There’s no point banning sugar
Quote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine...ender-lxnlb62v9 |
Quote:
I don't believe a sugar tax will reduce consumption of sugar by increasing cost, in richer countries like the U.K. We're just not poor enough, taxes would have to be insanely high to mean that very many people couldn't afford a high sugar diet. I do think sugar taxes and talk of sugar taxes keeps people talking about health dangers of sugar though, that might be the real deterrent. It's like raising the penalty for using a cell phone while driving--I don't think anybody anywhere does the math and says, okay, if my license was going to be suspended for 90 days for doing this, but now it's gone to 120 days, driving with a cell phone is no longer worth the risk--that's silly, nobody sits down and does the math. But the increased penalty keeps it in the news, gets people talking about the decreased social acceptability of the practice, etc. Quote:
Nonsense. Pop Tarts are bad food. Unless you just injected too much insulin, or are currently running a marathon, marshmallows have no nutritional value. Trans fats are bad. This article seems sort of "this is hard, and I'm personally fighting a losing battle, and you shouldn't expect or try to to any better than me." Pretty bad as nutritional pep talks go. I think people can and should do better. I know I can't, I know I can't is just as effective as I know I can. |
My sister didn't allow her son to have sugar. He did indulge some when he got into jr high & high school, but he didn't seem to crave sugar or other carbs & he was quite active. No way to know if his lack of craving was nature or nurture.
He's in his 30s now, a chef who likes meat & butter, and he was looking pretty good last time I saw him. |
I if banning sugar is considered a good idear I suggest a similar one and we can make some good munny to run more goverments better; Fine people that go out into the sun without the approved SPF sunscreen.
Banning sugar doesn't really solve any problem, but it will probably create a few... LET THEM EAT CAKE! |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the article was only about banning one's own children from eating it, not having the government do so. That wouldn't be practical anyway. Lots of people - like my husband - have no problem eating it in moderation. Unlike me, he is not diabetic or fat, and doesn't really care all that much for sweet things. |
Written by Candy. Lorraine Candy. Seriously? :lol:
|
Quote:
Sometimes names are destiny. I was about 12 when I found out my initials - BLT - were a sandwich. Tried it & love at first bite! Then I got married & ended up with BS. :lol: |
OK, so sugar is toxic. But has anybody asked how it is toxic? What's-his-name is all over sugar and talks about the liver and such. I'd like to talk about something most pertinent for kids - growth hormone, therefore growth. Sugar causes hyperglycemia, hyperglycemia inhibits growth hormone. Endof.
The article is written in a sort of casual way - sugar? pfft. There's nothing casual about inhibiting kids' growth, unknowingly or not, especially one's own. Let's rephrase - stunted growth? pfft. As an alternative to tax, remove subsidies. Let's see the true cost of sugar then. Do that for wheat and corn while we're at it. Oh, forgot. What's with the "banning sugar"? Who wants to ban sugar? Aren't we talking about tax? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Agreed. People have no idea how heavily subsidized grains and sugar are. I pay for them twice: once so farmers grow it at a profit, and again when everyone gets sick. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:16. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.