Class actions against "Sugar"

[CherryAA]

https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Ne...1/BloombergBNAClassActionLitigationReport.pdf

An encouraging lit of class action law suits filed against producers of junk including kelloggs , general Mills and Post.

This is going to rival Tobacco and Asbestosis ! the sooner the better ....

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I couldn't download the PDF, but what I find strange about law suites against manufacturers of foods containing sugar is that my mother was preaching how bad sugar was for you . . . . . . back when I was a lad, so over 50 years ago. She may have incorrectly thought it was the only cause of diabetes, people did in those days, but she was also worried about tooth decay and weight increase, so some good reasons to avoid it. Probably why I have never been keen on sweet things, I can blame mum, thanks mum!

 

[SockFiddler]

The essence of the argument, @DavidGrahamJones is not that it's been known for years that sugar is bad, but that sugar - and carbs - are being marketed as healthy. It's the ultimate in false advertising. At least with tobacco, they knew it was awful for you and marketed it as cool - never as healthy - and that was a huge enough scandal.

With carbs and sugars you have not only that they're deliberately marketing products as healthy, but sponsoring sports events to tie their brands in with health, achievement, athleticism, but also that many of these companies are major sponsors of nutritional advisory boards and national dietician bodies around the world.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/jennifer-elliott-vs-dietitians-association-of-australia/

https://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-fettke-censored-recommending-low-carb

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-tim-noakes-verdict-expected-20170421

To name but three, all of them on trial for recommending low-carb diets to patients, all of their cases brought by dietician regulatory bodies sponsored by "big sugar" corporations (Source: Diabetes Unpacked)

 

[Guzzler]

I agree. One case of false advertising was one I fell for hook, line and sinker and that Sunny D juices. I was newly widowed at the time the scandal broke and I would skint myself to buy that rubbish because I beleived it was a healthier option to pop. This is when I started to research what I was putting in my children's mouths. I was spitting feathers that I had been hoodwinked but twenty years on I see Sunny D is still being sold and is still kept in the areas where other so called healthy products such as yoghurt and low fat rubbish is displayed.

 

[JohnEGreen]

the tobacco companies carried out a planned campaign to persuade the public that the case against tobacco was not clearcut and to use scientists and medical experts to provide via data from studies initiated by them that would as it where muddy the waters a bit.

The sugar industry borrowed from the tobacco industries campaign using in fact many of the same experts in order to persuade us that sugar is really not so bad.

Both industries carried out this syndical plan with only profit in mind and with no concern for effects on our health. I hope it costs them a lot of money now. But some how I doubt it will.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

With carbs and sugars you have not only that they're deliberately marketing products as healthy, but sponsoring sports events to tie their brands in with health, achievement, athleticism, but also that many of these companies are major sponsors of nutritional advisory boards and national dietician bodies around the world.

Thanks for explaining. The PDF wouldn't open for me, perhaps I was too impatient.

 

[Mbaker]

Glad, hope "they" squirm. When I was first diagnosed I remember thinking at a train station I will have one of those "healthy" Belvita bars, luckily I read the carb content.

Even the Governments (UK) sugar swap App (Change4Life) misleads on the sugar content by not counting carbs - this for me is not an oversight. Or just go into any supermarket and look at foods with green for sugar, then check the carbs on many of them; even if these were labeled correctly it would make a great difference.

When I was diagnosed if I were to put the type of foods I ate on a table many would say it was fine (some examples oats, home made white flour pancakes (either plain or with unsweetened lemon juice, yellow and green bananas, oranges, mangos, rice and peas (Jamican style), yams, plantain, full English with beans, sometimes chips. No sugar in tea, coffee. No fizzy drinks apart from 4 times a year orange and lemonade, home made soda bread).

I was simply eating too much refined carbs, sugary fruit juices etc in ignorance; I know what my wife and I are like and had "we" known for example eating 4 plain pancakes with berries and a glass of orange juice would raise blood sugars outside of the normal range, we would have made different choices.

 

[SockFiddler]

And that's really the core of the argument: we didn't stand a chance. I've been feeding my son either porridge or Weetabix every day of his life and now, before he's even hit 12 years old, his FBG was 8. And, interestingly, with just a few adjustments to his diet, it's back down to below 5. I don't keep sweets in the house, I didn't let him snack between meals, we used to have junk food just once a week I have never rewarded him with food. And yet, boom, were he to have an HbA1c today, he'd get at least diagnosed as prediabetic - and all because I followed the guidance on how to feed my family "healthily".

I likened this to a drug racket in another thread, and I stand by that. They create the market, they feed the market, they encourage the market to enlist new customers. They've even paid lots of money to claim their patch and keep the competition quiet (again, those links, and those are just three of many who have risked or lost their careers and reputations because they dared to suggest the current model of "healthy" eating isn't true). The only part that doesn't fit the metaphor is that you don't get drug dealers sitting in influential positions quietly getting people to say "Hey! Heroine's SUPER good for you - give it to your kids!"

In that, they are absolutely unforgivable and it's high time someone threw the book at them.

 

[MikeTurin]

I think the food industry has two forces that make the problem emerge: one is the marketing and advertising and the other is the production.
If we are talking of "generic" food like beer, olive oil, vegetables, cheese or bitter chocolate you have "generic foods". Different brands and types of food are made but if one likes cheese can choose different types of cheese and if for example one likes Gorgonzola there are different brands: Igor, Palzola, Oioli, Costa, Guffanti or smaller brands.
So from the marketing purpose having a specific and recognizable kind of food it's way better. Kinder chocolate is way more recognizable than milk chocolate.
If you're a global brand like these you have to sell the same product, the differences in cheeses or beers that are a plus with a global brand are a minus.
Then the production price has to go low.
To have a standar and cheap product the obvious solution is to use standard and cheap raw ingredients. and sugar or refined wheat is standard and cheap. Sugar is a preservative and tastes good.
So you have a big incentive to advertise standard sugary and low-quality fatty foods.

 

[Lamont D]

I think there is a difficulty in determining what is healthy food for some and not for others.
If you have diabetes, then carbohydrates should be regulated.
If you are a sportsman, then carbs become important.
If your metabolism needs no gluten!
If you have allergies!
So what is healthy, unless you are normal!
But how do you determine normal?

Take shredded wheat!
Beefy Botham for years advocated how good for your heart the wholewheat cereal was for us! For some reason this has changed!
Is it no longer healthy?
Porridge, amongst other foods are really bad for me. But aren't they one of the so-called super foods?

There are certain foods that are manufactured that are really bad for everyone but they won't ban them any time soon!
Some of the drinks on sale, should be banned because of the incredibly high sugar content, but sugar is not poisonous! Is it?

For decades, People brought lucozade into hospital, as this was normal practice, because it was touted as a healthy drink for patients!
Now, lucozade is branded as too unhealthy.
The company that produces it, is now producing low sugar, no sugar alternatives!

Which one is healthier?

Well none of them if you are a diabetic with a intolerance to artificial sweeteners!

Just my opinion!

 

[Troubled1]

I personally think that the only way that things will change is through (very) unfortunate incidents. Years ago, in Canada, anyone could jump in a motorboat and go zipping around on lakes. When the jet skis became popular and some young people were killed while using them, suddenly, any Canadian that wanted to operate a powered craft had to pass a test. The government also brought in rules regarding horsepower limits for people under a certain age and now anyone operating a powerboat needs to pass a course.
Now I'm sure that if the children of prominent politicians started coming down with childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes and/or fatty liver at a high rate, things would start to change.
The companies peddling the garbage would be held accountable and I'm sure there would be a Royal Commission set up to investigate the crisis. Until something like this were to happen, I'm sure politicians of every stripe will still line up the the trough of $$ that these companies make available one way or another.
It's perfectly ok for the government to go after a company that might be endangering a snail or turtle, but it's not ok to go after companies who's products are slowly killing off the human population. It's sad.