[blacksport]

This is an attack on freedom.

Somehow there is this tendency in people to impose on others what is nothing but their personal preference. That they are "only" concerned about the society's health is nonsense. People have no business legislating for the health of others. Lets ban jilebi/jalebi and see how these self-styled health police lose their minds.

[swiftLife]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Sir, can you please cite a source for this? Who told you processed sugars are toxic?

It was a figurative reference and not a literal one

I don't remember a definitive source of the info I have, but for a start you can search for talks from Dr. Robert Lustig and Dr. Aseem Malhotra.

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Our bodies are designed to consume sugar in whatever form available and not discriminate. There is a big misconception that "processed" everything is bad. It is not.

I would love to read more on this. Because this is exactly opposite of what I have found till now. Can you please share some resources where you found this.

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

OK, like I said calorie is a unit of energy. In sugars a small quantity gives that energy compared to veggies which you need to consume in bigger quantities. 100 calories are still the same and are not dependent on one's hunger conditions.

As I have already explained in my previous post here. It's not about the unit of energy, it's about how our body processes it, what effect it has on our body, where does our body stores it etc. etc.

No further arguments from me on this. Peace!

Originally Posted by graaja

The short answer is "all calories are not equal". This is a misinformation that all big companies have been feeding the public to make them eat their junk.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blacksport

...Lets ban jilebi/jalebi and see how these self-styled health police lose their minds.

They're taking advertising off-air, not stuff off store shelves.

People can still drink soft drinks by the liter if they choose to, just not see those 'drink this cola, it will change your life' ads on public media anymore.

[graaja]

Originally Posted by blacksport

This is an attack on freedom.

Somehow there is this tendency in people to impose on others what is nothing but their personal preference. That they are "only" concerned about the society's health is nonsense. People have no business legislating for the health of others. Lets ban jilebi/jalebi and see how these self-styled health police lose their minds.

As the title of this thread says, the ban is not on the Colas. Just on the advertisements. So, anyone who wants to drink colas has all the freedom to do so. And this is in Singapore. Not yet happened in India. In India we still have all the freedom to watch the ads and drink the colas!

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by swiftLife

No further arguments from me on this. Peace!

Cheers buddy! Checked up on Dr. Ludwig. His hypothesis on glycemic index isn't fool proof either. That said, may we we'll discuss this in person if we ever catch up in Bangalore meets

My basic premise remains that no food/ drink is inherently unhealthy unless consumed in excess.
Peace out

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

They're taking advertising off-air, not stuff off store shelves.

People can still drink soft drinks by the liter if they choose to, just not see those 'drink this cola, it will change your life' ads on public media anymore.

Freedom to advertise is not a freedom? If they are cracking down on false advertising, I hope the apply it to other products too.

Originally Posted by graaja

As the title of this thread says, the ban is not on the Colas. Just on the advertisements. So, anyone who wants to drink colas has all the freedom to do so. And this is in Singapore. Not yet happened in India. In India we still have all the freedom to watch the ads and drink the colas!

I was referring to the ban gang in general. I see people comment gleefully that something they don't drink gets banned. People are happy when something they don't like gets banned by the govt, but then would protest when the govt reaches their doorstep with another ban.

As somebody said: People who want the govt to meddle in other people's lives should be prepared to accept, when it comes to things that affects their lives too.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Freedom to advertise is not a freedom? If they are cracking down on false advertising, I hope the apply it to other products too.

Freedom to advertise does not equate to freedom from consequences.

When entire generations are getting hooked to sugar-loaded foods and its health consequences (obese kids, diabetic young & middle-aged people), consequences which the healthcare systems of the countries involved have to bear (because those selling the sugar care neither for the ill-effects of the sugar on their paying customers nor the downstream consequences of it), the nations are well within their rights to restrict advertising, most of which is dangerously close to, if not literally over, the line into false advertising.

People are free to put whatever they want into their own bodies, they have no right to claim these items should be advertised unrestricted to other, more susceptible demographics.

One's personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.


P.S. Yes, all false advertising should be taken to task. I'd go one further and crack down on celebrities who endorse both junk food and health products/programs, making money off both while misleading both sets of demographics.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Freedom to advertise does not equate to freedom from consequences.

I do not understand what that means. When you ban there is no act and consequently, no consequence.

People are free to put whatever they want into their own bodies, they have no right to claim these items should be advertised unrestricted to other, more susceptible demographics.

Well, who decides what is good for me? The do-gooder who continues to gobble down gulab jamuns and rasgullas?

Much harm has been done by these do-gooders in the name of public good. For decades they vilified dietary cholesterol and consequently denied the masses many nutrients that are present in the egg yolk.

[vinit.merchant]

Just couple of days back I stumbled upon a documentary on Prime named "Is Sugar the New Fat?". I even made my kids watch it. Facts on sugar consumption are quite startling. This one is based on facts in New Zealand, where more than 65% of adults are obese or overweight, and for kids, this stands at 33%. Where these soft drinks, that cost much less than water, have replaced water bottles for a lot of people.

A small bottle of soft drink has 16 spoons of sugar, a 1.5 litre one will average 45 spoons. Add to that, sugar also gets addictive, the primary reason why it is being added to most of the processed foods nowadays. Its cheap and is used to balance the cost of the product as well. Me thinks, those fruit juices might fare worse than the soft drinks.
Per squirt of tomato sauce will have a teaspoon. Even the Mayo. In fact, almost all packed foods have sugar.

There were kids being brought to the hospital for teeth removal. Kids as small as 2.5 years old getting 6 of their teeth getting removed. Decaying caused by the consumption of sugary beverages. I pity the child and somehow am confused at the lack of common sense in the parents to have allowed their kids to have such things without giving it a thought. 65 to 70% of these kids are at the risk of Diabetes once they grow old.

Its easy for some to say that it is for each one to decide on their own what is good for them. What we don't understand is that these unhealthy stuff is getting massively advertised in a way which portrays that the thing has no injurious impact on the health, and some in fact are so advertised as if they are very healthy (Remember the fruit juices adverts? earlier)
Kids see all this and believe it.

Right to advertise? No, there is no such right anywhere. It is our duty to protect the kids, and our responsibility to ensure they believe in the right things.

Else there was a time when big superstars promoted cigarette smoking & alcohol on national television. Good those are all banned now. Those superstars did not say these were injurious to health. I grew up watching those, and they also played a part in me picking up the cancer stick. Advertising against these products, showing them as extremely injurious to health - this is Right to advertising. Not the other way around.

Things are advertised to increase sales & profits by businesses. They do not assume any social responsibility, neither do most care.

If it is all left to us to decide whats good for us, and let the businesses do what they do best, we will soon have adverts of porn, drugs, prostitution and what not, all trying to feed a kids brain so they become business once they grow up. Even the most capitalist economy in the world does not permit it.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blacksport

...When you ban there is no act and consequently, no consequence.

The act is sale of goods, advertising is just part of the sales cycle. There's no ban on sales, so the consequences of sugar consumption still exist.

Well, who decides what is good for me?

Availability of what you want isn't impacted, so you still control the consumption decision. Should you or I get to decide whether someone else deserves to be bombarded with indiscriminate advertising, someone who lacks your good judgment in consumption habits?

Much harm has been done by these do-gooders in the name of public good. For decades they vilified dietary cholesterol and consequently denied the masses many nutrients that are present in the egg yolk.

You're mixing up issues. Our understanding of nutrition is evolving, but sugar consumption is creating issues here & now, so why not restrict advertising it to vulnerable, easily-influenced demographics?

I'd be against banning food groups outright - I don't eat meat but I don't go around shaming meat-eaters (including my better half) or demanding a ban either - but reducing exposure to potentially harmful substances consumed in huge quantities that have demonstrable health risks, isn't unreasonable.

If your solution to 'bad decisions are made sometimes' is 'no further decisions should be made', then there's nothing to discuss.

[Red Liner]

Sugar is the new tobacco.

No, seriously.

That and processed foods. The stress these are putting on national health insurance is just too much for the Governments everywhere to continue turning a blind eye.

It is a big reason why cola companies have either acquired or begun healthy alternatives themselves. Much like how ITC in india has completely deleveraged from its tobacco business.

Cola manufacturing is also a huge depleter of water. These guys are so finished. I really want them gone for good.

[landcruiser123]

To all those who cry freedom: Regulations and extra taxes come in when the capitalist businesses are out of control and selling too much of unhealthy stuff. There's only certain guidelines that governments can set in the case of health and nutrition. If something is proven unhealthy and it affects people, thereby increasing the stress on the (national) healthcare systems, it should be regulated. It was first tobacco, next alcohol and now sugar. IIRC, sugar taxes are still not passed on a federal level in the US because of lobbies. I believe France and UK also have extra taxes levied on sugary drinks.

Banning the product is outright not possible as it creates a parallel economy. For example- India doesn't ban cigarettes and alcohol(except GJ.) They are heavily regulated. They become a lucrative source of taxes in states, especially ones like TN where the govt restricts channels of sale of alcohol.

Also, all calories are not created equal. Your 100 calories of fruit juice is probably a lot unhealthier than a 100 calories of raw fruit. Lot of the fiber is missing and the structure of the fruit is completely changed.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

its their excessive consumption that is.

Same can be said with tobacco, whose ads are banned. Again with the lottery, which many states have banned citing its citizens are pouring their whole earnings into the lottery, with no money for their families.

Originally Posted by graaja

The short answer is "all calories are not equal".

Originally Posted by swiftLife

Would you say that, as 100 calories of petrol equals 100 calories of sugar so it's safe to consume petrol. Obviously no, because our body can't digest petrol.

From physics point of view, 100 calories of petrol is equivalent 100 calories of glucose, 100 calories of fructose and 100 calories sucrose.

But our body process these inputs in a different way. 100% petrol is excreted. 100% glucose is converted to energy. Percentage of fructose depends on body internal state & condition. A certain percentage of sucrose is converted to energy.

[COMMUTER]

Singapore earns a big salute for this daring move against the cola/quasi-medical mafia.

The colas carry three types of poison.

1.The first one is the REFINED sugar. All REFINED products(olive oils, sugars and flour) are pure slow acting poisons. They are the cause of Diabetes. They damage the liver by making it incapable of using fat as fuel leading to fatty liver/cirrhosis. They wear out our insulin-based carbohydrate digestion system(which acts like a drain plug for harmful sugars) and cause diabetes.

2. They have PHOSPHORIC acid. These cola companies have fooled us in to thinking that they are adding less harmful carbonic acid. Phosphoric acid adds unwanted levels phosphorous in our diets. High levels of phosphorous causes kidney failure.

3. They have high doses of pesticides. Pesticides are not good for human health.

If the colas are getting marketed they must be made to declare these facts and should be stopped from wantonly deluding masses.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Same can be said with tobacco, whose ads are banned. Again with the lottery, which many states have banned citing its citizens are pouring their whole earnings into the lottery, with no money for their families

OK, candid confession, didn't read the ad thing. Ban the ads for sure
Don't ban the products, 'cos if we start doing that it is a pretty free fall.