researchers are in a sense writing the Missing Manual for Humans, as our species didn't come with one.
You're free to accept or refute these recommendations, but I personally am inclined to put at least some trust into their collective efforts. Or if you trust different recommendations more so than these, I'd love to see them.
This mentality coupled with incorrect recommendations helped the trend of "fat free" foods that would be high in sugar, not that long ago either.
I have to say I find your pushback at the term "official" perplexing. Why do you disagree with this descriptor? They're literally official. It doesn't get more official than this. Sure, they're sometimes wrong, as your fat-free reference suggests, but that's beside the point.
It’s an arbitrarily chosen number. Just like most thinking around food and diet, these things are highly influenced by current trends.
Obsessing over arbitrarily specific numbers in your diet is missing the point. Just make a conscious effort to consume sugar in moderation and you’ll be fine.
Sugar is bad for you? Fine. Any given unit of sugar will have worse outcomes than the absence of that sugar? Fair enough.
"Hey, we're reporting 5g as some special, significant threshold that suggests we have actual evidence of things really ramping up at that point that suggests no subjective gain could outweigh the damage to your health, when, in reality, it was just pulled out of thin air"? No. Forget that noise.
It's kind of like the difference between drinking a beer on a full stomach versus an empty stomach.
In this case, 25g of sugar entering your bloodstream quickly is quite unhealthy.
(Related: If you want to understand this better, stop consuming refined sugar for about a month. Then go eat a peep on an empty stomach. You'll feel an intense sugar rush.)
> Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources-
So nutritionists do or don’t agree that it should also include vegetable sources?
Related: I’m T1 diabetic and my partner had to call 911 last week because of hypoglycemia. If I hadn’t consumed 25g of sugar quickly the result would’ve been quite unhealthy.
Starchy vegetables like potato, corn, and peas are nutritionally distinct from non-starchy veggies. But their sugar is packaged with vegetable fibre, which results in slower absorption than if you drank the same amount of sugar in liquid form on an empty stomach.
It feels a bit redundant to point out to a T1D that fruits are far higher in sugar than non-starchy veggies, which is why OP specifically mentioned fruit sources of sugar.
We already have diet soda, yet people choose full sugar.
Edit, the downvotes + comments in reply really tell the story. People don't care if things are unhealthy, if it tastes good, they do it. This exactly reflects the original comment, even if people don't want to hear it.
I will also say that seeing the quantity of sugar in things represented as a pile was definitely a motivator for me to basically stop drinking soda, so there are people out there for whom it matters. At least one, anyway!
"Strange, my smoothie tastes like it has artificial sugar now" I thought, come to find out they're made with Splenda and I couldn't tell before that.
"May be worse" is hard to argue when one has direct, obvious negative effects and the other has a series of much more weakly linked possible results.
people should be encouraged to enjoy soda with real (cane) sugar sparingly, not just switch to slamming diet soda all day instead.
Suggests otherwise, diet soda results in obesity and diabetes at a rate approaching 2:1 when compared to regular.
It turns out that trying to fool our systems with "reduced fat" and "reduced sugar" results in our bodies not being fooled.
The old I am going to order a double quarter pounder with cheese, large fries, and a Diet Coke.
I haven't heard anything about this. Do you have a source? The second item strikes me as the same health reactions non-celiac "gluten sensitives" get.
and for some evidence: https://www.drugs.com/sfx/sorbitol-side-effects.html
We already have science that shows diet sodas increase diabetes and obesity almost 2 for 1 (through calorie) craving and are in many ways worse (calcium malabsorption) than high fructose corn syrup.
Then we have you ignoring the science, and saying just choose diet soda.
A study analysing 36000 deaths and 3 million person-years (published by the American Heart Association) found a 21% increase in all cause mortality among those consuming 2 or more sugar sweetened beverages per day. Consuming 2 or more artificially sweetened beverages, on the other hand, was associated with only a 4% increase. And moderate consumtion of artificially sweetened beverages (< 2 per day) was actually, unlike sugar, associated with decreased mortality. 
To me these warnings are a way to say “we are doing something “ but I doubt they really have an effect.
Considering how messed up American eating habits are
I have no idea how they could be changed.
However, I do find that actual data does influence my behavior. I’ve been particularly surprised at how much calorie information published on restaurant menus impacts my decisions.
So, rather than a general warning that will be so widely published that it’ll be ignored, give me more data. If you can make the data visual, even better.
For example, you’ll note on food labels that the sugar is represented in grams, but there’s no associated percentage like there is for the other items on the label. When you show me that this bottle of Coke contains double what I should consume for an entire day I think that will help me and will also incentivize manufactures to think more about the sugar content they add.
Values for the general public should be in the units the general public uses for those things.
Then it's rendered useless for at a glance. The only thing that seems to survive as intended is the colour coding.
A bar of chocolate might have a "portion size" of 8 squares, but give daily amounts and percentage thereof based on 4 or 2 squares. Presumably so they can avoid having to state that a portion is 235% of some recommended daily amount.
Some portion sizes are ridiculous - like half a can or bottle where most would drink all. The "traffic light" sizes are equally ridiculous, but very often different. Both are often different to the amount most regular folks would eat or drink.
We dont really understand proper nutrition yet. Recommendations are constantly changing, what used to be good is now bad, and vice versa. Companies just need to continue telling us what is in our food, and let us do our best.
Adding a percentage based statistic wont help because daily intake stats are wide guesses at best, and most people dont care anyway.
The most effective way to teach nutrition is by cooking. When people can see what is going into their food, they naturally use less. Also, try changing your diet a bit, and feel how it effects your mood. Other than that, if someone wants to make bad decisions, thats their choice. There is no need for these aggressive campaigns against sugar like the sugar line proposed above.
If the calorie info makes you choose a salad over a plate of fried food covered in grease it is 100% doing its job.
Admitadly I may have a bias as i am not overweight, and my interest is in being healthy rather than loosing weight.
Still I have found that it gives you enough of a heuristic to be effective when you do pay close attention. (Source: I lost 100 lbs over 18 months)
It may have been one of Jason Fung's youtube videos - he is an MD and big proponent of intermittent fasting. (As a side not intermittent fasting has been used to reverse type 2 diabetes. Lack of insulin sensitivity would seems to be a big problem).
I did find this reference to a more qualitative but I think still useful study: https://www.foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2019/02/20/Chile...
These articles, from what I consider some reputable sources cite the study (in Spanish), which original version I could not find:
Agreed, it's easy to become desensitized. That said, I would have otherwise not been aware of the issue at all! So the labels do help (me) with general awareness. And although I can't always avoid it, I'm now on the lookout for furniture made without these types of chemicals. I would have been clueless sans warning.
Big box restaurants here have to post calorie counts on their menus, and while I still can't believe my favourite burger combo is over 2400 calories (lunch), and
I can't resist most of the time, it's got me thinking. Like maybe once per week, and then go for something not so heavy on the calories.
A counter point article I just read - graphic health warnings on cigarette packages losing their impact, study shows:
But they did / still do have an impact.
Like acrylamide, which has landed every restaurant a prop 65 warning because it is present in literally all baked goods and also coffee.
Imagine a warning label: this product known to cause global warming in a test environment ....
If we 'trusted' all prop 65 warnings, nobody would ever enter a building, as all of them have that warning tag on them somewhere.
It seems very likely that the warnings will work to some extent based on existing packaging. Anything that can be considered "healthy", even for the most dubious and small health claims, has it written on the front in big bold letters. That would imply that what goes on the packet does influence the consumer. It's possible that positive messaging has a greater impact than negative messaging, but that's something that would need studying.
Considering how messed up American eating habits are I have no idea how they could be changed.
Putting warnings on things and measuring the change would be a great place to start.
From what I see people see the warnings and calories counts and they know that these foods are not good. But they really don’t seem to know how to eat right. I hear stuff like “You don’t get enough protein from vegetarian food” or they think eating be an appetizer plus a full dinner is healthy as long as it’s organic. Or they eat baked potato chips instead of fried. The perception of what the body needs is so far from reality that it will be really hard to change.
"Not for sale in California" is basically a marketable feature when it comes to any chemical that you expect to be nasty and bad for your health in the first place (like paints and cleaning products).
Spot on. All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish? Another warning label? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole. Literally.
Not exactly Sophie's choice, I don't think.
I cannot understand your problem at all, except that a government agency has placed certain restrictions on a certain type of product packaging, which seems entirely non-controversial to me.
Are they happy the product they buy tells them they are going to have a gruesome medical condition?
And do you smoke? And do you advocate for the same imagery on products also associated to gruesome conditions but products you use, like computers, cars, food, buildings, government, etc?
Maybe it should only apply to companies which have engaged in fraudulent IFR.
How about having to put a picture of a pregnant woman being run over on the hood of every tesla, to remind about the murderous and gruesome reality of the manslaughters of the autoindustry?
The difference is not the product, its the popular sentiment that legitimizes a terrible overreach of state power.
The discussion of whether the use of state power to regulate products is appropriate is a potentially lengthy political discussion that isn't worth starting here.
No. Cigarettes have no positive purpose. They are 100% negative and a society is well served by discouraging their use.
Everything you listed has a positive purpose with the mere potential of being misused.
Uses it: don't punish
Similarly, you can usually plot people's feelings on cigarettes with:
Addicted: rationalizes their use
Not Addicted: doesn't rationalize their use
The fact that it is illegal for children is what is going to give them the most appeal.
It reminds me of the Real(TM) milk brand. They spent decades lobbying against organic dairy and specialty cheese producers, so the label is now synonymous with “processed fake crap”, at least in my mind.
I’m sure some reputable dairy producers in the US apply the Real logo to their product, but I don’t give their products a second glance at the store.
This is basically a type of pro health advertising. We have anti smoking advertising which has shown to be effective (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/australias-plain-pack...).
I think with a good advertisement strategy it can be very effective.
Many stores just have blanket warnings that most products they sell cause cancer and contain bpa.
They're actually getting better, but the government will probably take credit for that like usual.
It doesn’t really matter as long as things are improving. Go ahead and credit the free market if it makes you feel better.
People generally don't respond well to nagging.
The problem is that unnatural sweeteners produce a similar insulin response as sugar, and also disrupt gut biota. We need to restrict sweeteners overall.
As an addendum, if you're looking to lose fat, consume zero sugar: no sweets, no juice, no sweeteners, no added sugar in anything - is the most effective way to do it. You will have to inspect the labels of any processed food you buy though.
Reverting takes about 1 week.
My TLDR: It's super hard to avoid comfort food while in pain. Now that I've experienced this cause & effect a few times, I'm hoping to learn better strategies.
Has this been demonstrated in humans? I've heard this many times before but have been unable to find any human studies to support it, and the mice studies I've seen often use ludicrously high dosages of the sweeteners.
Here is a brief survey of studies showing the effect in humans:
imo a big problem with these kinds of studies is the huge number of confounding factors. They tend to be studies that select participants who report drinking diet soda and those who report not drinking it, without taking into the account the fundamental lifestyle differences between the two. This is also why I'm interested in specific, measurable things that are known to cause problems, such as insulin response.
It is very common for overweight people to replace sugary soda with diet soda without making any other lifestyle changes. It is unsurprising that this doesn't yield positive results over the long-term. People who report drinking no soda, diet or otherwise, are likely already leading healthier lifestyles than those who report drinking diet soda regularly. Without controlling for these factors properly all that's really being said is that "healthier lifestyles are better for controlling weight".
I agree that diet soda is probably worse than no soda, but I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that diet soda is worse than sugary soda when consumed in otherwise identical diets.
The article you link doesn't say that. First, almost nothing in it even talks about real sugar. Second, it specifically starts with in the first paragraph "doesn’t prove that diet drinks and artificial sweeteners cause weight gain" and then goes on to have more paragraphs of speculation on correlation. But nothing mentioned in that article demonstrates a causal effect, and definitely not more than equivalent sugar. There's a lot of "may be" and "may cause" in there. Emphasis on may.
I've never read anything to contradict this. I have no idea what the state of the art is today.
Also, I do know it'd be a mistake to generalize insulin response across non-diabetic, type 1, and type 2 people.
Black coffee? Pretty healthy, just water and caffeine. 0 calories. 0g sugar. 0g sodium.
A Starbucks "White Chocolate Mocha"? 530 calories, 320mg of sodium, 69g of sugar per 20 oz "Venti" serving. That's twice as many calories as a 20 oz Coke, with twice as much sodium, and higher sugar levels.
Nobody is defending soda here. Just pointing out, this good idea needs to be applied consistently or people will switch from "unhealthy" soda to "healthy" coffee drinks or "healthy" fruit juices both of which can have scary-high sugar too.
I like the "color code" system they have in Europe. You buy a soda and it has a red warning on the sugar/salt levels.
It looks like Seattle has a similar exemption: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fancy-lat...
Exemptions like these make me pause, I can see the point of such a law (though I'm libertarian and not in favor) but when exemptions like that are made I find it hard to take seriously. If the state was concerned with sweetened beverages they would apply the same measures to all of them. Taxing or applying warning labels to soda alone strikes me as a classist move as if the lower classes are too dumb to read the nutrition information.
So how precise do you need it to be? 0, 1, <5, or -1, -5 calories? Or is this just pedantic nitpicking?
Calorie has a pretty specific definition. What makes you feel like the scientific definition doesn't work for you?
I do in fact drink black coffee in a fasted state and if it had 5 calories (which I don't believe it does) I would choose not to ...
This is the longest possible order you could order at Starbucks. Once you have ordered this, you cannot order anything larger.
However, you could probably add “half syrup” modifiers or something. “In my personal reusable insulated starbucks mug” has a lot of characters in it.
Also I don’t see the words nitro or blonde in there.
Remember the poor person at the counter can accept more modification requests than the app.
Keep working on it. :-)
we should also start labeling fruits. because sugar.
if you ask me this is a bit ridiculous. If you don't get that soda/soft-drinks aren't exactly good for you a warning is not going to help you.
Agreed! Also would like to see full health warnings for each of the non-sugar sweeteners, colors, preservatives, etc.; anything with studies showing it's bad.
I'd like to be able to debate the fundamental merits of labelling and public-interest laws like this. But in practice I just end up opposing them because they're reliably full of stupid loopholes and special-interest favoritism.
1. Worst case scenario - no sugary drinks are labeled
2. Partial progress - Some sugary drinks are labeled (Soda)
3. Full progress - All sugary drinks are labeled.
I wouldn't try to slow the momentum by fighting 2 if 3 is the ultimate goal.
On a tangential note, these cancer risk warnings should not be binary. They should have a risk value or class. Asbestos class 1, smoking/air pollution 1, new carpet outgassing 3, drinking beer 4, etc. so people have an idea if a risk is tolerable or not. Otherwise it’s just a kind of waiver/risk indemnification for the one putting up the warning.
Why? (By the by, he started his career as a lawyer for a major farmworkers union. Draw your own conclusions.)
That's kind of insane.
The "health advice" I received in school was clearly geared towards the promotion of high carbohydrate foods and sugars while villainizing macronutrients like dietary fat and cholesterol. Every school I attended sold processed snack foods and sugary drinks. My elementary school sold cinnamon rolls floating in a bath of glaze, and they were cheap. Periods of outdoor activity were no more than half an hour, and we were discouraged from running because it was "dangerous". We were never taught how to interpret the Nutrition Facts on food labels, or about net carbs, the insulin response, etc. As I mentioned in a recent thread about skipping breakfast, we actually had industry shills come in and promote breakfast as the "most important meal of the day" while encouraging us to eat plenty of fruits and "slow carbs". Nobody ever told me that, once you gain fat, the fat swells and shrinks but doesn't go away and results in saggy skin if you lose a lot of weight. In fact, consequences to anything were rarely taught, except when it came to passing tests. This was Californian education in a wealthy town.
Education isn't a panacea, but in it's current form, it's a joke. Labels will cause some people to take sugar more seriously, yet we could be doing so much more by admitting that we've failed children for generations. Year after year, it's excuses from politicians, school boards, and parents. Health warnings on food is just duct tape.
I've been out of the public education system for 12 years, so maybe things have vastly improved since then? Someone please tell me so.
When I bring this up either on HN or offline, my argument is ridiculed for being reductive, and yet nobody denies that the education system badly needs improvement or that education plays a role in the development of young minds.
I want people to be warned about the dangers of sugar intake, but if we're not going to give people the tools to help themselves in the first place, then these warnings serve to infantilize the public for the sake of cost savings.
According to at least a study, consumption of soft drinks high in sugar decreased by 25% in about 2 years.
The sellers tried to avoid having the warnings so they decreased their sugar levels in their foods as well, or had them replaced them by sweeteners instead.
Is the citizen subdued to the state, or does the state work for the citizen?
The only difference I see is that the government has your best interest in mind (ostensibly, of course, don't mistake me for thinking it really does). Advertisers do not.
I'm much less free to choose whether I comply with the government, whose power to modify behavior is ultimately derived from the threat of men with guns coming to lock me in a concrete cell.
Advertising is memetic pollution but I'll still take it any day, every time over government compulsion; the equivocation of the two is ludicrous.
Advertising, however, survives only because it finds the people interested in the products. When the government does it, it survives on people that pay for it at the risk of going to jail. The standard of what government can do is infinitely higher, because it can do something against everyone and do it forever.
At the end they are not more than a warning, it's not like they are forbidden.
There is a case against advertising and consent, but the label is absolutely against consent. You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do.
It's probably not the best idea to tell people what they will and will not do. A more accurate phrasing would have been:
> I would never pay someone to tell me not to do something I want to do.
That aside, I definitely would tell the state to warn me about things I want to do, if there's a good basis behind that warning. I would also pay the state to tell others who may have not had made the time/effort to research it.
This isn't limited to the state. People often pay professionals who in turn advise them not to do what they want to do - lawyers, nutritionists, doctors, therapists, tax professionals, real estate professionals, etc.
Um, no? That's kind of the purpose of having a state.
As long as they don't prevent that behavior: No. In this particular case, they're not even adding a tax.
There's a long history of the state doing it in more draconian ways (fines for seatbelts, non-functioning lights etc). Fines in some cities for not maintaining the lawn.
Most people are in favor of some of these, and not for others.
How do you eliminate the conflict of interest between the people that run the state and the behavior they want to imprint in society?
Great, another thing everyone will ignore. Literally nobody pays attention to these warning labels. And further, the more things get labelled, the less trust and confidence people put in existing labels.
Every single Starbucks in California has a sign somewhere warning you that their coffee causes cancer. Does this make people drink less coffee? Or does it just make people ignore experts when they say things cause cancer?
A wholesome and mindful diet will change you as a human being. I'm perplexed as to how a country as big as the USA is living in the "stone age of food".
I've had great success this year to cut out refined sugar entirely. I have stopped adding it to my coffee, too. And let me tell you, the withdrawal symptoms are not nice.
blah blah blah "known by the state of California to cause cancer" blah blah blah
signs above the door...
Their addictiveness and dangerousness is under-estimated. It isn't quite smoking tiers bad, but if it was ranked it would likely be the next one down below smoking/vaping in terms of having a negative larger social impact (with drug use being above smoking of course).
> After reviewing the current studies surrounding the risks tied to energy drinks, researchers concluded that they might be associated with a wide-ranging slew of health problem. You might already know that energy drinks can screw with your sleep, make you gain weight, or even spike your blood pressure. But overarching evidence suggests they may lead to substance abuse, mental health problems, a higher diabetes risk, tooth decay, and kidney damage, too.
(Note that artificial sweeteners are probably worse for weight gain than sugar, not sure what you mean by 0 sugar...)
Also, when I really get deep in my "addiction" to diet sodas it's hard to break out, water becomes so boring.
Apparently aside from the nasty chemicals, they still trigger an insulin response which makes your blood glucose crash and makes you crave sweet, fatty foods.
To provide some real data to the discussion, a study analysing 36000 deaths and 3 million person-years (published by the American Heart Association) found a 21% increase in all cause mortality among those consuming 2 or more sugar sweetened beverages per day. Consuming 2 or more artificially sweetened beverages, on the other hand, was associated with only a 4% increase. And moderate consumtion of artificially sweetened beverages (< 2 per day) was actually, unlike sugar, associated with decreased mortality. 
The way sweeteners are discussed in relation to sugar is often fear-mongering and disconnected from reality. It's like equating a sewing needle to a gun because the needle might also theoretically be dangerous in some circumstances.
The only thing that works is increased prices or laws to restrict public use.
We know this from years of alcohol and tobacco policy.
If we want to change people's behaviours we need to tax soda and fruit juices.
Oh yes the warnings do indeed work its part. My kids are terrified of the warnings that appear on my wife's cigarettes, and they bully her mercilessly whenever she smokes, to the point that it is reducing her usage a good deal.
Of course, warnings alone are not enough. But they are necessary. I hope in a few years all sugary beverages will have scary warnings with pictures of caries; just as tobacco has today.
The mark of a successful policy, turning kids against their mother.
It's actually the opposite. The kids are very much for the well-being of their mother, and they are honestly worried that she may get ill.
Debates about the negative impact of synthetic sweeteners aside, they taste bloody awful, so now most of my favourite childhood treats are dead to me.
"heh, they put this ridiculous warning of everything, bunch of p..." will be said very, very often, and then disregarded altogether.
It's a good starting point, at least, but we need more. But I can't figure out a way that will make people do better decisions for their health AND leave it entirely up to them. Both of those conditions can't hold in the same time, as far as I can see.
Until then, localities should tax and thwart soda and juice as though they are killing us, just like tobacco and alcohol.
How can an individual smoke 20 cigarettes a day and voluntarily consume known carcinogens?
- It is addictive
- It feels good/gives you a buzz
You compared it to the tobacco industry in the 60s/70s, which I agree with, but then your thought process immediately disconnected the two when you asked why people over-consume: the same exact reasons.
If manufacturers start sneaking sweeteners in to avoid the label, this will probably do more harm than good.
I still don't want the government messing with nutrition. It's track record with that is just awful and there is no reason to think it's going to get better.
Politicians please do it as Hippocrates said:
"First do no harm"
Before you ban, label or tax sugar you have to get your house in order: Stop distorting the food market with subsidies and stop giving people wrong information (Food pyramid etc).
Harvard has an even better one: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-...
Also, the food pyramids and plates are from the USDA, the federal government. Not a state government like sugar warnings are coming from. So you're talking to two different organizations when you say "before you label sugar, fix the food pyramid".
"Generations of Americans are accustomed to the food pyramid design, and it’s not going away. In fact, the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate complement each other."
This is not tenable for politicians. Bodies are by default healthy, and have enormous powers of self-repair. A do-nothing bias works in favor of that.
Politicians, though, mostly resolve questions of competing interest. A do-nothing bias in politics means yielding to short-term thinking, special interests, and the desires of the powerful. Sugar's a great example, in that it's generally harmful but specifically very profitable, so left unchecked we'll get a suboptimal societal outcome while enriching people who unnecessarily put sugar in food.
And it is tempting to put restrictions on others that don't affect you.
To the people that downvote sisu: how about a warning label, always visible, on every social-website, this included, that extended computer time is bad for your health?