Monday, 4 November 2013

"Some Have Suggested That The Sugar Industry Is Approaching Its Tobacco Moment"

They're in a rare old hurry, these prohibitionist types.
If all this tax and regulation sounds familiar, well, it is. 
Calls for the government to intervene to regulate excess sugar consumption have been compared to the anti-smoking movement. 
Just like Big Tobacco, Big Sugar could be the next big public health campaign. 
Some have suggested that the sugar industry is approaching its Tobacco Moment - when regulators need to step in to protect society before any more harm is done.
Hey, I'm not making this shit up, you understand.
The Credit Suisse report argues that regulators should adopt strategies from the battle against smoking to fight the looming war with sugar. 
The template would include restricting advertising space to hurt marketing appeal, increase tax on foods containing added sugar, and including health warnings on labels.
Like this, perhaps.

Yes, it's a template stolen from the tobacco industry, as I've said many times before. I described the process in detail here way back in January 2009.

It's also a template denied by the likes of ASH and the Smokefree Action Coalition as being a fantasy. Or, as Debs "light the blue touch paper and retire" Arnott put it, "patently false".
The effective regulation of sugar consumption needs to focus on the individual. 
This is where plain packaging, health warnings on labels and public education campaigns are likely to have great impact. But could we go further?
"Further" than plain packaging?
Just as we have bottle shops for alcohol, imagine dedicated party shops or segregated areas in supermarkets where sugar-laden foods such as confectionary (sic), sweetened beverages, bottled sauces and breakfast cereals would be sold. The goal would be to drive home awareness of the prevalence of added sugar in foods and its negative impact on our health.
The naughty corner for Mars bars, Coco Pops and Coca-Cola? Yes, I do believe that is what is being suggested. Behind shutters so kids don't see them too, presumably.
This is a powerful message which seems to be saying that society is not prepared to wait for slow-moving governments, regulators (and, dare I say, academia) to provide conclusive evidence of sugar's detrimental effects.
Evidence? Pah! Who needs evidence?

Whatever you may think, please remember that this is not a slippery slope. It is, in fact, merely what is termed "the most unslippery slippery dip I've ever seen in my life".

Got that?


Bucko TheMoose said...

Society is not willing to wait for evidence? I suppose by society they mean a small clan of insufferable ban nannies?

Legiron said...

One day. One day the drones will catch on.

But it is not this day.

Klaus K said...

@DP, This move from Credit Suisse Investment Bank stinks like pharma ...

It is very interesting. It looks like Big Pharma once again is starting a war against a "natural" industry. Now they will try to demonise natural sugar and the sugar industry, probably like they did with Big Tobacco. And for the same two reasons:

1. Pointing out a scapegoat: Big Pharma has themselves a big share in the "obesity epidemic". In fact obesity may be just another unhealthy result of the drug epidemic. This article is 6 years old, and there has not been many other reports about drugs causing overweight - that's because Big Pharma is the master of media manipulations:

2. The replacement: Please note they are only attacking the "natural" sugar. They have their own SRT - sugar replacememt therapy - ready for the confused consumers who they are scaring away from sugar. For example the artificial sweetener Splenda, produced by McNeil, affiliate of Johnson&Johnson, owners of Nicorette:

Splenda is sucralose, a artificial modified sweetener. Extremely unhealthy - much more than natural sugar of course - but as we know: nothing Big Pharma produces has anything to do with health:

On the other hand artificial sweeteners llike aspartame and sucralose could have something to do with overweight: see ‘the diet soda paradox’ - less sugar, more weight":

I couldn't help note the very artificial way the debate played out here - with CreditSuisse making an assesment of the sugar alternatives, ending up with recommending sucralose - Splenda. It could be a coincidence though:

But still ... the whole thing has Big Pharma written all over it.

Snapper said...

If you find the report scary, then skip down to the comments. The idiots there actually AGREE that these things should be controlled. They want bans, they welcome their lives being controlled and seem to believe any rubbish that the 'experts' churn out. With a mindset like that, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Miles Dolphin said...

With e-cigs possibly removing some of their funding, they have to look somewhere else to find something to fight against - or they will be out of their jobs in double quick time!

DP said...

Dear Mr Puddlecote

Another bunch of parasite jumping on the banned wagon.

The plan for big corporate/big government ownership of the sheople seems to be rolling along nicely.

It's jolly good of those awfully nice bankers to suddenly become interested in our health. Will they be as good for our health as they are for our wealth?


truckerlyn said...

Of course, haranguing people to give up smoking is not adding to obesity, is it?

Then again, the more people who become obese, the more the money big pharma can screw from them for their 'wonder products' that will slim them down in no time! I'm sure they have something in the pipeline!

It is about time this 'research' is conducted by truly ethical and unbiased scientists and verified before any scaremongering is allowed to even start! Then again, for that we would need a government that knows how to govern and not be manipulated and coerced and a government that is strong enough to make it's own decisions and not rely on biased quangos who have their own agenda! Pipe dreams, I know!

Churchmouse said...

Thanks, Dick, for the mention -- much appreciated!

Hope you and yours are well.


Sam Duncan said...

Ever noticed how difficult it is these days to buy fizzy drinks without artificial sweetners already? I don't drink them
often, so it's quite noticable that every summer it gets harder to find
anything uncontaminated with that foul-tasting muck. The big names
stick it out because their recipes are their brands, but if you want a simple lemonade - water, sugar, lemon juice, CO2 - you have your
work cut out. This year Morrison's “The Best” and Lidl's own brand hit the dust. It's now down to Sainsbury's and Waitrose (at least within reasonable buying distance for me). Next year, who knows? By the end of the decade I expect to be sent to a re-education camp for even looking.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

You want unbiased research, I want unbiased research, or at least a debate.

Check out this collective whinge by entirely biased researchers upset at being challenged by the public.

They don;t want unbiased research, they just want everyone else silenced. It's not happening, so they concoct a conspiracy theory saying that, erm, conspiracy theorists are conspiring against them.

You really couldn't make it up. Perhaps I should write about it. ;)

Anto said...

Meanwhile, in Australia - it seems that tax hikes and plain packaging hasn't worked:

Nobody could possibly have predicted that!

truckerlyn said...

The WHO, that is another body that needs culling and replacing, if at all, with people who actually think for themselves and listen to those they represent instead of cow towing to scientists and quangos that only have their own agenda.

As for vaccinations! In the UK there has been an epidemic of measles. Why? Because the bullies in government insisted on the MMR and although government say it is safe, many parents are not willing to take the chance. Simple solution, make the single vaccinations available to those who would prefer them! That is what would and should happen with a democratic government, in my view - instead we are governed by power hungry, egotistical bullies!

As for global warming/climate change, whatever you want to cal it, most of us, using common sense and logic, know that this is something that has occurred on this planet since it came into existence. Scientists know of and have studied layers of the earth regarding previous Ice Ages. None of us have seen it before because it is a cycle that takes millions of years, but we know it happens. Perhaps it is the way the planet survives and regenerates itself. I am not a scientist, but neither am I stupid or gullible.

There is good science out there, but sadly it is probably ignored because of all the bad science that is produced purely to line someones pocket, usually, it seems, the pharma industries and it is disgraceful These scientists should be struck off, if that is the correct term.

And yes, Dick, you should write about it.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Done so.