Achtung – sugar must be banned

November 5th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Yeah I know I am Godwining myself, but I couldn’t help it.

Check out the website Fizz. They aim to ban all soft drinks in New Zealand with in them!!

We are a group of researchers and public health doctors who have come together to advocate for ending the sale of sugar sweetened beverages (sugary drinks) from New Zealand.

I’m all for informing people that drinking 10 litres of Coke a day isn’t the best idea in the world. But when these lobbyists start trying to ban things, that’s when they become health n***s.  They just do not think we as adult individuals should be allowed to make choices for ourselves.

Personally I don’t drink many sugary beverages, but fuck it if I want to have a glass of fanta at a birthday party, then who the hell are they to say this should be banned.

Dr Sundborn is also planning a conference in which experts will share their views about the harm from excess sugar intake and propose strategies to eliminate the products from sale in New Zealand.

They just never stop. I can accept public health arguments over supply and marketing of tobacco as that is quite unique. But the problem is they use the precedents from tobacco, and then try to apply it to alcohol, then sugary drinks, and then no doubt chocolate easter eggs one day.

We believe that sugary drinks are likely to be addictive, like coffee, alcohol and cigarettes

Coffee will be next on their hit list!

Their about section on the website is blank, but I bet you bottom dollar that 95% of them are on the taxpayer payroll, and our taxes are paying for this little lobby group – directly or indirectly. Their symposium appears to be funded by Auckland and Otago universities.

I have no problem with research into the ill effects of too much sugar. Don’t even have a problem with some educational programmes. But when they advocate for the banning of foods and drinks they disagree with, that is when the taxpayer should say we’re not paying the bill. Looks like the Health Research Council is also funding this symposium which aims to ban soft drinks from New Zealand. Outrageous.

 

Tags: , ,

52 Responses to “Achtung – sugar must be banned”

  1. Engineer (75 comments) says:

    But when they advocate for the banning of foods and drinks they disagree with, that is when the taxpayer should say we’re not paying the bill..

    Certainly not for banning outright. But the costs to the taxpayer of type 2 diabetes and other health issues related to obesity must surely be considered.

    The thing is kids are kids and they are the targets for an onslaught of campaigns to get them to eat unhealthy foods – from the manufacturers of these products.

    So how can one object to some money spent in the other direction to counter this –for the overall public good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Fentex (1,134 comments) says:

    I can accept public health arguments over supply and marketing of tobacco as that is quite unique.

    By what standard? How does one rationalise being incensed by suggestions of restrictions on one supposedly dangerous good and not another?

    There’s a theory called the Overton window that posits what people accept or deplore is a moving target gradually shifted by changing attitudes and activism over time which makes many claims of principled opposition merely culturally located opinions that may shift (recent changes in attitudes to same sex marriage being a good example).

    Is a willingness to accept regulation of Tobacco but not sugar just an accident of timing and not really a principled position at all? Shouldn’t the concerned supporter of individual liberty demand both be freely available vices for everybody?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    This is what happens when you have tax payer funded health systems.

    In order to access perceived security in supply of health services we have to give up so much freedom.

    Is it worth it?

    Depends on what you value most- security or liberty?

    We have raised generations who do not even know what the latter option means. Naturally they will go for this kind of statist bullshit. Its all they know.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    They won’t stop (any of the bastards) because, as yesterday when Brownlie announced yet another curtailment of people’s freedom, the bloody government keeps giving in to the bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. anonymouse (705 comments) says:

    Oh great its Boyd Swinburn again, Whale has a file on this guy as long as your arm,

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/search/?q=boyd+swinburn#axzz2jjmdSdFA

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/09/trougher-year/#axzz2jjmdSdFA

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    First word GET
    Second word…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rightandleft (691 comments) says:

    This is the kind of nonsense I expect from Bloomberg and his nanny state cronies. The problem is those on the left have a very low opinion of people in general and feel they need constant state intervention to protect them from themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    coffee is proven by many studies to have positive health effects.

    I agree that sugar is almost like a poison — but a delicious one that should never be banned :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Fletch (6,523 comments) says:

    I don’t have many vices, but Coke (Cola) is one of them. Not your sugar-free stuff, mind you; I’m talking about the full monty, all-sugar stuff. I know it’s bad for me, but I’m damned if I’m going to let some health nuts ban it because they think it’s bad.

    What happened to their “anyone can do what they want personally as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” mantra? Don’t like Coke, don’t drink it, they’d say.

    That’s how we got smacking banned in NZ; because Sue Bradford and company didn’t like it and wanted it banned. This says more about Bradford than it does about anyone else. A guilty conscience, perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. woodburner (30 comments) says:

    User pays healthcare (Puts on crash helmet). If I want to be a coke-swilling unhealthy beast sitting on my couch all day mainlining big macs, then that is my right. I should then also be prepared to pay a premium for the additional healthcare that this lifestyle requires…

    But no to a sugar tax!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fletch (6,523 comments) says:

    As I posted the other day – a quote by Thomas Sowell –

    “What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.” ~ Thomas Sowell

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (14,167 comments) says:

    It’s only a matter of time: either a socialist Labour or quasi-socialist National government will acquiesce these petty tyrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Lowest common denominator – yes, there are some people too stupid to realise that much sugar is going to cause serious health problems if continued for a lengthy period.

    It’s the same old issue DPF – you are intelligent, and you believe that the rest of the community can and does have the ability to think like you do. They don’t – for every person with an IQ above 100, there is one below – which would probably equate to a quarter lacking the intellectual capability to work out the correlation between their dietary and lifestyle habits and their increased health issues.

    Should the rest of us continually be legislated against because we can work it out?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    “It’s only a matter of time: either a socialist Labour or quasi-socialist National government will acquiesce these petty tyrants.”

    Yep, and when National do it, they will say-

    “Well, Labour would only have done it anyway when they get in, so what we have done is passed a slightly less restrictive law so really you should be grateful.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dave_c_ (225 comments) says:

    Who gives these nutcases the oxygen of publicity – They who do, are the real villains here !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Interesting you mention coffee DPF – I’ve been saying for years that I fully expect that by the time I’m an old man, do-gooders will probably have made coffee drinking into the outcast, filthy habit that smoking is now, and I’ll have to do it in some ostracised leper line somewhere.

    F##k you do-gooders I won’t do what you tell me :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Fletch – don’t drink any of that zero sugar shit.

    The do-gooders never want to talk about how bad most “artificial sweeteners” are, oh no…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch (6,523 comments) says:

    RRM, yeh I was going to mention that; sugar-free soda is probably worse for you than full sugar drinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    They’ve denormalised and almost criminalised tobacco,they’re working on booze and now it’s sugar.

    All the while the movement to normalise cannabis gathers a pace!

    “Progressive” agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Grendel (1,013 comments) says:

    The world of Judge Dredd is supposed to be a farcical parody of statist domination gone wrong, not a fucking blueprint!

    they banned sugar, coffee etc as well.

    i have no problem with any individual deciding that X is unhealthy so they wont have any of it, but its very worrying when that changes to X is unhealthy so i wont have any, and i must make sure no one else can.

    stay the fuck out of my life.

    and dont give me this whine about marketing to children, be a fucking parent and tell your kids no! all the marketing in the world can’t do shit when you dont let your kids have any.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    consuming more than 400ml’s a day of diet soft drinks will greatly reduce weight loss.

    thats Dimes tip of the day.

    now, back to my kebab and coke.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dai (11 comments) says:

    Ok

    So let’s get rid of the speed limit, alchohol per mil, cannabis ban and so on and so forth. Let’s not be selective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikemikemikemike (334 comments) says:

    Are you making a Nazi reference? Isn’t that against everything you stand against? I think I can recall numerous faux-outrage blog posts from you every time a left-leaning polly compares the Nats to Adolf and his mates.

    Insert fist thumping statement of malcontent here

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Peter (1,694 comments) says:

    fuck it if I want to have a glass of fanta at a birthday party, then who the hell are they to say this should be banned

    I did laugh out loud at that bit. I’m not quite sure why.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Steve (North Shore) (4,536 comments) says:

    Let’s just BAN the banning nutbars

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    I can’t support banning soft drinks.

    But I see no reason why they shouldn’t be taxed to discourage their consumption (as with alcohol, people wanting to avoid the taxes can make their own sugary concoctions).

    There’s something profoundly wrong with a market that delivers a markedly lower price for soft-drinks than bottled water. Especially when both products often come from the same factories e.g. Pump water and other Coca-Cola Amatil bottled water brands.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dog_eat_dog (785 comments) says:

    Sweet! The medication I receive with sweetener in the flavouring will have to be banned too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Engineer (50) Says:
    November 5th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    So how can one object to some money spent in the other direction to counter this –for the overall public good.

    Your nuts are at the door where you left them .

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    gump (964) Says:
    November 5th, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Lets tax fuck wits,I see no reason why they shouldn’t be taxed to discourage their existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    @gump: I’m pretty sure that water isn’t more expensive than soft drink. It’s just _bottled water_ that’s more expensive. Which gives a tip as to what the cost is in soft drinks – it’s not the sugar/flavour, it’s the cost of the bottle, trucking a full bottle around the countryside, and margin/markup at the retail outlet and various middlemen. Filling a reusable bottle from the tap is essentially free.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. redeye (633 comments) says:

    kowtow @ 5:39 pm
    ” They’ve denormalised and almost criminalised tobacco,they’re working on booze and now it’s sugar.

    All the while the movement to normalise cannabis gathers a pace!

    “Progressive” agenda.

    They can’t have it both ways eh. Neither can you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. OneTrack (3,354 comments) says:

    “There’s something profoundly wrong with a market that delivers a markedly lower price for soft-drinks than bottled water. ”

    No there isnt anythng wrong with the market! They produce a product and they set a price to maximise their profit. If the price is too high, nobody buys it. If its too low, then it isnt worth selling it.

    Its not rocket science (imho :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Take my cold mid-morning Friday blue V bottle from my cold dead hands, motherfuckers

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Eight shots of Scotch in my breakfast glass of Coke seems to have saved me from any deleterious effects so far! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. KevinH (1,253 comments) says:

    Education, education, education. The public needs to made aware of the possible health consequences of over consumption of high sugar content drinks. This can be achieved by labelling said products with health warnings, similar to tobacco. To be informed is to be aware.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lucia Maria (2,651 comments) says:

    They banned sugar in the Judge Dredd comics. (My husband’s a fan).

    I wish they’d look at wheat as the hybridised stuff we have now is poison. Far worse than sugar. Might help with our obesity problem too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I think it’s just the boots he fancies Lucia! :)

    https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=judge+dredd&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Gph4UqpiyeyUBebvgKgH&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1105&bih=600#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=5iD5BEZ4S0cTGM%3A%3BTi8Ra4t-TGCZWM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bleedingcool.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F08%252Fjudge-dredd.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bleedingcool.com%252Fforums%252Fcomic-book-forum%252F46112-swipe-file-judge-dredd-real-life.html%3B350%3B525

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. James Stephenson (2,266 comments) says:

    Just as long as it’s Bell’s and not anything decent Johnboy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. gander (90 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (4,584) Says:
    November 5th, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    “Lets tax fuck wits,I see no reason why they shouldn’t be taxed to discourage their existence.”

    But the the government would become dependent on there being ever-increasing numbers of fuckwits.

    Oh, wait. . .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Banning drinks with sugar in them – bloody stupid.
    What’s next? Banning fudge? Banning chocolate? Banning all biscuits?

    These scumbags should “butt out” and leave us to make our own decisons, for better or worse. If I want to buy a packet of delicious biscuits, no “health nazi” is going to stop me. If anything, I’ll buy *two* just to spite the bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay

    ““Lets tax fuck wits,I see no reason why they shouldn’t be taxed to discourage their existence.”

    ——————-

    We are already taxing fuckwits through a number of mechanisms.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fletch (6,523 comments) says:

    Part of the problem is that of society loosening the rules at one end (less discipline for children at school and at home) so then they have to tighten it up at the other end via government fiat when the results of that original freedom produce the (not unexpected) outcomes they do.

    Better to fix the problem at the source rather than trying to clean up at the other end.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Meatloaf (275 comments) says:

    This is absolutely ridiculous. Just when we behaved ourselves with drink driving, they then give us a sugar tax lecture. And before all of this, they had an anti-smoking campaign. By being effective on alcohol and cigarettes, they then think we shouldn’t have sugar. Another thing that bothers me about this, is I like to go to Subway. But because Subway is so expensive, I can only go their occassionally. If they were to tax burgers or sugar, I would have less money for Subway. Finally I go for extremely long walks of 6 hours or so every 2nd week. So the fact that I have a can of pepsi on the way, doesn’t bother me, cause I’m burning it off. What I’m saying is a sugar tax or sugar ban, doesn’t take the individual into consideration. Finally some people are of the opinion that artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar, and don’t stop the cravings. This is my biggest objection, the alternative could be far worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Longknives (4,953 comments) says:

    Evil Coke and evil Fanta must surely be banned. Kids love juiced Lentils and mungbeans just as much…
    Mmmm Lentils!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Left Right and Centre (3,007 comments) says:

    Cunts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Manolo (14,167 comments) says:

    The greatest threat to the future of our nation, to our freedom, is not foreign military aggression but the growing dependence of the people on a paternalistic government. A nation is no stronger than its people and the best measure of their strength is how they accept responsibility.

    There will never be a great society unless the materialism of the welfare state is replaced by individual initiative and responsibility.

    Charles B. Shuman

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    This is just the start folks, should the dirty stinking Greens be a part of the next government we can expect a lot of this.

    1.Ban fizzy drinks from schools
    2.Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
    3.Ban all gaming machines in pubs
    4.Ban the GCSB
    5.Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
    6.Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
    7.Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
    8.Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
    9.Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
    10.Ban field testing on production of GE food
    11.Ban import of GE food
    12.Ban Urban Sprawl
    13.Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
    14.Ban further corporate farming
    15.Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
    16.Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
    17.Ban crates for sows
    18.Ban battery cages for hens
    19.Ban factory farming of animals
    20.Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
    21.Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
    22.Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
    23.Ban cloning of animals
    24.Ban use of animals in GE
    25.Ban GE animal food
    26.Ban docking of dogs tails
    27.Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
    28.Ban smacking
    29.Ban advertising during children’s programmes
    30.Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
    31.Ban coal mining
    32.Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
    33.Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
    34.Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
    35.Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
    36.Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
    37.Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
    38.Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
    39.Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
    40.Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
    41.Ban any additional use of coal for energy
    42.Ban fixed electricity charges
    43.Ban further large hydro plants
    44.Ban nuclear power
    45.Ban further thermal generation
    46.Ban private water management
    47.Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
    48.Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
    49.Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
    50.Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
    51.Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
    52.Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
    53.Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
    54.Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
    55.Ban food irradiation within NZ
    56.Ban irradiated food imports
    57.Ban growth hormones for animals
    58.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
    59.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
    60.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
    61.Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
    62.Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
    63.Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
    64.Ban new casinos
    65.Allow existing casinos to be banned
    66.Ban promotion of Internet gambling
    67.Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
    68.Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
    69.Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
    70.Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
    71.Ban new prisons
    72.Ban semi-automatic weapons
    73.Ban genetic mixing between specieis
    74.Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
    75.Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
    76.Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
    77.Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
    78.Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
    79.Ban new urban highways or motorways
    80.Ban private toll roads
    81.Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
    82.Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
    83.Ban landfills
    84.Ban new houses without water saving measures
    85.Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. jcuk (756 comments) says:

    What people do with their disposable income is their right and one of the freedoms we enjoy in this country … you argue against the sensible ban of sugary drinks and couple it with a sob story about people wasting taxpayer’s money which they gainfully earn and then are free to spend in any manner …. you cannot have it both ways …. in any case you do not need to have fattening sugar to make a drink or anything appear to be sweet …. I use sacharine in my tea and coffee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    According to Coca Cola Amatil, though, their largest market segment growth is now in its sugar-free brands like Coke and Sprite Zero. As a diabetic myself, I don’t agree with banning sugar-based soft drinks, although I would look kindly on advertising time and content restrictions, especially marketing them to children. Needless to say, the growth of the sugar-free market segment isn’t in this category and advertising such products wouldn’t be affected by such restrictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (14,167 comments) says:

    As a diabetic myself, I don’t agree with banning sugar-based soft drinks, although I would look kindly on advertising time and content restrictions, especially marketing them to children.

    Look kindly? Another well-meant, aspiring do-gooder. Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    Added to which, such restrictions (as opposed to prohibition, note) could be used to raise tax revenue for infrastructure construction and the public good. Furthermore, as in most instances of public health promotion, restricting the advertising and marketing spend on product placement of sugared drinks would save money on hospital bed occupancy, medical equipment wear and tear, medical staff remuneration, pharmaceutical supply costs and other associated expenditure to do with diabetes, cardiovascular problems, pancreatic and kidney malfunction and the other consequences of excessive sugar consumption.

    Got to admit, I have little patience with the loony libertarian perspective on the right to chain smoke. Just because Ayn Rand polluted the atmosphere on a regular basis and died earlier than she should have as a result doesn’t mean that her proselytisers have to follow her. And I can think of graver threats to individual freedom and liberty than cancer sticks, which Libertarianz appears fixated on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    … although you’re not consuming calories in the form of sugar, aspartame [and other artificial sweeteners] can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics. Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer “hear” the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.
    What happens then?
    You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat. Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

    It would be nice to ‘have the science settled” before law makers wrought some really fucking big mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote