55
submitted 4 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

Exclusive: Co-author of analysis for WHO calls on government to control the food industry rather than being subservient to it

Archived version: https://archive.ph/56yF6

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rubikcuber@feddit.uk 17 points 4 months ago

Let's not. They'll just fill them with sweeteners instead and everything will taste like ass. Personally, whenever I have the odd fizzy drink I buy the stuff with sugar and pay the extra. The rest of the crap can get into the sea.

[-] Maddier1993@programming.dev 7 points 4 months ago

Eh.. we need to stop consuming so much sugar. I want to actually have something taste good and not because it's Cocaine's milder cousin.

[-] rubikcuber@feddit.uk 10 points 4 months ago

Fair point. I get that this isn't aimed at me. I'm not a sugar fiend. But the big food manufacturers will just replace it with artificial sweeteners, which to me at least taste awful. I used to enjoy the odd Fentimans Ginger Beer, but now it tastes like hand soap and all I can thing about is that Godfather meme... "look how they massacred my boy" 😥

[-] Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Same here. I don't consume a lot of sugar, but I hate the taste of sweetners. My personal viewpoint is that the law just made a bunch of thing I used to like inedible but didn't change my sugar intake at all.

Overall the law just made everyone consume more sweetners and the companies making the products increase their products. All this back patting is all about profits, not public health.

[-] Gamoc@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

And I don't think the government should be deciding it for us, punishing people who dare to eat or drink sugar with higher prices, nor have yet another avenue of tax to funnel into their pockets.

[-] the_third@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

If everybody paid for their own health costs, wider seats on buses, new equipment for rescuers that can handle more weight - then fine. But they don't, so society has an an interest in stopping people becoming fatter and fatter.

[-] Gamoc@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That's not what this is, this is just taking more money from poor people. People aren't going to change their entire lifestyle and get healthier because one of the cheapest things gets more expensive. They'll either pay more and continue to get fat or switch to something else that's cheap but equally unhealthy and continue to get fat.

Cheap sugar isn't the problem, expensive healthier food is. Changing things so the sugar is also expensive is fucking stupid if the aim is to make people get healthier, even ignoring the fact that "making" people do anything is shitty anyway.

[-] Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net 7 points 4 months ago

As someone who used to enjoy a soft beverage from time to time, however is sensitive to the taste of chemical sweeteners, fuck off.

Let people have normal sugar. Chemicals taste like ass.

[-] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 4 months ago
[-] Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago

I mean you’re not wrong, but it’s an oddly pedantic point to make. I think it’s quite clear in that sentence that I’m referring to artificial sweeteners.

Like if I made two batches of yoghurt, one with actual strawberries, and another one with strawberry flavouring agents, would you be telling me that actually they’re both flavoured with chemicals because strawberries are themselves composed of various organic compounds?

[-] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 months ago

to me "pedantic" means that a difference doesn't matter, and in this case I think it matters a lot.

"chemical" / "non chemical" (and "natural" / "artificial") are marketing terms with no agreed-upon meaning and I think the world would be better if we stopped using them - because they overshadow terms which have clearer meanings like "safe" and "healthy".

in your strawberry example I'd say the useful metrics are the usual nutrient contents, and if any of the ingredients are known to cause health problems. "% strawberries" would be an objective metric that personally seems kinda meaningless to me personally but at least wouldn't be misleading.

[-] UserMeNever@feddit.nl 6 points 4 months ago
[-] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Everything always has to make things worse for people, why do no experts ever urge anything but screwing over the poor?

What about subsidies on healthier options? What about reworking rules to help create pathways for low cost healthy snacks and sustaining foods? How about a program that enables people to have affordable or free access to locally grown produce? Fund development of platforms and technologies to improve awareness and access to healthy food?

Nope. The affluent experts decide to push something that won't affect them but will make life harder for everyone already struggling.

this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
55 points (98.2% liked)

Interesting Global News

2561 readers
119 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS