Could Overweight people now sue the Sugar Industry

[Sierra85]

you cant sue an industry as big as sugar. makes no sense. you'd have to sue individual products or companies, and even then good luck proving it.

[Themius]

Why not? The sugar industry has lied and has lobbied to get things not passed. "Oh hey don't say restrict added sugars else we won't contribute money to you" and it's like hundreds of millions..

[Mad_Murdock]

Let's not forget that big macs have more carbohydrates than fat. Blaming the fat for obesity is shortsighted at best, and destructively misleading at worst - as we've come to see. Carbohydrates also have more addictive qualities than fats - they don't fill you up quite as fast, and there's some evidence that excessive carbohydrates can modulate flora, particularly yeast, to produce neurotransmitters and other compounds that reward sugar/carbohydrate-feasting.

I don't think sugar's the only thing to blame, but I do think it plays a major role and certainly a larger role than fat consumption. That being said, not all fats are equal. Trans fats are unilaterally bad for you. Oxidized polyunsaturated fats probably promote inflammation and atherosclerosis, the former of which is involved in obesity pathogenesis. Saturated fats, however, are neutral, despite their reputation.

Finally, I don't think it's true that we've been getting 'good eating advice' for 30 years considering that our food pyramid, until recently, looked like this:



In what world is 11 servings of crackers, bread, cereal, or pasta a day a healthy option? This is pure misinformation.

A Big mac has 28 grams of fat x 9 calories per gram is 252 calories. It has 46 carbs x 4 calories per gram is 182. The fat in the big mac is the bigger problem.

Maybe this is too new of a version, but if you look at the break out, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul.../fgp_sizes.pdf. The 11 servings is for teenage boys, who if they are semi active will be burning off far more calories. Note that a serving of those carbs is a slice of bread. In what world is eating 11 slices of bread ever going to make you fat? It will vary from bread to bread, but it's 75-100 calories. Older adults should only consume 6 slices. It's not perfect, but it's a simple enough guide that if a person cared just a little bit about themselves could easy see where to make adustments

I still stand by my answer, the main problem is too many calories in and too little activity to burn it off. Trimming out the fat is the easiest way to fix the calories in problem. I haven't met anyone who didn't know that they shouldn't drink 5 sodas and eat 5 candy bars a day.

[Tennis]

LOL come on tennisace, I know you don't like fat people but the fat content of foods isn't what makes people fat.

Fat content of fat people bud.

[zenkai]

Just like some smokers got compensation from the Tobacco Industry , when it was announced that smoking
Tobacco causes health problems. Could the Sugar industry now be taken to the courts by people who have
Type 2 Diabetes or similar health problems caused by eating "Low Fat" labelled food which are full of sugar.

I am no legal eagle, but would be curious to know if action could be done against the sugar industry, after
reading this report, which shows the Sugar Industry went out of their way to Demonize Fat.
And then put excess amounts of sugar into Low Fat labelled products.

http://qz.com/779541/the-sugar-indus...d-towards-fat/

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/1286444...istort-science

Trust no one.

That’s the takeaway of a new study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which claims the sugar industry in the 1960s launched a campaign in which it paid for nutrition research to downplay evidence linking America’s rising sugar consumption to heart disease. In doing so, the industry was able to deflect negative attention away from sugar on to fat and cholesterol, which by the 1980s were seen as the main contributors to cardiovascular disease.

It wasn’t until this year, in February, that the US government eased its position on cholesterol, illustrating just how powerful industry forces can be in shaping decades of federal policy and conventional wisdom about what we eat and whether it’s healthy.

People always wanting to blame others for problems they created themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

fun fact about that case. The restaurant was warned that the coffee was far too hot. It was 190f At that temp it doesn't take long to get 3rd degree burns.

Now if anything this means the FDA should clean up food labels. It also means that the consumer (with out a doubt the dumbest person(s) on earth) have to educate themselves. Thank goodness this meat is glutton free.

Fun fact, she was a clutz who didn't know how to hold a cup of coffee.

[Vash The Stampede]

Hey look at this. Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades

https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...es-for-decades

[breadisfunny]

LOL come on tennisace, I know you don't like fat people but the fat content of foods isn't what makes people fat.

i dunno this tennisace guy might be on to something....

[TrumpIsPresident]

Misuse of product is not a valid ground for suing a company. If you eat too much sugar, you are misusing products containing sugar in them. The company cannot control how customers use its products, but it can control labeling it properly - and most companies have mastered that.

Labeling in an intelligent world.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.

Labeling in an litigious world.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.
Warning: This product contains eggs.

Labeling in California.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.
Warning: This product contains eggs. Eggs are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, other reproductive harm, and global warming. Eggs are also racist.

[Ravenblade]

I guess it depends on the country, the food industry likes to use sugar as filler here too because their products would taste godawful otherwise, especially if you're not used to the same product without sugar. Like say yoghurt, it's not the worst food without sugar but it doesn't taste the same. Often a 150g portion from the supermarket shelf contains about half of the daily recommend maximum dose (25 grams as per WHO guidelines) already. Sugar is the only drug where overdosing it is socially and commercially sanctioned.

[zenkai]

Labeling in an intelligent world.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.

Labeling in an litigious world.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.
Warning: This product contains eggs.

Labeling in California.
Product Eggs
Contents: 12 eggs.
Warning: This product contains eggs. Eggs are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, other reproductive harm, and global warming. Eggs are also racist.

Just the white eggs.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Just the white eggs.

Ohhhhhh zing!

[Annoying]

A Big mac has 28 grams of fat x 9 calories per gram is 252 calories. It has 46 carbs x 4 calories per gram is 182. The fat in the big mac is the bigger problem.

Maybe this is too new of a version, but if you look at the break out, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul.../fgp_sizes.pdf. The 11 servings is for teenage boys, who if they are semi active will be burning off far more calories. Note that a serving of those carbs is a slice of bread. In what world is eating 11 slices of bread ever going to make you fat? It will vary from bread to bread, but it's 75-100 calories. Older adults should only consume 6 slices. It's not perfect, but it's a simple enough guide that if a person cared just a little bit about themselves could easy see where to make adustments

I still stand by my answer, the main problem is too many calories in and too little activity to burn it off. Trimming out the fat is the easiest way to fix the calories in problem. I haven't met anyone who didn't know that they shouldn't drink 5 sodas and eat 5 candy bars a day.

Well, diet is actually solidly complex, and the "food pyramid" is largely inaccurate. Though I do agree with the bottom part of "too many calories in and too little activity to burn it off". The food pyramid is old and not terribly accurate, as we know more now about complex/refined carbs and such. Harvard re-did the DoA's MyPlate to make it more scientifically accurate:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...-eating-plate/

[Hif]

Its not sugar. Its HFCS which doesn't exist in products in other countries. Its all the chemicals and junk americans put in their food which is not needed.

[Fasc]

Hey look at this. Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades

https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...es-for-decades

None of this is relevant as dietary standards were never advocating for egregious sugar consumption in the first place, or even consumption of processed foods. Further, there is a realistic delay between how products currently available are labeled and understood, how food should be consumed as advised by dietitians, and how research may or may not confirm what's going on.

A company desiring to rebrand negative publicity associated with its products is not criminal behavior or nefarious. Further the article illustrates a problem dietetics in general had in that time: good research dumbed down into stupid sound bytes like "fats and sugars bad cuz heart disease!" Such axioms make any dietitian worth anything cringe because while it serves as generalized "mostly right" advice to lay persons... it cannot be used with any nuance when food producers can just work around the axiom. Queue: fat free, low carb, sugar free, gluten free, natural, artisan, etc labeling of processed foods that still suck for you because of a host of known issues that have nothing to do with fat/carb/sugar/etc content.

Attacking the sugar industry specifically is just giving in to horribly dumbed down biochemistry knowledge that would make Food Babe proud. Heart disease is related to the generic problem of "poor diet" which goes well beyond mere sugar consumption... never mind genetic predispositions, activity levels, consumption of certain non-foods, exposure to various water and air borne materials, and so on and so forth.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not sugar. Its HFCS which doesn't exist in products in other countries. Its all the chemicals and junk americans put in their food which is not needed.

'Dem gosh dern CHEMICALS like dihydrogen monoxide

The preservatives themselves aren't the problem, and haven't been.

[Mad_Murdock]

Well, diet is actually solidly complex, and the "food pyramid" is largely inaccurate. Though I do agree with the bottom part of "too many calories in and too little activity to burn it off". The food pyramid is old and not terribly accurate, as we know more now about complex/refined carbs and such. Harvard re-did the DoA's MyPlate to make it more scientifically accurate:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...-eating-plate/

We're probably splitting hairs a bit, but I can pretty much guarantee that if someone followed the basic food chart of the 80s and got realistic amount of exercise they will never be obese and highly unlikely to ever be "fat". That's of course skipping over people with people medical conditions.

On topic to this, if it is shown that companies are sneaking in Sugars and\or other mislabeling of their products, I'm absolutely 100% in favor a brutal merciless punishment that might very well cause a company to go out of business. If they complaint is that they make Reeses cups taste too good or their commericals gives me the impression that it's OK to eat 2-4 a day, then that is just a shame on me.

Straight up deception I don't have much tolerance for. Pitching a product in the best possible light is what all companies should be doing.

[Hif]

None of this is relevant as dietary standards were never advocating for egregious sugar consumption in the first place, or even consumption of processed foods. Further, there is a realistic delay between how products currently available are labeled and understood, how food should be consumed as advised by dietitians, and how research may or may not confirm what's going on.

A company desiring to rebrand negative publicity associated with its products is not criminal behavior or nefarious. Further the article illustrates a problem dietetics in general had in that time: good research dumbed down into stupid sound bytes like "fats and sugars bad cuz heart disease!" Such axioms make any dietitian worth anything cringe because while it serves as generalized "mostly right" advice to lay persons... it cannot be used with any nuance when food producers can just work around the axiom. Queue: fat free, low carb, sugar free, gluten free, natural, artisan, etc labeling of processed foods that still suck for you because of a host of known issues that have nothing to do with fat/carb/sugar/etc content.

Attacking the sugar industry specifically is just giving in to horribly dumbed down biochemistry knowledge that would make Food Babe proud. Heart disease is related to the generic problem of "poor diet" which goes well beyond mere sugar consumption... never mind genetic predispositions, activity levels, consumption of certain non-foods, exposure to various water and air borne materials, and so on and so forth.

- - - Updated - - -



'Dem gosh dern CHEMICALS like dihydrogen monoxide

The preservatives themselves aren't the problem, and haven't been.

HFCS is not a preservative. Its a sweetner. Well done Einstein.

[Fasc]

HFCS is not a preservative. Its a sweetner. Well done Einstein.

You said:

"Its all the chemicals and junk americans put in their food which is not needed."

I made no specific references to the sweetener whatsoever. Unless you're implying that "chemicals" and "junk" are entirely all sweeteners then you're being very silly in your response.

Also HFCS is a highly processed item, a usual tell that you shouldn't consume a lot of it, something I already covered.

Einstein indeed.

[Vash The Stampede]

Attacking the sugar industry specifically is just giving in to horribly dumbed down biochemistry knowledge that would make Food Babe proud.

I agree, but not for the same reasons.

Heart disease is related to the generic problem of "poor diet" which goes well beyond mere sugar consumption... never mind genetic predispositions, activity levels, consumption of certain non-foods, exposure to various water and air borne materials, and so on and so forth.

Lets start with the obvious problem, and that's Glycation. What is Glycation you ask? A process that happens when the human body when sugar reacts the wrong way, causing cross linked proteins. Which stiffens arteries, wrinkles skin, creates cataracts in your eyes, type 2 diabetes, and the list goes on. This is one of the 7 types of damage that causes aging. You can accelerate this by eating sugar. In fact, human beings should eat almost no sugar, cause you get plenty from eating fruits and vegetables. It's already too much when your morning coffee, plus sports drink, plus energy bar are loaded with the stuff, but when you buy burgers and bread that had some sneak in to make you more addicted to buy more, it's wrong and unhealthy. More so unhealthy than the already sugar filled sports drinks and coffee.

[Fasc]

I agree, but not for the same reasons.


Lets start with the obvious problem, and that's Glycation. What is Glycation you ask? A process that happens when the human body when sugar reacts the wrong way, causing cross linked proteins. Which stiffens arteries, wrinkles skin, creates cataracts in your eyes, type 2 diabetes, and the list goes on. This is one of the 7 types of damage that causes aging. You can accelerate this by eating sugar. In fact, human beings should eat almost no sugar, cause you get plenty from eating fruits and vegetables. It's already too much when your morning coffee, plus sports drink, plus energy bar are loaded with the stuff, but when you buy burgers and bread that had some sneak in to make you more addicted to buy more, it's wrong and unhealthy. More so unhealthy than the already sugar filled sports drinks and coffee.

You're running hard on the nefarious maliciousness of companies to make you want to buy their products using things that people actively WANT in their foods: sweet and tasty things.

You're not schooling me on the potential negative effects of X consumption. Literally EVERYTHING you can consume can be harmful to some people for a variety of reasons, and specifically with the increased activity of fructose and galactose. BOTH of these are standardized observations when creating diets as their effects are NOT unknown.

You have a difficult problem to prove that somehow the sugar industry is most liable for disease effects of X variety when NO ONE is typically controlling or maintaining their diets according to any dietary rules or procedures. The reasonable person standard makes their liability difficult to pin down, especially since you're trying to say "Well because people commonly overconsume sugars..." Such a statement already beats the hell out of any argument you might have since the burden is on the consumers, not the sugar producing industries.

[Beazy]

I personally would consult the Ronald McDonald Task Force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8vC0h7bzQk

This guys lays it out.