Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You misunderstood, I didn't mean that there has to be a consumer benefit. I just mean I thought consumers would still be able to choose it in many cases. Or the amount could be limited, rather than banned. I'm not arguing for this, I'm just saying it's shocking!

I mean, it is obvious that if you were to ban sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and even all-purpose white flour, forcing all food companies to use alternatives, there would be an instant health benefit for the entire country starting the same day. But that doesn't mean such a ban wouldn't absolutely shock me, especially as an outright ban rather than limitation, labelling, etc. The only thing I'm expressing is surprise.



I didn't misunderstand, my point is that there isn't ever really a reason to choose it (other than say, confusion).

Sugars taste better than the alternatives, and refined flour allows production of baked goods with a much finer texture, so there are real actual reasons to use those in foods.


> ban sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and even all-purpose white flour,

There is zero evidence that any of these things are a problem when not eaten to caloric excess.


you're right. in contrast to my examples wikipedia's trans fat article says,

>Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.

maybe a better example than the ones I listed (for which as you point out there are safe levels of consumption), would be smoking tobacco, which I think matches the above description and has no safe level. But it is not banned outright. (at least not yet.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: