Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
70. Because 'high sugar foods' covers a hell of a lot of territory, and is 'fudgeable'.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 05:20 PM
Sep 2014

I think it would be a logistical nightmare to have every single place that sells 'high sugar foods' separate everything out, update their computer systems, and track what is and is not 'high' sugar. Right now, it's pretty simple - anything with alcohol is alcohol, regardless of percentage/proof. Anything with tobacco is tobacco.

But you try to define some arbitrary cut-off and you'll have every food manufacture in the country screaming at Congress, as well as pulling all sorts of tricks to get around it. Is it 'high' based on total amount of sugar per serving, or per sold item? Make the package smaller. Maybe your kids are eating twice the recommended 'serving size', at which point they're eating 'high' even though the product is 'low' and doesn't require an ID. Or maybe the manufacturer simply chops the 'serving size' to skate underneath the 'high' point. Or say you try to make it based on percentage calories from sugars. Fine, the manufacturer shoves in more fats, making it even more unhealthy, but dropping the percentage of calories from sugars.

I'm sorry Feral Child Sep 2014 #1
So you're against cigarette age limits and restaurant health codes too? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #4
You are equating a candy bar to cigarette sales and restaurant health codes? former9thward Sep 2014 #8
Either it's legitimate to regulate business for public health reasons or not. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #13
No the nanny state implies unreasonable regulation. former9thward Sep 2014 #27
But you haven't argued that it's unreasonable. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #33
I did argue that it was unreasonable. former9thward Sep 2014 #45
That's a "gotcha" argument Feral Child Sep 2014 #20
Will I need ID to buy Cocoa Puffs? LittleBlue Sep 2014 #2
"Nanny state" is a thought-terminating cliche. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #5
I don't need an impressive argument LittleBlue Sep 2014 #11
But I'm not talking to "the majority of Americans," or Congress, or food lobbyists. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #14
How many different ways can I put this? LittleBlue Sep 2014 #63
"Nanny state" Boreal Sep 2014 #47
we all bear the costs of the obesity epidemic grasswire Sep 2014 #3
Getting rid of the corn subsidies that led to HFC would be a start. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #6
^This^ jen63 Sep 2014 #9
What I've read is that natural cane sugar induces fewer pancreatic problems True Blue Door Sep 2014 #16
The older I get the more I crave veggies. jen63 Sep 2014 #29
Yep, it does pretty horrible things to people. Like cigarettes, people will eventually realize that. Chathamization Sep 2014 #32
What if we installed little cameras and sensors on everyone? Oktober Sep 2014 #7
Is there a Rand Paul convention going on here that no one warned me about? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #17
It's amazing that everyone who disagrees with your nanny state idea... Oktober Sep 2014 #19
It would be questionable enough to use "nanny-state" rhetoric at all. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #34
Add fox news viewer to the list... Oktober Sep 2014 #50
I'm fine with banning marketing to children ... surrealAmerican Sep 2014 #10
1st paragraph pulled from your ass. 2nd paragraph is elitist tripe. 3rd paragraph is just wrong. Throd Sep 2014 #12
That's an amazing impression of a Tea Party tweet. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #18
Are you always this obnoxious to others Boreal Sep 2014 #48
If you think it sounds extreme, you should watch this documentary: Marr Sep 2014 #15
so we raise children with the idea that breaking the law is bad dembotoz Sep 2014 #21
Not reading the OP before commenting on it: Stupid, stupid, stupid. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #35
We don't need a nanny state badtoworse Sep 2014 #22
We don't need right-wing sockpuppet trolls flooding a Democratic website either. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #36
You're getting your ass handed to you in this thread badtoworse Sep 2014 #55
Classy. IronGate Sep 2014 #67
No. IronGate Sep 2014 #23
Our gov't *SUBSIDIZES* the production of HFCS through our Agriculture policy. Look deeper. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #24
The American diet turned a corner about 7 years ago, without any such regulations. KurtNYC Sep 2014 #25
And a healthy, kickass First Family no doubt has an influence, too! randome Sep 2014 #30
The article's behind a paywall. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #39
it wasn't paywall yesterday but I see it is now KurtNYC Sep 2014 #54
I'd be fine with banning the advertising. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #26
Why would it be going too far? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #38
Because 'high sugar foods' covers a hell of a lot of territory, and is 'fudgeable'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #70
Let's just rip out people's taste buds at birth. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #28
If parents were in the habit of giving kids jen63 Sep 2014 #31
Let's just legalize selling crystal meth to 5-year-olds. Since we don't want a Nanny State. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #37
Now that is one dumbass reply. IronGate Sep 2014 #68
A diabetic child might need that candy bar in an emergency. DebJ Sep 2014 #40
LOL. They might also need a cigarette in an emergency. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #42
Do you have children? I raised two children by myself for twenty years. DebJ Sep 2014 #43
Then by implication you think people whose kids do develop "substance" problems are negligent scum. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #44
You're usiang strawmans Boreal Sep 2014 #49
I'm a Type 1 diabetic who has had about 8 seizures from hypoglycemia LittleBlue Sep 2014 #65
This message was self-deleted by its author DebJ Sep 2014 #41
I say ban advertising not sales. alp227 Sep 2014 #46
It would be more effective to ban high-fructose corn syrup in all foods. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #51
Banning an addictive substance jambo101 Sep 2014 #52
While we are at it.. sendero Sep 2014 #56
I dont like the idea but jambo101 Sep 2014 #59
Anybody... sendero Sep 2014 #60
No. This is ridiculous. RedCappedBandit Sep 2014 #53
Maybe. LWolf Sep 2014 #57
I say yes only because bigwillq Sep 2014 #58
!!! linuxman Sep 2014 #61
Didn't you mean save me from Bloomberg? badtoworse Sep 2014 #62
. linuxman Sep 2014 #64
No. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #66
Interesting. Savannahmann Sep 2014 #69
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ban the sale and advertis...»Reply #70