Ban the sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods to minors?

[True Blue Door]

People form their tastes and eating habits in childhood, so it's not much of a shock that people who grow up guzzling sugared soda and eating junk food tend to keep doing that in adulthood (at least until medical necessity stops them) while people who grow up eating better mostly don't develop bad habits later. So...how about banning the direct sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods and beverages to minors?

Parents would still have the right to buy it for their children as a treat or reward now and then, and degenerates who don't care at all about their kids would still have the "freedom" to screw them up out of laziness. But if kids couldn't buy it themselves, weren't brainwashed by ads during their TV shows to want it, and if parents were occasionally reminded to think about the subject by having to actively give consent, that could have a meaningful effect on typical diets and subsequent benefits for the cost of healthcare over time.

Plus it wouldn't really limit freedom - all you'd be doing is stopping corporations from exploiting the problem, not putting any major roadblock in the way of kids experiencing the joys of ice cream, cold soda on a hot day, etc. etc. So it wouldn't be a Prohibition with the attendant perverse incentives - kids could still possess sugared foods - it would just be a business regulation.

11 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, but wouldn't go far enough.
	0 (0%)
	Yes, sounds on target.
	1 (9%)
	No, but less drastic regulations would be good.
	10 (91%)
	No. Business should not be regulated for public health reasons.
	0 (0%)
	Need more information to draw conclusions.
	0 (0%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Feral Child]

1. I'm sorry

but this is the very definition of nanny-state.

Really, making the sale of a candy-bar to a child illegal is simply ridiculous. The enforcement problems alone are staggering.

Maybe we should just teach them proper nutrition in school, supplemented by pediatrician administered training to parents.

[True Blue Door]

4. So you're against cigarette age limits and restaurant health codes too?

Or only against common sense where previous generations didn't already do the political heavy lifting?

[former9thward]

8. You are equating a candy bar to cigarette sales and restaurant health codes?

Talk about a lack of common sense....

[True Blue Door]

13. Either it's legitimate to regulate business for public health reasons or not.

The "nanny state" bullshit comment implied that it's not.

[former9thward]

27. No the nanny state implies unreasonable regulation.

You have a one size fits all mentality where no regulation can ever be improper. Regulating candy bars would be crazy.

[True Blue Door]

33. But you haven't argued that it's unreasonable.

You're just arguing from conservatism that something that isn't current policy, and isn't currently being debated by powerful individuals or institutions, must be "radical." That is crazy and backward.

[former9thward]

45. I did argue that it was unreasonable.

It is crazy. That is the definition of of unreasonable.

[Feral Child]

20. That's a "gotcha" argument

and I generally refuse to entertain such tactics.

In this case, I'll counter by asking what mechanism you propose to enforce your restrictions.

Are we going to have "sign-for" lists, like the silly requirements for the purchase of pseudophedrine? Those have proven to be totally ineffective in stemming the availability of methamphetamine and are only a politically show to hoodwink the public into thinking the War on Drugs has any validity.

Will we require purchasers to show identification to prove that a purchase of a Snickers bar is lawful?

Will parents who purchase candies legally and then pass them on to their children be prosecuted and lose their ID/licenses?

Are episodes of "Cops" to focus on the interdiction of sucrose-smugglers?

Should we increase police patrols during Halloween, Christmas and Easter to squelch the trade? Should the constabulary set up roadblocks and stop-and-frisk tactics be used?

Don't you think that perhaps the volume of sales of sugary treats might prove logistically that such laws are unenforcible? Aren't there enough behavior restrictions on the books to satisfy you?

Where is the revenue going to come from to pay for the investigations and prosecution of illicit treat vendors?

We have more important concerns facing us than chasing down candy-pushers.

I'm sorry, but this entire discussion is just silly.

Schools and pediatricians can educate the public on healthy eating habits. Schools and recreational facilities should attempt to provide sufficient exercise to counter indulgence.

Get a grip.

OK, I'm done with this. If the Overly-Concerned want to waste their time crusading for a sugar prohibition, have at it. I've indulged you enough and won't address the ridiculous any further.

[LittleBlue]

2. Will I need ID to buy Cocoa Puffs?

Like someone above said, nanny state behavior. No thanks.

[True Blue Door]

5. "Nanny state" is a thought-terminating cliche.

Used by people to describe any government measure they find personally inconvenient, regardless of common sense.

You can argue that it isn't justified in this case, but if your one and only basis is that you might be inconvenienced in some way...yeah, not an impressive argument.

[LittleBlue]

11. I don't need an impressive argument

I have what I want. You need the impressive argument to convince the majority of Americans to support something like this. And get it past lobbying groups from food corporations.

Don't hold your breath, this isn't Norway.

[True Blue Door]

14. But I'm not talking to "the majority of Americans," or Congress, or food lobbyists.

I'm one person talking to a few others. You might think conversations among citizens are less important than things debated in Congress. I say what the people discuss and conclude is infinitely more important.

You've taken a position, now defend it. I've made my arguments, and you've done nothing to dispute them or offer your own. So your two options are to concede that I'm right (either explicitly or by refusing to offer substantive arguments), or to show me where I'm wrong.

"Nanny state" is some bullshit label made up by conservatives because they don't like any kind of government more rational than bloodline monarchies and military dictatorships. It has no place in progressive discussions.

[LittleBlue]

63. How many different ways can I put this?

I don't want it. It's too intrusive. I don't need to defend it because it's not a serious debate. Look at your poll results. You posted this question on the site most likely to be receptive to your beliefs, and even they don't want it.

Looks like I'm not the only one who finds it nanny state. It is big brother intrusion into something they have no business controlling, and for that reason I don't want it. I oppose a national ID system and DNA database for the same reason. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

[Boreal]

47. "Nanny state"

has nothing to do with convenient or inconvenient. It means control freaks make all of the decisions for your life from cradle to grave.

So, what are your control freak plans for Halloween?

lol

[grasswire]

3. we all bear the costs of the obesity epidemic

It's about the same idea as our health systems bearing the costs of cigarette smoking.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps taxing high-sugar foods just like we tax tobacco and booze.

[True Blue Door]

6. Getting rid of the corn subsidies that led to HFC would be a start.

Or at least only leaving trade-related subsidies to counteract commodity dumping.

[jen63]

9. ^This^

We've all been hoodwinked. It's in everything. My grandfather was a doctor and he used to call sugar and white flour "the white death". Bleach the wheat then try to add the vitamins back in. "Fortify it", when it was already fortified before they bleached it! Crazy. We're catching on though and that's a great thing. HFC syrups aren't recognized by the body like real sugar is, which leads to the vicious cycle of craving more and more. I've given it up before and once the initial withdrawal is done, I didn't miss it like I thought I would.

[True Blue Door]

16. What I've read is that natural cane sugar induces fewer pancreatic problems

but just as many liver problems, because the liver creates the same long-term toxic byproducts out of both.

Best policy is to avoid both in regular eating. And second-best is to eat a fuckton of vegetable fiber right after you do eat sugared treats.

[jen63]

29. The older I get the more I crave veggies.

I like a good steak, don't get me wrong and I do like sweets, but I can make a meal out of a baked sweet potato and a head of broccoli. Heaven!

[Chathamization]

32. Yep, it does pretty horrible things to people. Like cigarettes, people will eventually realize that.

A couple of decades ago people would never card you if you bought cigarettes, and you could still buy them from vending machines. Outlawing indoor smoking was seen as crazy. It always is difficult to get people to appreciate health risks when they aren’t used to paying attention to them. Once they do, however, it looks like recognizing the risks and taking action against them was the obvious choice.

[Oktober]

7. What if we installed little cameras and sensors on everyone?

We could monitor intake of all food, drugs, alcohol etc...

Once you reach your allotment, the sensor can buzz and if you keep eating it moves onto shocks.

You could even fine the food companies and make them pay for it...

Think of how healthy everyone would be and how much money the government would save!

[True Blue Door]

17. Is there a Rand Paul convention going on here that no one warned me about?

You sound like the people who mutter about "Big Gubmint" when told not to street race around elementary schools.

[Oktober]

19. It's amazing that everyone who disagrees with your nanny state idea...

... Is an obvious Randite tea party member.

Even your poll questions are skewed to one side because you can't conceive that you might be wrong.

[True Blue Door]

34. It would be questionable enough to use "nanny-state" rhetoric at all.

But to rely completely on it as the sum total of your thoughts on an idea that was supported with actual arguments - yeah, that's Fox News commentator behavior.

You still haven't made a single argument against the idea. You just say "nanny-state" like a magical incantation that should totally dispel any attempt to think about or discuss it.

So if you're not a conservative, you clearly spend too much time around them.

[Oktober]

50. Add fox news viewer to the list...

The points are all there, you just can't seem to grasp the idea that anyone might disagree with you...

Subtlety and nuance obviously aren't for you. I'll be sure to put everything in a power point presentation with bullets and animation next time.

[surrealAmerican]

10. I'm fine with banning marketing to children ...

... not just of unhealthy food, but of anything. Children could be spared the advertising. They are not adequately educated to understand the difference between information and coercion.

There's no need for sales restrictions. They would not only be ineffective (what percentage of food do children purchase for themselves vs. what their parents purchase?), but it would keep children from developing their own sense of value and ability to conduct their own commerce.

[Throd]

12. 1st paragraph pulled from your ass. 2nd paragraph is elitist tripe. 3rd paragraph is just wrong.

[True Blue Door]

18. That's an amazing impression of a Tea Party tweet.

Now do "Democrat expressing intelligent thoughts."

[Boreal]

48. Are you always this obnoxious to others

or just particularly full of yourself today?

[Marr]

15. If you think it sounds extreme, you should watch this documentary:

Marketing these calorie-dense, non-nutritious foods to kids is not unlike advertising cigarettes to them. Kids are incredibly susceptible to advertising.

I don't know about banning the sale of these products to kids, but I'd absolutely support a ban on advertising them to children.

[dembotoz]

21. so we raise children with the idea that breaking the law is bad

and then we produce bull shit like this that will make so many kids into
habitual law breakers

stupid
stupid
stupid

[True Blue Door]

35. Not reading the OP before commenting on it: Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[badtoworse]

22. We don't need a nanny state

[True Blue Door]

36. We don't need right-wing sockpuppet trolls flooding a Democratic website either.

[badtoworse]

55. You're getting your ass handed to you in this thread

Is everyone who disagrees with you a right wing sockpuppet?

[IronGate]

67. Classy.

You're getting slammed for your ridiculous, nanny state OP, and you accuse those of us that take you to task of being RW sock puppet trolls?
Enjoy your stay.

[IronGate]

23. No.

That's the parents job to teach what's good for their kids, not the govts.

Screw this nanny state mentality.

[Romulox]

24. Our gov't *SUBSIDIZES* the production of HFCS through our Agriculture policy. Look deeper. nt

[KurtNYC]

25. The American diet turned a corner about 7 years ago, without any such regulations.

I think part of your OP assumes that people are not making efforts to eat healthier but statistic don't show that:

The consumption of soda is declining steadily and is now lower than it was in the year 1980.

75%+ consumer report buying at least one organic food product in the last 60 days.

Working-age adults consumed an average of 118 fewer calories a day in the 2009-10 period than four years earlier. -USDA

Sales of cereal are way down.

The drivers appear to be:
- bad economy triggered less eating of fast food and restaurant meals
- more information for consumers on calories and options
- more emphasis on cooking and the quality of food
- more healthy options with the expansion of farmers markets, local food, and backyard gardens

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579323092916490748

[randome]

30. And a healthy, kickass First Family no doubt has an influence, too!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[True Blue Door]

39. The article's behind a paywall.

Anyway, I haven't seen evidence of childhood obesity declining, and I don't think you'd find many pediatricians who are satisfied that information campaigns are resolving the problem.

[KurtNYC]

54. it wasn't paywall yesterday but I see it is now

Here are other sources on the changes Americans are making:

Soda sales decline to record lows:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-31/coca-cola-sales-decline-health-concerns-spur-relaunch

Sales of cereal declining -- replaced by yogurt, bagels, fruit and smoothies:
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/cereal-sales-remain-soggy-posing-big-challenge-brands-160063

"McDonald’s Sees Biggest Sales Drop in a Decade"
http://time.com/3311608/mcdonalds-sales/

I've got ten more if you want them...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I'd be fine with banning the advertising.

I think the 'sale' part is going too far.

[True Blue Door]

38. Why would it be going too far?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. Because 'high sugar foods' covers a hell of a lot of territory, and is 'fudgeable'.

I think it would be a logistical nightmare to have every single place that sells 'high sugar foods' separate everything out, update their computer systems, and track what is and is not 'high' sugar. Right now, it's pretty simple - anything with alcohol is alcohol, regardless of percentage/proof. Anything with tobacco is tobacco.

But you try to define some arbitrary cut-off and you'll have every food manufacture in the country screaming at Congress, as well as pulling all sorts of tricks to get around it. Is it 'high' based on total amount of sugar per serving, or per sold item? Make the package smaller. Maybe your kids are eating twice the recommended 'serving size', at which point they're eating 'high' even though the product is 'low' and doesn't require an ID. Or maybe the manufacturer simply chops the 'serving size' to skate underneath the 'high' point. Or say you try to make it based on percentage calories from sugars. Fine, the manufacturer shoves in more fats, making it even more unhealthy, but dropping the percentage of calories from sugars.

[WinkyDink]

28. Let's just rip out people's taste buds at birth.

[jen63]

31. If parents were in the habit of giving kids

healthy food, their taste buds would be acclimated to them instead of chicken nuggets and mac and cheese. I'm for limiting marketing toward kids, but not for banning food. I know so many parents who fix two meals every evening; one for them and one for the kids who think that stuff is yucky. It's ridiculous. My nephew was over one weekend and I told him we were having spaghetti. He said, "I like spaghetti, I just don't like the sauce." Wtf?? What kid doesn't like spaghetti?

I also think this is what the push back of the First Lady's lunch program is about. Parents are mad that their kids don't like the food, because they've never fixed healthy food for their kids in the first place.

I put a plate of food in front of my kid when he was little and didn't say a word about "eating your veggies", he just knew I assumed he was going to eat them. As an adult, he'll try anything now. The last time he was home and I cooked for him he wanted fresh salmon, a baked sweet potato and asparagus.

[True Blue Door]

37. Let's just legalize selling crystal meth to 5-year-olds. Since we don't want a Nanny State.

[IronGate]

68. Now that is one dumbass reply.

[DebJ]

40. A diabetic child might need that candy bar in an emergency.

And are you saying that parents cannot successfully control their children's diet themselves? How absurd.

Better to be 'pro' fruits and vegetables in advertising; to change policies so as to make these things cheaper than junk food, etc.

Best way to get someone to do something is to make it illegal.

I don't think a war on sugar would work.

[True Blue Door]

42. LOL. They might also need a cigarette in an emergency.

No, really, it's physically possible - suppose their heart rate gets too low; nicotine could, conceivably, help. Ipso facto preventing children from having cigarettes is bad.

Are you saying parents can't successfully stop their children from having cigarettes? Pshaw!

In fact, parents should be able to stop their kids from having anything, including crystal meth. We don't need no stinkin' meth prohibition. Sell it in 7-11 right next to the Twix. Hell, put it in the Twix.

Dirty Nanny State! Dirty Big Gubmint! I want my tax cuts!

[DebJ]

43. Do you have children? I raised two children by myself for twenty years.

They have great eating and health habits. No cigarettes, minimal junk food, daughter is an athlete and a DEA agent, no drug use.
And I had to work 12 hour shifts or two jobs for many of those years, with no family around to help and no helpful neighbors around.

My son has suffered terribly with bipolar disorder all his life, so believe me, there were behavioral issues.

But food? Drugs? Nope.

Wasn't difficult. Just took education and leading by example.

[True Blue Door]

44. Then by implication you think people whose kids do develop "substance" problems are negligent scum.

And by further implication, that punishing those parents with the negative outcomes of their children's lives is more important than social action to prevent it.

This thread is literally being flooded with conservative psychology.

[Boreal]

49. You're usiang strawmans

putting words in people's mouths, accusing people of being teabaggers because they don't agree with your control freak personality disorder, and arguing for the hell of it. That's called TROLLING.

[LittleBlue]

65. I'm a Type 1 diabetic who has had about 8 seizures from hypoglycemia

We rely on fast food places and convenience stores in emergencies. I did when I was a kid and do today. 1 in 20 of us still die from hypoglycemia even with this convenience.

Why are you LOLing at that?

[alp227]

46. I say ban advertising not sales.

While it shouldn't be illegal for parents to feed their kids candy or whatever, candy shouldn't be marketed to impressionable young minds.

[Ken Burch]

51. It would be more effective to ban high-fructose corn syrup in all foods.

IIRC, one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic has been the replacement of sugar by HFCS in soft drinks and other products.

[jambo101]

52. Banning an addictive substance

If curbing a nations addiction to sugar is meant to decrease the medical costs of a nation of obese diabetics and all the tax dollars going to support the maladies that come with that condition, then it sounds reasonable to make efforts to curb the situation and starting with an effort to diminish the youngs dietary propensity to load up on sugary products would be a logical course of action.

[sendero]

56. While we are at it..

.... let's ban bacon, hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken and on and on and on. These kinds of goofy ideas are what makes it easy for Repugs to paint "liberals" as mush brained morons. There is NOT a legislative solution to every damn problem.

NO. No one shred of good in this idea.

[jambo101]

59. I dont like the idea but

This nation has a serious problem with its normal diet which is loaded with sugar,While I'm not for banning sugar i certainly would be in favor of curtailing its over use..
You can do nothing about it and have your tax dollars going to support the economic consequences of addiction to sugar or you can try to minimize the problem, through education and measures to reduce sugar in the American diet.?
As for banning bacon, hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken etc.For many this is the entirety of their dietary lifestyle,Fatty meat smothered in cheese wrapped in bread with a side of something deep fried and a bucket of fizzy sugar water,
Banning might be a step too far but Educating people on the nutritional negatives of these products would be a step in the right direction

[sendero]

60. Anybody...

.... that wants to know does know that living on a diet of fats and refined carbs is not healthy.

It is not a matter of education it is a matter of will IMHO. And for the poorest among us, it is matter of economics, those foods provide the cheapest calories available.

"Bans" of anything, alcohol, cocaine, pot, anything at all that people want, have a long and clear history of failure anyway.

[RedCappedBandit]

53. No. This is ridiculous.

Candy bars are not cigarettes.

[LWolf]

57. Maybe.

Maybe one of several efforts.

First of all, return working kitchens to schools, where FRESH food is cooked on site daily. Ban pre-prepared, over-processed junk food from school menus and ban junk drinks and junk foods from vending machines at schools. Remove most of the sugar from the ingredient list...start with chocolate milk.

Some sort of stronger regulation about what sort of food can be offered at school outside of the cafeteria might be interesting to explore. Of course, that's just me wishing that parents would quit dropping off sugar for every birthday, and that colleagues would quit using candy for rewards.

Some public service announcements touting fresh, healthy food could be helpful.

It would be nice if we could simply ban over-processed "food" products altogether, but that's unrealistic. Maybe some sort of subsidy to encourage HEALTHY or healthier fast food restaurants, if that's not an oxymoron.

[bigwillq]

58. I say yes only because

if they are going to control and tax other harmful products, then they need to control and tax them all.

I personally don't feel they should ban the sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods to minors, but think harmful products should be controlled and taxed equally.

[linuxman]

61. !!!

Save me Big Brother! Save me Bloomberg!

[badtoworse]

62. Didn't you mean save me from Bloomberg?

[linuxman]

64. .

[ZombieHorde]

66. No. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

Every law is an excuse to hurt people. That is really all a law is, so I think we should be much more careful about the laws we make.

I didn't see that option in the poll.

[Savannahmann]

69. Interesting.

You assume that children wouldn't eat candy unless it was advertised. Apparently, you're unaware of any history. In the days of the Old West, when traveling to town for farmers or ranchers was something you might do once a week, in the summer, probably far less often, candy was still in demand by children. Here's the thing, it tastes good. Prior to the "old west" the children still would stare wantonly at the candy display in the stores along the streets of the cities. Children didn't need to be told that Candy tasted good. One taste was all they needed.

This goes back to the era of Columbus, when Christopher sent back Sugar Cane, which was the sweetest thing Europe had ever had. Before Sugar Cane, the only sweet they had was fruits, and honey. We humans are biologically predestined to like sweet.

Now, you can blame the advertisements for this biological fact. You can ignore the long history of sweet and how people just plain like it. You can ignore the mystery of taste and how people respond to it. Bitter, pungent, sweet, and sour. The acquired tastes, the tastes we're born with.

Blame the advertisers, pretend that if you stop advertising the products, the children will suddenly stop wanting sweets. Some would call it noble. I would call it a waste of time, energy, and resources, but it's your time, your energy, and your resources. Me? I say no.