| ▲ | ralph84 a day ago |
| And sugar |
|
| ▲ | munk-a a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Sugar in moderation is a fine thing the issue the US has is more focused on how pervasive sweeteners have become in what looks like savory food. A ban would be a very silly thing but at some point America needs an FDA with teeth to actually crack down on labeling requirements. |
|
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive. |
| |
| ▲ | gtowey a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage" And it's true, you can die from water toxicity. Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing. Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption. Sugar addiction is real. | | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent [-] | | Your last sentence is non-sequitur. The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not). | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's like saying the addictiveness of heroin has no bearing on its health implications. It is the literally the most important aspect to consider. Without addictiveness, it wouldn't have such a large impact. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical". | | |
| ▲ | breezybottom a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd. | | | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative. | | |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF a day ago | parent [-] | | In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| These are incredibly reductionist arguments y’all are engaging in. |
| |
| ▲ | rithdmc a day ago | parent [-] | | How so? Sugar is having taxes added in many jurisdictions due to the health effects & habituation it can cause. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-] | | Different things are bad in different ways and need to be handled differently. You can’t functionally just go “both can be addictive and kill people therefore your argument is moot.” You’ve removed all qualifiers and context. To compare them is to respond to a discussion on the threat of guns with some point about people weaponizing their cars and running people over because both can cause bodily harm. I think we can both agree that comparison strips all context and nuance from most conversations about guns OR cars and makes it difficult to talk about either in productive ways outside of the narrow/niche discussions. TL;DR: this comparison spikes the conversation. Sugar and kratom do not present enough analogous health issues or enough of the same types risks to those around you to warrant lumping them together like that. | | |
| ▲ | rithdmc 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're talking about dangerous substances you can buy OTC, and the health implications of those. Of course kratom and sugar fall into that bucket. | | |
|
|
|
