Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

Assuming you already buy chocolate:

  • This packaging would make me buy more of it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This packaging would make me buy less of it.

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • This packaging would have no impact on me.

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Total voters
    8
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Two naturally occurring chemicals found in food are Nicotine and Sucrose (aka Sugar).

This BBC article asks, Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?

I assume the author means Eating like Smoking, or Sugar like Nicotine. In either case, the report indicates that there is an ongoing lively debate in which industry is objecting to plain packaging, and other measures being proposed, to curb child obesity.

What I find interesting is that neither side in that debate appears to show interest in educating the public! Why do law makers believe shoppers lack the capacity to make informed decisions?

Let's try an academic experiment. Please vote to indicate how much chocolate you would buy if packaged like this:

Screenshot 2019-06-13 at 01.15.32.png
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
I think that obesity is caused by eating too much in total.

Certainly sugary things are worse so maybe tax them but please do not vilify my lovely chocolate! It does have various medicinal properties allegedly but mostly it just tastes great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The BBC is a defunct irrelevant organisation so who cares...
With or without the BBC, debates over sugar are ongoing between industry and regulators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
After the OP image I seem to be avoiding sugary snacks! This surprises me since the image posted reflects long held views. It appears my purchasing choices are being influenced by visual memory alone. An alternative explanation is that BBC editors have mind control powers?!

Either way, my hypothesis is that advertising can deliver health-conscious objectives. Perhaps we can fix child obesity by playing anti-sugar adverts on CBBC?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
But next week sugar will be a health food. Eggs have gone through the process good - bad - good from one a week to as many as you like. Fat seems to be O.K. for now at least. Most scientific studies are now anti processed foods - but cheese, bread etc could be considered as processed. Then that changed that to highly processed foods. The fat is bad meant that low fat became high sugar in a lot of "health" foods. A lot of legislation is based on poor science look at the fat is bad basically had little basis in research and the research was seriously flawed (the data did not fit the theory so the data was manipulated). Don't get me started on alcohol when the Royal society of physicians looked at the data and it did not suggest a "safe limit". The committee decided they had to do something ! It would look as if they did not know what they were doing if they left it open and said more research was needed. So what did they do. They made up a number ? Maybe it was at best "a good guess". I personally believe sugar is a big problem and causes a heck of a lot of poor health the evidence is slowly emerging. And certainly the overprocessed foods are a problem. Better funding for better research is needed.

Richard
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,079 Posts
My son proposed a new theory to me today, and I had to stop and wonder at it.

The Gov wants us to consume less sugar because sugar, taken in moderation, accelerates brain metabolism and helps us think.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top