Patrick, I want you to find me someone who thinks soda is healthy.

The moderation people think you can have soda in moderation in the full context of a healthy diet.

I notice you're unable to find someone who thinks soda is healthy.

There you go. Have you ever heard of Dr Ray Peat, Ph.D. in Biology? The guy says that Coca Cola and Ice Cream are much healthier than whole grains, which isn't saying much but still.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
Some quotes...
Patrick

You all can reprase my question as much as you'd like so that I'm wrong on a question I never asked. But.

If we asked Ray Peat: "Is soda healthy?"

He actually advocates club soda. Does that count ?

Patrick

The Chill Beverage Company.

Actually, the website for this company says that soda is unhealthy.

For those that are straining to understand my point--and since I have be accused of occasional obtuseness--the conversation went like this:



I've heard of the Tyranny of the Majority, and I've heard of Tyranny of the Minority, but there is no catchy phrase like Tyranny of the One. Because Tyranny of the One already has a name. It's called "tyranny".

If a single company can adjudge its own product healthy, and that means it's healthy, over the objection of everyone else, then that's what I would call tyranny. It means that everything is healthy. (Stop me when this sounds enough like a market economy for you.)

Cigarette makers are the only ones who maintain that cigarettes are healthy. That doesn't make them healthy, and science and public policy have proved that they aren't healthy.

There is only one that thinks that Coca-Cola is healthy. Everyone else says it's unhealthy. Currently the vote is about 300 million for unhealthy, and one for healthy.

So, I'll assert that a vote of 300 million to one is conclusive. The people say "unhealthy", and one corporation says "healthy". So it is officially healthy.

You are in fact answering this question: "But who is we?". My point with this question was that the "we" that will figure out what is healthy and what isn't should be clearly defined. If I understand what you are saying, "we" would be everyone and a simple majority would be required to elect something as healthy or not. Right now in Canada, "we" seems to be a comity of "experts" and they alone decides what our policies will consider healthy or not. I think I like your way better.

Some interesting trend can be seen here: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/disp...862291&lang=eng

Of course I am not saying that this comity believes soft drink to be healthy.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securi...cbg-faq-eng.php

At this point, I don't remember why we are having this talk about soft drinks?

Patrick