rt, will you ban it?

  • evatronic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not ban. No.

    However, I would tax it at exactly the same rate as the corn and farm subsidies lower its cost, to make its actual price reflect reality.

  • w00tabaga@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    No, because just banning things rarely achieves the desired results.

    And whether it’s cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, too much sugar in general is the problem, much more so than the subtle differences between the two.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Instead, tax it enough. And maybe do that with sugar/fat/etc in general, so that inherently sweeter and fattier foods can’t be sold as cheap. It works in some countries already.

      • w00tabaga@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Maybe. A possibility for sure. I’m just not really into policies of trying to save people from themselves.

        For me? I do what I can by just avoiding it as much as I can.

        • lps2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          No man is an island and policies that aim to better the nation’s health are rarely for the benefit of the individual and rather are a way to benefit the masses by increasing productivity in the labor market, reducing healthcare costs, and generally making the nation more competitive on the international stage

          • w00tabaga@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Right and I get that, and I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, but again I just get a really bad taste in my mouth for policies that aim to save people from themselves. It just feels like the government being a parent instead of a service of the people. Secondly, it doesn’t really fix the root of the problem, which doesn’t always have to be the goal in policies obviously, but reluctantly making people make decisions with higher prices. Where should the government stop then in using higher taxes to get us to do what it wants?

            Again, I’m torn on this because it may be the correct thing to do to cut down sugar consumption, but I hate the precedent it creates.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    No. It’s not quite harmful enough. If I banned that, I’d have to ban a lot of things if I wanted to keep a fairly consistent position.

    Cigarettes would be the first I would consider.

    But I probably wouldn’t outright ban any of it.

  • MTLion3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Can I ban surculose instead? Both are bad, but the distinct lack of regulation on surculose baffles me.

  • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not sure about an all out ban but its usage should definitely be reduced. 39g of sugar in a 12oz Coke is ridiculous.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean, 100% agree, but not by force. If people want to drink sugar, that’s their business… It’s stupid, but sure, go for it.

  • demesisx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Remove the subsidies on agricultural products that get sprayed with glyphosate to increase yield. Corn, wheat, and potatoes in this country are poison because of the chemicals they spray them with…then they go and put that tainted product into sugars like HCFS.

  • cloudpunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    So the problem with hfcs is that it’s everywhere. And not just like juice, I’m talking like canned goods, deli meat, peanut butter, crackers, bread. So it’s really hard to avoid unless you just make everything from scratch. And not I’m advocating for a total abolishment but it’s easy to go over your daily sugar with it being in everything. I would try to limit it or maybe have a warning on packages. For the other person that linked a study, I looked into one of the guys that did it, and he does just like a lot of hfcs studies, like a weirdly amount and I found that kinda sus lol This site lists papers for and against the safety

    https://journalistsresource.org/environment/high-fructose-corn-syrup-your-health/

    https://www.healthcentral.com/article/how-to-reduce-your-intake-of-highfructose-corn-syrup

    • Nefara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not as bad as all that, I’ve cut it out of my diet for about fifteen years. It involves A LOT of reading ingredient labels but for just about everything it’s in, there is an alternative without. Sometimes it does come at a premium, though. In the past ten years or so a lot of food manufacturers realized there was a market for foods without it and often advertise it on the label (breads especially). With some things like soda, you can get real sugar, glass bottled sodas which are expensive, but another alternative is drinking water which you should be doing anyway.

      • cloudpunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I agree that you can avoid hitting the daily sugar thing (and avoid hfcs) by reading ingredients but I don’t think many consumers do that. I certainly did not expect it find it in canned tomatoes and I use that in a lot of the recipes I found online. It makes sense why it’s in there though if it’s acting as a preservative. In fact, I’m going agree with a lot of folks here and just would like to send an end to corn subsidies.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Ah, sorry, not banned. It has a production quota so you can only make so much. That applies to the whole of Europe. I have never had HFCS so the quota is probably pretty low.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m amazed to see some people agree with banning it here… Like… Under what grounds? Because some people overeat? Jesus… What the hell?

      • s20@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Well, it’s not about overeating for one thing. The stuff is everywhere in American food. Assuming you’re in the States, you’ve probably consumed a lot more corn syrup than you think within the past year, and the stuff isn’t good for you. Here’s an article from the Cleveland Clinic about why it’s probably not the best thing to eat:

        https://health.clevelandclinic.org/avoid-the-hidden-dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup-video/

        Now, as I initially said, I don’t know about banning it, but I kinda feel like warning labels are justified, and maybe some other restrictions.

        Also… I live in Iowa, and frankly the corn subsidies that have helped cause the corn sweetener explosion are destroying the environment here. It’s a lot to get into, but corn production at this scale causes changes to weather patterns. It’s a lot.

        So, I’d like to see corn subsidies ended, or at least reduced a lot. This would make corn sweetener more expensive and therefore a less attractive ingredient.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m not sure we use it in anything, so I don’t see much reason to ban it, no.

    • infinipurple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      What an idiotic take. A good government is elected by the people and directed by them to make decisions in their favour. Of course it is the government’s role to protect its population from dangerous food additives.