Hacker News Reader

Comment by l5870uoo9y | Hacker News Reader

Heard a podcast with one of Germany leading nutritionist advocating for banning energy drinks completely. Sugary beverages targeting teenagers filled with chemicals and caffeine and sold in large containers with zero health benefits – "why are they even allowed?" he asked rhetorically (paraphrasing).

You could ask the same question for any of the nova class 4 products[0].

[0]: https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

Edit: This study suggest connection between colon cancer and sugary beverages:

> Conclusion Higher SSB (Sugar-sweetened beverage) intake in adulthood and adolescence was associated with a higher risk of EO-CRC (early-onset colorectal cancer) among women. Reduction of SSB consumption among adolescents and young adults may serve as a potential strategy to alleviate the growing burden of EO-CRC.

https://gut.bmj.com/content/70/12/2330

View on HN

What is a chemical in this context? How many chemicals are there in tea and coffee?

The “everything is a chemical” ‘argument’ is an isolated demand for rigor imo. Everybody can reasonably squint their eyes, assuming good faith, and see that a compound created in a lab that has no nutritional value or is engineered to be overtly addictive (like high fructose corn sirup and what not) or any of the other million things we engineer every day to industrialize the food chain is what is meant by most people when they say “chemical”. And yes, many of these are bad for you, despite the (corporate funded) studies that say otherwise.

Are you aware of the vast and diverse water-soluble cancer causing chemicals that are present in roasted coffee beans and tea? They have a lot of L- and R- and -anine and -quanine etc. Also you are aware that Arsenic is a naturally occurring chemical? As well as mercury, lead, asbestos, even fundamental stuff like argon and carbon monoxide?

Again, why should I be scared of “chemicals”?

using 'chemical' to make your points (which are well-taken, mind you) is, imo, virtue signaling. you don't find it bizarre that the phrase used was "chemicals and caffeine"?

The energy drinks I consume have "0 sugar", although I know they're still so bad (with 200mg caffeine per can). I imagine them to be as addictive as smoking, but I don't know for sure. Can a smoker confirm?

if you're rhetorically asking whether caffeine is as addictive as nicotine, then we all obviously know that that's impossible to quantify.

but the caffeine itself is a far cry from any of the contents that are of dubious safe consumption however. see non-nutritive sweeteners, marketed as being "0 sugar," as one such example.

Objectively quantify, sure, but even a subjective qualitative measurement has meaning to us as humans despite it being of no scientific value. It's subjective too - plenty of people have an alcohol addiction problem and plenty of people are actually able to drink responsibly, which suggests not all addictions are equal, for all people. Some people can even do heroin and be fine and not get addicted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com