BrendaMarie

Ban on sugary foods

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering what you guys think about the government trying to ban, or at the very least keep down, the amount of sugary foods that we eat. I can't remember which state it is that's now taxing sugary drinks over a certain size. I wonder if it's just another way to get money from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think New York City has banned the sale of soft drinks in sizes of 22oz. and over, like the Big Gulp sold at convenience stores. NYC Mayor Bloomberg came up with the idea and the NYC Health Board approved it. Bloomberg is such a nanny state dictator, he wants to control everything people eat, in the name of public safety.

 

If the government can control healthcare, it can justify these kinds of laws by claiming it is the taxpayers who are on the hook for healthcare when obese people, or smokers or anyone they pick, consumes things that are deemed unhealthy in the eyes of the state.

 

Yes, taxing these substances adds to state revenues, but the real reason behind these laws is the desire for state power over the actions of the populous.

 

Yet, the people of the great city of New York seem to want these kind of men in charge. So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess maybe we should be happy that we don't live in NYC. That kind of law would drive me nuts. I think there's already too much government control of the people without going to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was NY that limited the sale of supersized soda. I doubt that there would be a ban on all sugary food. That would eliminate 80% to 85% of the American diet. That would eliminate most processed foods. There's a lot of hidden sugar in processed food. Those food corporations would launch WWW III fighting against that type of ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the Govt intervene? If these things were that bad, they would ban them so the only reason for them to stick their nose in is to grab yet more tax. Watch for the cholesterol tax coming to a state near you soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny you should start this topic.  The British Biased Corporation reported on this story.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21228122

 

 

 

Leading medical bodies are calling for a 20p-per-litre levy on soft drinks to be included in this year's Budget.

More than 60 organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, are backing the recommendation by food and farming charity Sustain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government should not be regulating the amount of soda that persons are drinking.  Persons should be able to drink the amount of soda they want. The purpose for the government doing this, is not to keep persons healthier in my opinion, but to maintain control over the lives of persons, dictating to them what they can or cannot drink, and what they can and cannot eat. Where persons are no longer in control, and cannot make descisions for themself, and as a result feel out of control. This is just the beginning, it starts off first with the government saying they are doing this for the good of people, when in reality they are not, it is just a cover to make people feel comfortable with the idea, and as time goes on more drinks and more foods become restricted, then other items become restricted. Then people become so dependent on the government, that they literally cannot survive without them. When one looks on repressive governments, they often control the amount of foods that their citizens can eat, as well as what their citizens can think. For example in Cuba, one can only buy a certain amount of food at a time. So in Cuba, the ability to even store food is extremely limited, one has to continually depend on the government.

 

Rationing in Cuba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it this way, if they really cared for our health, wouldn't they do away with all the chemicals they put in our water and air? Not to mention GMO and other things. The fact that their solution is taxation is very telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a documentary on television regarding sugar, where it was reported,. that a grocery cart filled with five pound bags of sugar was what each individual consumed from all sorts of things, in one year. That's very shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your body, if you want to get extremely fat, go ahead. I don't think the government should be able to step in and say you can't have a choice because it's unhealthy. While I care about my weight, figure, and well being, some people just want to eat and hey, that's fine by me! No one should be able to stop them, it's their choice! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America was founded as a land of the free, with a free market economy. Banning or taxing certain foods for health reasons is one step closer to a Big Brother type system. Under socialized health care, regulating foods makes sense, because they're trying to keep the costs down. But if health care is a part of the free market as it should be, people will make their own choices when they choose to be educated about what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly the point, isn't it? If the government is going to provide health care for most, they will consider it a part of the process to try to lessen the the ill effects of poor food choices which may lead to many diseases, which increases the cost of medical care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America was founded as a land of the free, with a free market economy. Banning or taxing certain foods for health reasons is one step closer to a Big Brother type system. Under socialized health care, regulating foods makes sense, because they're trying to keep the costs down. But if health care is a part of the free market as it should be, people will make their own choices when they choose to be educated about what they're doing.

 

Great point! While I am all for minimizing the consumption of garbage food (for various reasons, including the addictive nature of it) the government cannot expect to control what we consume for "health reasons" unless they pick up health care costs for us. IF they provided this, then we might be more inclined to agree with certain food restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually cannot see them banning sugary foods. There is Aspartame in sugar which causes Cancer, so the more sigar that the can fill us up with, the more money they make when people fall sick. Also, sugar is a low vibratory substance, and too much of it will slow down a person's vibration considerably. This is what the Government want. They want to slow down the mass public's vibration so that we cannot achieve enlightment and those higher vibrations, in my opinion. For this reason, I can't see them ever really banning sugary foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sugar is a DRUG!!!  It's very addictive, and it's bad for you.  Not only is it bad for your mentally, but it's also bad for you PHYSICALLY as well.  When your blood sugar level rises, then so does your insulin level.  No wonder so many people have diabetes today.  If you think sugar's bad, don't get me started on aspartame.  That's even worse for you.  Half the diseases that exist today, didn't exist 100 years ago.  Why????  Because of the SUGAR, and all of the chemicals that they put in our food :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice to know its banned. Sugar is bad for your health. The policy itself demonstrates people are doing something to improve the regulation of food and consumer products for consumers. Would you guys call this type of ban prohibition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a program the other day about this. It was arguing about eating foods like full fat normal butter vs the non added salt version, or products that arent butter at all, they just taste a bit like it. Trouble is, dieticians examined what was in the sugar free and fat free versions and discovered that these contained things that were very harmful to your health, and could even give you cancer. Giving you terminal illnesses is probably the main motivation for making you consume these so called sugar free products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sugar is a DRUG!!!  It's very addictive, and it's bad for you.  Not only is it bad for your mentally, but it's also bad for you PHYSICALLY as well.  When your blood sugar level rises, then so does your insulin level.  No wonder so many people have diabetes today.  If you think sugar's bad, don't get me started on aspartame.  That's even worse for you.  Half the diseases that exist today, didn't exist 100 years ago.  Why????  Because of the SUGAR, and all of the chemicals that they put in our food :(

 

 

It is nice to know its banned. Sugar is bad for your health. The policy itself demonstrates people are doing something to improve the regulation of food and consumer products for consumers. Would you guys call this type of ban prohibition?

 

 

You 2 have not done an ounce of your own research on this or read any of the actual research that's been done.

 

Natural sugars such as honey can actually have some benefits for your health when used in moderation. Even some can sugar can be good for you, especially if you need some quick energy or want your body to absorb more of the other nutrients you eat (such as the protein in meat). Insulin is produced by the body to help it store more nutrients. While sugar is the best known nutrient that makes the body produce insulin, grains and straches can have a similar effect in insulin production. Yes, too much sugar can be hard on the system, but the biggest cause of diabetes is high fructose corn syrup because it DOESN'T induce the body produce insulin. And it's used in almost EVERYTHING!

 

A lot of the problem is not in any specific food, even HFCS, as much as it is an overuse of refined grains and sugars. These are what scratch up the artery walls when they're in the bloodstream. These scratches trigger the body to produce cholesterol into the bloodstream in order to repair the damage to the blood vessels (and that cholesterol does NOT come from cholesterol taken in through diet). As this process repeats, the vessels get smaller and harder. The very thing that we've been told should lower our blood cholesterol levels makes it worse!

 

But if we're banning sugary foods, don't forget oranges and peaches and apples, maple syrup, and honey.

 

 

Also, there's something like 1000x more aspartame in 1 orange than there is in a can of diet soda. As much as I'm for natural foods, don't think aspartame is the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

definately this government has done what i myself have never done. i really imagine of my beloved friend who has seriously suffered from a serious well known disease for 4 years. the high blood pressure the doctor says that this has been caused due to high usage of sugar. woo i pity my friend if that law was in our country my friend will not be in such kind life stresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day we should not be drinking those sugary drinks anyways. Let the government tax them and in the mean time move into a healthier diet that doesn't include these products. I don't like the idea that the government controls what we eat (which it does) but I have a hard time getting angry about soda and junk food. Drink water! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HuggsX3

Sugar is not a drug. Whoever said that is being extreme. The government likes to control us. I think it should be the people's choice as to how much sugar they consume and not the governments. The government likes telling people who they can marry, their health care decisions, who can protect themselves with guns, and now they want to take away sugar. They are just control freaks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban of sugary drinks was overturned. I must admit that I'm conflicted on this issue. I do believe that refined sugar is a drug. The cost of treated diseases caused by obesity is a drain on society. So  it seems like a "Pay now or pay later" type of scenario. One the other hand, I don't think the government should regulated our eating and drinking habits. Education is the way to attack this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its just another way to make money. I mean, of course the average diet isnt really all that good, but the government knows no matter what they do, people who have the money will still buy it, so they will still be making money. its a lose lose in a way, so your damned if you do damned if you dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thnk there are actually two separate issues being discussed here. One issue is whether sugar is bad for a person health wise , and the other issue is whether the government should have the right to ban a food or drink. I totally agree that sugar is unhealthy, especially in the amounts that many people consume it in. It is not the only thing that is unhealthy when taken into our body in large amounts, or maybe even in small amounts. But each person should have the right to decide what they want to eat or drink. We all have different ideas of what we want in our diets, and there is not a one size fits all diet.The ban in New York does not even stop sugar filled drinks from being bought or sold, it simply puts a limit on the size of drink you can by, so it is not even making much of a difference in anyone's intake of sweets, anyway. You can still go to the store and buy a whole case of soda if you want to, you just can't buy a 44 oz drink of it. Doesn't make any sense to me, except for another form of control by the government, and I think they already have too much of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.