I seem to remember another kind of manufacturer saying the same thing. Oh yeah, drug makers, especially the more potent drugs like cocaine and heroine. We know it hurts them, but they want it!

I also seem to remember a favorite marketing tool. Oh yeah, the first one is free! We ain't addicted until we try it once. Then, of course we "demand" it.

At least, the illicit drug pushers don't lie about just how addictive or dangerous that stuff is. I like an honest crook.

On another note, the toxicity of a substance rests with the dose, doesn't it? The dose makes the poison. With hard drugs especially heroine, people used to die from overdoses left and right. Doesn't make sense that somebody who just wants to get high would go so far as to kill himself for that buzz. We figured out that the main cause of overdose was an unreliable or unknown dose. It's just too easy to overdose like that on that stuff. Those particular drug pushers got the message.

But apparently the sugar pushers (and the wheat pushers while we're at it) don't wanna listen. I mean yeah there is some kind of dose control with taxes and official guidelines, but we don't actually know what dose does what over how long. So based on the data available, the only safe dose is none. Of course, the sugar pushers would never say that. Taubes often cites that 70lbs/person/year over 20 years for diabetes and all the other diseases of civilization to appear in any given population. The sugar pushers even cite some obscure study about sugar plantation workers who ate about half their total calories as sugar, and they were just fine (never mind that this doesn't make them look good at all, cuz it means they were paying these people so little they didn't have enough to buy food so they ate the sugar canes as they worked).

I have no problem with drug pushers. What I do have a problem with is all the lies and deceit just to make a buck. False advertising is still a thing. Hold them accountable for that. I promise you it's gonna be more than enough to get the sugar pushers on the straight and narrow (not saying "back on..." cuz they were never on to begin with, ya?). We've done that with the tobacco pushers and it worked real nice. Tobacco is still produced, sold and consumed, but no more lies. On the other hand, tobacco ain't part of the official nutritional guidelines, so meh. So yeah, a substance that is taxable and/or frowned upon cuz it's deemed toxic shouldn't be part of the official nutritional guidelines. I mean, why would we tax something that's deemed bad and which we simultaneously advise to consume as part of a proper diet intended to keep us healthy?