Jesus Christ what misleading bullshit. Should we classify sugar as a schedule 3 drug then? Treat it like cocaine? No thats fucking stupid because it's not. It can be addictive, like literally anything else. A baby is not going to get chemically dependant on sugar.

Another example of having the right information but the wrong conclusion.

[–] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23719144/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20this%20research%20has%20revealed,be%20more%20rewarding%20and%20attractive.

"Eating too much sugar can lead to weight gain, which then increases the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and some cancers. But sugar also alters our mood and provides feelings of being rewarded and euphoria; hence the comparison to illegal drugs." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/blog/lifestyle/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine&ved=2ahUKEwj-8KOjt8uFAxUT4skDHUPYBWAQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ys5-XMhDhbu8-D39e9u4j

Yeah it should be regulated as a highly addictive substance. It shouldn't be in baby formula.

I don't know what you mean by "addictive as anything else". We are talking about the relationship to how your brain reacts to these substances, using science. Based on that there's only a handful of highly addictive substances out of millions of potentials.

This isn't psychological addiction, we are talking about physical addiction. And sugar is comparable to the 2nd most addictive substance in the world, cocaine.

And you think that's a good idea to give to infants?

You think that it shouldn't face regulation?

Your argument is subjective and lacks substance. The facts are very clear here.

[+] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is why anyone outside the left laughs at us. You have people sincerely equating sugar to cocaine because a corporation decided to try and make tasteless gruel edible.

Watch out, if you put sugar in your oatmeal you're a drug addict. You're taking truly the dumbest position possible because to admit there's a middle ground doesn't let you dig into the big bad Corp.

Should it be regulated due to its overabundance? Yes. Should it be regulated like cocaine? Fuck no. What's wrong with your brain? Too much sugar or cocaine?

[–] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you are missing the entire point. Nestle puts sugar in the baby formula because it's a physically addictive substance. A mother who buys the formula but later tries to switch to different formula will end up with a baby going through sugar withdrawals. I think it's safe to assume the baby may not even feed until it's given the Nestle formula.

This isn't the first time Nestle has done something like this, they have a dark history. Some might even call them evil.

Plus all the long term health issues associated with giving children sugar. "Added sugar intake at an early age may have adverse life-long health consequences, including overweight, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and dental caries, as well as worse dietary habits" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8624134/

And yes I think it should be regulated for children, based on the science it is a serious health issue.

Also you keep mentioning the "left" like this is some political discussion. This has nothing to do with politics. **I think most people would agree that using a legal addictive substance to hook babies to your product is a real dick move and something should be done to prevent it from happening. **

[+] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol the only reason you're against this move is because sugar is vaguely tied to addiction and you want to demonize a corporation. Honey has sugar, are the bees trying to get us addicted too? These are the ramblings of the insane.

Yes, Nestlé fucking sucks. Evil, even. But them farting in the wind is not them engaging in chemical warfare. Treating it like it is, is part of what I can't fucking stand. This is an isolated event. Just because someone has a shit reputation doesn't mean every single minor move is a nefarious conspiracy.

You people are bored and hypocritical. The same people that would consider weed harmless but unironically compare sugar to cocaine. Sugar spurs on habitual addiction, not chemical dependancy. Not knowing the difference, pretending you understand addiction because you read the headline of a study and the parroted news articles, that's how bullshit gets spread around.

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you feeding honey to infants? Because you really should stop if so, it’s extremely dangerous.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because of the sugar or?

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Botulism.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Right. So sugar isn't the issue in feeding honey to babies. Baby food has sugar in it too. Just real interesting is all.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ultra-processed foods could be as addictive as smoking, study says, Highly processed foods can be considered addictive like tobacco products.

Yeah is not cocaine but this discussion about Food been heavily addictive is nothing new, if you disagree go argue with the science community, but please prepare your research before.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Drugs aren't illegal because they are addictive. They are illegal because they make humans behave unpredictably and that scares other humans into banning the substances.

The 'its addictive' thing is just to frighten people away from trying it.