Sugar itself, in its processed form, is quite unnatural and causes cravings and addiction.
Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't get much sugar aside from fructose.
Conclusion: sugar is mostly used by the industry because it's addictive.
You can put ungodly amount of sugar in your tea if you squeeze half a lemon into it and it's delicious.
If coke stopped existing this very second, your friend would find something else to destroy their body with, because the cause of their problem isn’t coke and the prohibition of it isn’t a solution.
This is literally the worst justification for anything.
Even the “unprocessed” food we eat today, including plants or dead animal flesh is nothing like what the hunter gatherer ancestors ate.
We can talk about if this sugar has pesticides or other substances mixed with it in the post process that are toxic, but this trend of people saying that glucose is addictive is ludicrous. Unlike real drugs, we really need it to live. Would you trust somebody saying that oxygen is a drug and people should stop consuming it?
There is no physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrates. There is a requirement for glucose, but your body can create it from non-carbohydrate sources including the acetone produced by ketones. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
While you seem to be arguing against a strawman that the existence of glucose in our metabolic systems is unnatural, thus sugar is addictive? I think your counter points are a tad tangential compared to the actual points made by the parent comment.
Even though both are found separately in nature, it doesn't necessarily follow that their combination is just fine, especially in the volumes consumed in a typical Western diet.
If sugar isn't addictive at all, why do so many people have cravings for sweets? Cravings are a major hallmark of addiction.
At cell level this is just what we do.
Also, a glass of orange juice is about 1tbsp of sugar away from coke.
If a sizeable portion of the market is on Ozempic, then this will naturally lead to there being a portion of the market that sells well to those people. At that will likely happen a decade before any human understands the mechanics by which that food sells well to people on Ozempic.
One is unscrupulous and the other is blatantly illegal.
It’s helpful to remember that this is the same corporate landscape where (in the US) insurance companies can decline prescriptions in order to reduce their own costs.
There are tons of common foods and food additives that are known to interact with medications. Grapefruit juice for instance has a large and diverse set of drug interactions, some potentially very dangerous: https://www.drugs.com/article/grapefruit-drug-interactions.h... but that doesn't mean it's illegal to sell or consume.
If you're intentionally researching and developing an additive that weakens the effect of a prescription medication and you're not telling people the. You're effectively poisoning them.
That's super illegal.
Farms should not be raided for selling people real milk.
The system has gone too far. Let people eat what they want.
You want gov milk than buy it. Dont force it on everybody.
Nanny state needs to scale it back.
Counterpoint: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-dangers-of-raw-milk-w...
I can buy raw milk in California supermarkets. Complain to your state about it.
Sometimes you have to question if they are in the wrong too frequently, for instance recalling 80,000 lbs. of butter (when it's already more than $7 lb. in most grocery stores) because the butter packaging didn't say "Contains milk". It's a recent example of something they did that only caused harm. Notify the company to fix their packaging, sure, but under no circumstances should they be recalling the butter.
don't hold your breath on any jail time for food companies doing this is my point.
It's the kind of thing that I hope would result in not only massive fines for the corporations but jail time for the people involved in the decision making and the R&D.