All Forums | General Discussion

UCSF scientists call for taxing and regulating sugar

Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 662
Posts: 46
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #26
Yes yes i agree that not all fat is bad for you. Some fat is good for you, but most of the fat i'm talking about when i talk about fattening foods is not healthy fat, its saturated and trans fat.

Look i completely agree that all of america could really use a nutrition class and some parents should be beaten over the head with a nutritional book because they gave their 4 year old fried chicken and let them eat 8 snickers bars a day, taxing and regulation will not prevent this though, nor will the money go to a good cause, tobacco tax revenue rarely goes to where people hope it goes to. I hate to say this but those stupid people are just gonna have to learn the lesson the hard way, their is tons of nutritional info out there about eating a balanced diet and being active, and tons of programs to help kids with that. If they are too lazy to do it or there parents don't see the need for them to eat healthy and exercise and be active they'll just have to learn the hard way. It sucks to say but some people don't learn until something serious actually happens.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #27
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

to that i would say

greens- yes, always a good idea

taking sugar out- can only help, always a good idea

fish- usually a good idea but be careful of mercury content, not all fish is tainted equally

red meat-  very good for you but in moderation

whole grains- don't need them, no reason to ever eat whole grains or wheat products, the government is lying to you about this

hamburger- perfectly fine in moderation, grass fed beef, bison burgers, etc

fried chicken- no problem depending on the type of oil used and type of chicken used. 


How is the Gov't lying to you about whole grains, they contain essential proteins that your body needs to rebuild muscle and tissue. Also red meat is not very good for you, its not bad for you if you have it in moderation but it is not very good for you.

Fish is definitely more then a good idea, most fish have good amounts of omega-3's, essential fatty acids and amino acids. 3 times a week is perfect for most people.

I said if all you eat is hamburgers and fried chicken you are still gonna be unhealthy and to counter that you include those are fine in moderation. Yes i know hence why i said if alls you eat is friend chicken hamburgers and red meat you will be unhealthy adding or taking out sugar will not make you anymore or less healthy then you already are due to your bad dietary habits. Which is why i say regulating sugar will not decrease the problem as the problem is not with sugar its with the regular nutrition habits of Americans. The only way to prove to me that sugar is bad and that it should be taxed and regulated is to show me many healthy people who eat right exercise and do most things right how intake a high amount of sugar and have consistent evidence of adverse health effects. This was done with tobacco, good luck with doing it with just sugar.

All you have is a scapegoat and nothing more.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by eliminat0r85:



There is no hard evidence that states that sugar is the cause, you are lumping a bunch of fat lazy people who never exercise in correlation with a product, i could do that with anything and make it deadly, it doesn't make it right. So those of us in good health who like to indulge should pay more because of fat lazy fucks who eat the whole box of cookies and the only exercise they do is beating off? Yea that seems fair to me.

Oh you mean like how the taxes on tobacco are used for good causes, give me a break, just more money for the gov't to squander.

Also people quit smoking because there is hard evidence that says it is extremely bad for you, not soley because the cost is too high. It is often one of the factors, but the main factor is they eventually wake up and realize they need to stop because it's slowly killing them.



you have got to be kidding me, the evidence is overwhelming. Sugar is THE cause of obesity and a litany of other health problems

and just because it doesn't make some people store excess fat, doesn't mean it isn't killing them just the same
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #29
red meat is very high in protein and many important nutrients.  here is a good article about the negative reports on red meat. 

as for whole grains, wheat (and corn) are huge industries in the u.s.  we produce a lot of it and the government has a significant interest in making sure it gets sold.  the government also has a significant interest in making people think it is good for you.  look at a box of fruit loops and it'll advertise it is healthy because it has whole grains or whatever (although i think they are doing something about this if they haven't already).  if people stopped eating wheat and corn products, that would be bad for a lot of people, jobs and our government.  that's why wheat and corn products are in just abouty everything. 

here's a good article on why grains are unhealthy

i agree about fish but some fish has a lot of mercury.  swordfish is one of my favorites but it's one of the worst.  there is a website out there which does a good job telling people what fish has more or less mercury and how often it is suggested to eat it.

you make a good point comparing cigarettes and sugar but all we have are the studies.  some are very flawed (see whole grains are healthy studies) and some are better.  the problem is that it is very difficult to pinpoint exact causes and effects because diets are dynamic. 

but people have studied the affects of sugar on the body and if you read those studies and reports, the only conclusion is that sugar is bad for you.  how much a person will be affected depends on several factors.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #30
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:




you have got to be kidding me, the evidence is overwhelming. Sugar is THE cause of obesity and a litany of other health problems

and just because it doesn't make some people store excess fat, doesn't mean it isn't killing them just the same


No sugar is again the scapegoat for poor nutrition habits. Look you can beat this dead horse all day long. Taxing something to get people to change a habit is stupid, yes they did it for tobacco i get that. It's done i don't completely agree with it but i'm fine with it given all the problems that is associated with its use. However it's very easy to see that simply regulating and taxing tobacco hasn't had the desired effect that these SF scientists would be hoping for with sugar. What will they do if taxing sugar has no effect, tax it more?

In the end it's just more money the gov't will squander that will not go to better health care or anything close to what it was first intended to go to.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #31
i agree that taxing is never a solution, i said that in post#2, but if we are going to go that route, sugar should be on top of the list

I'm not trying to be a dick, but how familiar are you with human biochemistry? Do you understand what happens in the bodies systems when any type of sugar is ingested?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #32
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

red meat is very high in protein and many important nutrients.  here is a good article about the negative reports on red meat. 

as for whole grains, wheat (and corn) are huge industries in the u.s.  we produce a lot of it and the government has a significant interest in making sure it gets sold.  the government also has a significant interest in making people think it is good for you.  look at a box of fruit loops and it'll advertise it is healthy because it has whole grains or whatever (although i think they are doing something about this if they haven't already).  if people stopped eating wheat and corn products, that would be bad for a lot of people, jobs and our government.  that's why wheat and corn products are in just abouty everything. 

here's a good article on why grains are unhealthy

i agree about fish but some fish has a lot of mercury.  swordfish is one of my favorites but it's one of the worst.  there is a website out there which does a good job telling people what fish has more or less mercury and how often it is suggested to eat it.

you make a good point comparing cigarettes and sugar but all we have are the studies.  some are very flawed (see whole grains are healthy studies) and some are better.  the problem is that it is very difficult to pinpoint exact causes and effects because diets are dynamic. 

but people have studied the affects of sugar on the body and if you read those studies and reports, the only conclusion is that sugar is bad for you.  how much a person will be affected depends on several factors.


Look man i'm not saying everything is the end all be all of unhealthy or healthy but some stupid moron toting on the internet how whole grains are bad is not gonna sway my decision. Especially when he has no idea what he is talking about and is talking about a generic whole grain term. There are dozens of whole grains without any gluten etc that have great amounts of protein and are good for you, especially for people who work out.

Also i never said red meat is bad, i said too much red meat is bad. Some are loaded with saturated fats. Please quit linking me to marks daily apple thats just some loser with too much free time who wants you to only eat meat and salad. Hey thats cool and way more healthy than most people eat but don't push your bs belief system on me that whole grains are not good for you, and might actually be bad for you. Something tells me this guy has never heard of Quinoa or Amaranth.

Like i said and will say again it's all about a balanced of many different types of food that leads to a healthy life style yes you can substitute certain things for others, like there are other ways to get protein then from just whole grains, in the end its a personal choice on what you choose to eat to get your necessary dietary supplements. One being different then the other does not make the decision wrong.

The fact remains clear though if your diet it mainly consists of 6 cokes, big macs, fries and candy bars. You're unhealthy as hell and it's not just because of sugar.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #33
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:

i agree that taxing is never a solution, i said that in post#2, but if we are going to go that route, sugar should be on top of the list

I'm not trying to be a dick, but how familiar are you with human biochemistry? Do you understand what happens in the bodies systems when any type of sugar is ingested?


Give me a break you are just repeating what you've been spoon fed.
Yes i know what happens when sugar is ingested into the body, the exact same thing that happens when any type of nutrient is entered into your body, it is used and any excess becomes waste. In the case of glucose the waste is fat. Hence why i again say Sugar is not the only problem.

I don't think you're getting the big picture here, I'm saying that sugar should not be regulated and taxed because you can be perfectly healthy while still having sugar, too much refined sugar is a problem, taxing it is not the solution however.

I mean think in these terms, taxes on cigarettes are up over 10% and usage has only dropped just over 4%. I doubt you'll even see half that number with sugar.

Regulating is a better alternative, if the FDA wants to step in and say that studies show that excess sugar leads to increased body fat, which leads to health problems like diabetes and they put a limit on how much refined sugar certain products can have I see no problem with that. I have a big problem with taxing something and making it a scapegoat for the bigger problem.

With regulation you'll still have unhealthy people and the bigger problem will still exist but at least a step has been taken to guide them in the right direction. Just like with trans fats, people are still unhealthy as hell but there a little healthier than they were with trans fats.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #34
At the end of the day it's all about education and hoping people make the right choice.

People like that fat hoe who has her kid in a beauty pageant and gives her mountain dew are the problem not sugar. Like how stupid do you have to be to give a 5 year old mountain dew. Of course when your mom is fatter than a bus i guess you can't expect much.

I'm done with this topic though. I will never be convinced that sugar is the problem, I will agree that it is part of the problem. I do not think taxing and regulating it is a good solution. Just regulating it might make certain people feel better but the real problem will still exist.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #35
Quote Originally Posted by eliminat0r85:



Look man i'm not saying everything is the end all be all of unhealthy or healthy but some stupid moron toting on the internet how whole grains are bad is not gonna sway my decision. Especially when he has no idea what he is talking about and is talking about a generic whole grain term. There are dozens of whole grains without any gluten etc that have great amounts of protein and are good for you, especially for people who work out.

Also i never said red meat is bad, i said too much red meat is bad. Some are loaded with saturated fats. Please quit linking me to marks daily apple thats just some loser with too much free time who wants you to only eat meat and salad. Hey thats cool and way more healthy than most people eat but don't push your bs belief system on me that whole grains are not good for you, and might actually be bad for you. Something tells me this guy has never heard of Quinoa or Amaranth.

Like i said and will say again it's all about a balanced of many different types of food that leads to a healthy life style yes you can substitute certain things for others, like there are other ways to get protein then from just whole grains, in the end its a personal choice on what you choose to eat to get your necessary dietary supplements. One being different then the other does not make the decision wrong.

The fact remains clear though if your diet it mainly consists of 6 cokes, big macs, fries and candy bars. You're unhealthy as hell and it's not just because of sugar.


Something tells me this guy has never heard of Quinoa or Amaranth.

that "something" couldn't be more wrong.  maybe you want to dismiss anyone or anything with conflicting opinions but if you go to the site i referenced, there is a search function at the top right.  if you enter quinoa, amaranth or just about any other food people might eat, something tells me that you will find multiple articles and disucssions on the subject that will likely show you things you didn't know before.  that something just happens to be the results from those searches.   read a little rather than just rel on some assumption that the guy is a moron because he has a website. 

however i agree that you should seek multiple sources and review the studies yourself. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 3202
Posted: #36
[Quote: Originally Posted by be easy] i agree that taxing is never a solution, i said that in post#2, but if we are going to go that route, sugar should be on top of the list

I'm not trying to be a dick, but how familiar are you with human biochemistry? Do you understand what happens in the bodies systems when any type of sugar is ingested?




Its the amount people consume not sugar itself. Sucrose fructose lactose all have the same effect on the body. Im sure you think aspartame is better for you. The real problem here is people trying to regulate the actions and habits of others. As long as this mindset is prevalent the Government has you right where they want you. How about people just mind their own business and live their life the way they want to rather then trying to force everyone to be the same. If people spent half as much time focused on themselves and their health as they do sitting around pointing their fucking finger blaming the world and public policies for their own failures and miserable habits, this country would be a much better place. You would certainly have more expendable income, rather then pay MORE in taxes to an entity that is 10 trillion upside down. Stay classy America!!
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by eliminat0r85:

At the end of the day it's all about education and hoping people make the right choice.

People like that fat hoe who has her kid in a beauty pageant and gives her mountain dew are the problem not sugar. Like how stupid do you have to be to give a 5 year old mountain dew. Of course when your mom is fatter than a bus i guess you can't expect much.

I'm done with this topic though. I will never be convinced that sugar is the problem, I will agree that it is part of the problem. I do not think taxing and regulating it is a good solution. Just regulating it might make certain people feel better but the real problem will still exist.


ignorance is bliss


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #38
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



Something tells me this guy has never heard of Quinoa or Amaranth.

that "something" couldn't be more wrong.  maybe you want to dismiss anyone or anything with conflicting opinions but if you go to the site i referenced, there is a search function at the top right.  if you enter quinoa, amaranth or just about any other food people might eat, something tells me that you will find multiple articles and disucssions on the subject that will likely show you things you didn't know before.  that something just happens to be the results from those searches.   read a little rather than just rel on some assumption that the guy is a moron because he has a website. 

however i agree that you should seek multiple sources and review the studies yourself. 


i don't dismiss the guy because he has conflicting opinions i dismiss the guy because he is flat out wrong and has no evidence to support his claim that whole grains are bad for you. He says because they have gluten, yet i named two without any that are high in protein and are good for you. I get what the guy is saying that there are alternatives that are better for you, but sometimes those alternatives don't always fit the bill. To say something is bad for you though that clearly isn't is just dumb. He should attack things that are actually bad for you. No one is dieing from extra whole grain in there diet thats for sure.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:



ignorance is bliss




are you 5? you highlight everything before a comma to come off as a winner. woww way to go, you're my hero.

I'm not over here touting that sugar is good for you, i agree that refined sugar is just bad empty calories. Especially when the refined sugar most likely has high-fructose in front of it.


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #40
you should read his website.  when he says whole grains are bad, he isn't referring to quinoa.  quinoa is a seed, not a grain.  see, you already learned something new.  

amaranth is a pseudo grain

anyway, he agrees with you that quinoa is good for you.  you two may have more in common than you think. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #41
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

you should read his website.  when he says whole grains are bad, he isn't referring to quinoa.  quinoa is a seed, not a grain.  see, you already learned something new.  

amaranth is a pseudo grain

anyway, he agrees with you that quinoa is good for you.  you two may have more in common than you think. 


its considered to be a whole grain, even the box says so, so

Yes i read some of his site, we do have more in common. I still think he is a blowhard, but hes a guy with a blog trying to sell you something so i'm pretty sure he knows it, seems like he has a good following though. Still can't agree with him on the whole grain thing, he cites no proof what so ever. The only thing remotely close to proof is when he says find me a whole grain that can beat this big ass salad and i mean when he said big ass salad he wasnt joking. 40 grams of fat for a salad is a decent amount but the fact that you could eat the thing all day helps. So that was the only respect in which he was right.

Still i think everyone here can agree that sugar is a part of the bigger problem, and the bigger problem is the overall nutrition level of the country. How many people can even follow that horrible excuse for nutrition called the pyramid. Yes i know its kind of horrible, but even that is better than what most people do.
With better nutrition habits and information you'll naturally see a decrease in sugar consumption.
Even with regulation and taxing you will not get this, you know damn well will pay extra, and you know damn well kids will still find a way to buy coke etc, or their parents will buy it for them.
Taking those vending machines out of schools is def. a solid move though.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #42
i agree.  sugar isn't the beginning and the end of the problem. 

i just posted the article for discussion.  i don't think taxing sugar products is much of a possibility. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 9147
Posted: #43
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

i agree.  sugar isn't the beginning and the end of the problem. 

i just posted the article for discussion.  i don't think taxing sugar products is much of a possibility. 


That's probably what people said about tobacco 20-30 years ago. As more and more people take on the crusade more and more evidence will come out and eventually it could lead to something like this.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #44
i guess i shouldn't say it isn't possible, but that kind of tax would affect so many people, it's hard to imagine it passing.  maybe in san francisco, oregon or washington. 

it's much easier for our country to just keep spending and create paper money. 
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2011
Posts: 526
Posted: #45
Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Win:

Tax chocolate, chips, dip and fast food @ 10%. Legalize weed and tax it according to strength. The deficit would be paid off in 3-5 years.


you do realize the US is in about $15 TRILLION in debt right?, which is about 50k per taxpayer.  im not sure about you, but i dont eat 100k in junk food a year.
 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #46
I quit smoking cigs because they got too expensive

whatever happened to the days of buying two loosey's at the corner mart for a .25 cents?  15 years ago, i could get a pack of smokes, a blunt, a nick, a rubber, and enough gas to drive out to the park to get my party on, with ten measly bucks

now adays cigs are at least six bucks per pack,,,pack a day smoker spends over 2k per year on chokes!!? no thanks, i weened meself off and never looked back. i don't miss them and thank god for the extra money so i can afford grocerys now that the government has rendered the currency they force me to accept in exchange for my labor, worthless!

weening myself off, for a profit
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.