The social appeal of scientists and other medical professionals caring about people’s health gives the average individuals the impression that society is on the right track, and thus makes then feel safer. If the experts say so. Although there is an ongoing “awakening”, the latter still is a slow motion wave that is not strong enough to challenge the monopoly structure regarded as a monolithic authority.
The experts know better, right?
No one would discuss that: a product is deemed excellent when it has healing properties and/or remain efficient for a very long time. The problem here is that there is little incentive to work hard if one is not “rewarded” enough. A market is what it is: competition or not, saturation is bound to happen — unless there is a trick one is unaware of.
Monopolies always have understood the paradox of money, and that is why they are monopolies after all. When profits are too low or slow, no investors will appear interested. On the other hand, what is cheap and good in the long run is deemed attractive. So there is obviously a problem embedded in the market itself. This is a rational fact and should we, on top of that, throw in the “subjectivity of value”, then it becomes rather blatant that no economic theory will ever resolve such dilemmas.
This to say that deception has to be the foundation of the market. The gold standard, if honestly implemented, could prevent “some” of the lies, but would remain unsatisfactory nonetheless, since it was also the tool that caused manias and panics throughout history. When money is in the game, people must compete to get it.
Now back to our sugary drinks. As stipulated in the previous blog, this is a classical case of monetary redistribution: when a product is bad, side effects cause more market interventions and centralization, which in turn benefit the same “meritocrats”. In this particular case, the labels and commercials will benefit the advertising sector; and experts stepping in will call for new regulations about sugar consumption.
On top of that, it remains arguable as to whether an overall 15% decrease in sodas consumption can be seen as a success. It reminds of the new weight-loss drug Belviq, which according to some study, does not raise risk for heart problems. The Boston Globe further reads:
… a safety milestone that may encourage wider use to help curb the obesity epidemic… The weight loss it produced was fairly modest — after 40 months, Belviq users had shed nine pounds.
Indeed, the industry has not yet run out of ideas as how to generate profits. So first, they encouraged obesity by spreading falsehoods about nutrition and unsafe GMOs and chemicals altering human genetic makeup. And now that the failure is getting noticeable (obesity being rampant), they propel themselves ahead of the game, already raving about obesity cures and debating graphic warnings for sweet drinks.
The food and beverage industries have gone too far down the road to be rescued. Supermarkets sell us a “not so sweet sugary death”: at least 70% of what they sell contains sugar. While unrefined sugar is much better, that the sugar is organic or not does not make much difference if one eats or drinks too much of it. A change of consumer habits would mean the collapse of the sugar industry. And the end of the sugar market would spell doom for the global economy.
End of digression… The real question here, however, is rather the following: how was the market able to harm world populations legally in the first place?And if going down that rabbit hole, one will have to confront the fact that power acquired through monetary gains is bound to be misused and enslave.
Natural News | September 01, 2018 | There is little doubt regarding the negative effects of sugar on human health, but the increasing incidence of diabetes worldwide proves that just repeating the facts is not enough to prevent people from indulging in sweets. Therefore, scientists are considering if it would be more effective to use graphic labels to remind people of the risks associated with consuming too much sugar……….. Recalling the success of graphic labels and images in cigarettes, a team of researchers from Harvard University decided to look into using the same strategy, but for sugary beverages. They conducted three studies comparing the effectiveness of caloric, text, and graphic warnings and published the results in the publication Psychological Science. They found that the text warning did nothing to reduce the number of sugary beverage purchases. In contrast, the graphic warning was able to decrease the number of purchases by up to 15 percent.. … MORE:https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-01-experts-debate-graphic-warnings-on-sugary-drinks.html …. AND https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-new-home/201806/should-we-put-graphic-warning-labels-sugary-drinks
Dystopian Big Pharma’s Next ‘Cash Cow’ Is Here (a vaccine to conquer obesity)
Dr. Otto Wartburg and other health experts have been talking about how cancer loves sugar since the 1920s…
The Dystopian Price Of Not Living Consciously And The Love Of Truth
The Sugar Conspiracy
Our Sugar Addiction and The Slave Trade
In the insect world, populations are enslaved by sugary snacks to alter brain chemistry and make them OBEY