Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by PieterH on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @05:53AM (#12486682)

Probably, yes, IMO sugar needs to be regulated and taxed like alcohol.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by curiousgal on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:10AM (#12486756)

I think appropriate labelling is a must. Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes.

I think regulation is a must only in countries with free healthcare, where sick people are treated with taxpayers' money. If that's not the case, people are free to do what they please with their own health as they're the sole ones footing bill.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by ThePawnBreak on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:37AM (#12487122)

> Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes.

I don't know of any country that doesn't have a very high tax on tobacco.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by DanBC on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:44AM (#12487161)

> Label things correctly and let the people decide, just like cigarettes.

Cigarettes, and the abusive tobacco industry, are a great example of why that technique fails.

Tobacco companies, and now sugar companies, are happy to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the scientific evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by raverbashing on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @05:57AM (#12486701)

What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by croon on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:23AM (#12486800)

> What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies?

I don't understand your posit. Are you saying sugar would be taxed based on BS studies? The topic of discussion is that older studies have downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat.

If sugar was taxed it would be according to current studies. If fat was taxed it would not be.

Is your question a thought experiment or what are you saying?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by raverbashing on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @08:12AM (#12487399)

> downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat.

Yes, and imagine if regulation was done based on these wrong studies, the harm it would have caused

You would have regulated people out of good health (which is basically what corn subsidies do)

People sometimes are too quick to favour regulation

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by harmegido on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:28AM (#12487081)

She's saying that how can you be so sure that sugar is the culprit? 30 years ago, people were very sure that fat was the culprit.

I actually do personally think that sugar is a main driver of these problems, but I get her point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by kardashian007 on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @08:24AM (#12487474)

Fat is 9 kcal/g, while protein and simple carbs are about 4 kcal/g. And there is a pathway to absorb complex lipid rather than going through the effort of breaking them down.

The nuances and complexities come in because of individual genetics, state of health and a myriad of interactions between the complexity of foods and their numerous and unpredictable interactions with a constantly changing system.

In order to get a better picture of health and lifestyle consequences will require close to 24x7 monitoring of many parameters (quantified self).

So, for example, it may be possible to find out allergies and almost allergies, interactions before they fully occur and inflammation promotion/reduction properties of lifestyle choices. Add software and deep learning, and there are almost endless possibilities for health and lifestyle micro- and macro-optimizations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by barsonme on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:02AM (#12486719)

I'm curious--why?

What, really, is the point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by fratlas on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:03AM (#12486723)

To prevent diabetes (and other sugar related health effects)? MSG is regulated in Aus, why not sugar?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by matthiasl on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:00AM (#12486947)

How is sugar regulated differently to MSG in Australia?

(Looking at Food Standards Australia, the requirements on MSG are that it's declared as an ingredient with an exception if it's naturally present in the food. How is that different to what's required for sugar? http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/msg/Pages...)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by twanvl on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @08:53AM (#12487711)

MSG sounds like a scary chemical, while sugar does not. Maybe we should call it a sucrose tax instead?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by PieterH on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:28AM (#12487076)

Taxes are widely used to raise prices and discourage consumption on unhealthy products. E.g. car fuel, tobacco, alcohol.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by leni536 on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:08AM (#12486746)

Hungary started exactly that in 2011 (although soda is only taxed a minuscule amount for some reason).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research by dagw on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:06AM (#12486966)

soda is only taxed a minuscule amount for some reason

Getting a 1% tax approved and then raising it to 10% over a few years is much much easier than passing a 10% tax.

[ Parent | on HN ]