Ban all fruit now!

Beastly stuff, contains sugar you see. And it’s the nasty sort, fructose:

A banana contains four teaspoons of sugar!

An apple contains five teaspoons of sugar!

An pear contains four and a half teaspoons of sugar!

A bunch of grapes contains five teaspoons of sugar!

A slice of watermelon contains four and half teaspoons of sugar!

An orange contains four teaspoons of sugar!

A child’s daily recommended allowance of sugar is 5 teaspoons.

That apple will kill your kid.

Alternatively we could rise up and kill the fuckers.

34 thoughts on “Ban all fruit now!”

  1. A huge amount of sugar would seem to be an essential amount of your daily diet SJW as there seems to be no limit to the amount of leftist ordure you are willing to choke down daily.

    And then arrive here ready to spew the same all over the rest of us.

    The sugar caper is another pack of leftist lies. The only question worth thinking about is the suitable form of punishment for the middle-class Marxist scum promoting it.

  2. SJW is right.
    What is more the limit on “free sugars” is more about the damage to teeth than to diet.
    Mr Ecka ahould occasionally check facts before “spewing” hate.

  3. SJW said:

    Rubbish Tim. The recommended daily allowance is for “free sugars”, not what’s supposed to be in there.

    ‘free sugars’ does include what is supposed to be there if it comes from fruit juices, syrups and honey. Otherwise they wouldn’t be pearl clutching over natural fruit juices.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “The recommended daily allowance is for “free sugars”, not what’s supposed to be in there. The thinking being that if you eat actual fruit the balance of nutrients will be healthy, but if you add sugar it won’t be.”

    This sounds dumb than the actual stupid definition they do use, but it comes to much the same thing – sugar is fine if it is “natural”, sugar is evil if it is added. And they have to fiddle with the definition to make sure the things they hate are included:

    Free sugars are defined as all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices. Under this definition, lactose naturally present in milk and milk products and sugars contained within the cellular structure of foods would be excluded. In this report the term “sugars” is used because this enables other sugars (e.g. glucose, fructose, lactose) to be included in addition to sucrose. This is important because it will ensure that any replacement of sucrose by high fructose corn syrups (an example of a number of different predominantly ‘free’ fructose and glucose mixes with variable but most often 40-60% fructose content) in the production of food and drinks is captured.

    How is the body expected to tell the difference between a sugar in an apple and a sugar added to apple sauce?

  5. The body can’t tell the difference I suspect. Certainly the molecule has no idea whether it is a rotten bastard free sugar or a cuddly, kind unfree sugar.

  6. In summary, a child who eats a banana, an apple, a pear, and some grapes consumes an entirely healthy 18.5 teaspoons of sugar.

    But if the wicked wee monster replaces the grapes and pear by a couple of mugs of tea containing three teaspoons of sugar each, he’s taken his first footsteps on the road to hell. Even though he’s consumed less sugar, to wit only 15 teaspoons.

    Very like a whale.

    P.S. “what’s supposed to be in there” is a lunatic notion: it means that if fruit breeders come up with a more sugary apple, the new, extra sugar can do you no harm at all. What bollocks.

  7. @SJW Never having heard of “free sugars” before (except as a request from a builder in his tea…) I looked it up on Wiki, which yielded:

    “Free sugar is defined by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Agriculture Organization in multiple reports[1][2] as “all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, and fruit juices”.”

    so sugar in fruit is OK, but sugar in fruit juice (which is still supposed to be there) is not? Sounds crazy to me.

  8. What is the sjw explanation for why fruit is good but fruit juice is bad. The dental aspect is obviously another bogus, bonkers distinction. Eating lots of fruit can be just as bad for your teeth as drinking fruit juice.

  9. I think there is an argument that the effect of sugar consumed from fruit is ameliorated by the natural fibre that fruit contains. The fibre restricts the speed of uptake or something and prevents the rapid spiking of blood sugar levels. Whereas sugar added to products just goes straight to the bloodstream.

    There’s also the point that fruit wasn’t available 24/7 to our ancestors, they’d only be able to eat it for a certain period of the year. So eating it non-stop is not what we’re designed to do anyway.

  10. So if you eat an orange, that sugar is fine, but if you squeeze it into a glass, that’s bad sugar.

  11. The Meissen Bison

    Nautical Nick: US Food and Agriculture Organization

    Is that your typo or does wiki believe that the FAO is a US rather than a UN super-quango?

  12. John 77: If you support this kind of crap you are as big an idiot as SJW is. As for “hate”–scum who think they can dictate what we eat are the haters. Maybe you aspire to that kind of power yourself.

  13. @ Mr Ecks
    I do not support any of this crap – anyone who ignores dietary needs when prescribing diet is, at best, an idiot – but nor do I support lies. You have just exhibited your bigotry as far as SJW is concerned. If you are like that when he tells the truth he has a disincentive to do so.

  14. @ SadButMadLad
    The recommendation asbout “free sugar” is about teeth. The recommendation about total carbohydrates is 50% of energy intake – ten times the calorie content of “free sugars”.
    There is a tendency among propagandists to take one tiny item from a report and quote it out of context.

  15. So when my dentist advised me to stop eating oranges and instead drink orange juice in order to slow the wear and tear on my teeth, he was goving me the wrong advice? I wish I had known then that oranges are less harmful to teeth than orange juice. Mind you, the evidence seems to suggest that my dentist was correct.

  16. @ diogenes
    I peel the oranges/satsumas/clementines before eating them and my teeth don’t seem to suffer – but your dentist doubtless knows more about your teeth than I do.

  17. @ Gamecock
    Only if you brush your teeth immediately after eating them and then run/jog a mile (or power-walk a kilometre which is equivalent in execise terms).
    Signed: Pooh-Bah, Lord High Everything-else .

  18. Is that a level or heaped teaspoon? A quick bit of googling suggests that 5g is a level teaspoon, but who puts level teaspoons of sugar in their drink when counting? Whenever I’ve seen “one teaspoon” of sugar being put into a cup of tea it’s a heaped teaspoon, so in the region of 10g.

    Certainly when I’m cooking everything is heaped tea/table/etc/spoons as that’s the natural angle of repose of whatever I’m scooping out of the packet.

  19. Mr. Ecks:
    ” The only question worth thinking about is the suitable form of punishment for the middle-class Marxist scum promoting it.”

    A special prison where only health Nazi approved food is served and the inmates spend sixteen hours per day pedaling spin bikes that generate green electricity for the national grid.

  20. Five teaspoons of refined sucrose in your tea does you no good and in the long term will do you harm. An apple, by contrast, has fructose, fibre, vitamins, trace elements and anti-oxidants; and, given the effort and time required to chew it, the fructose is not a sudden high dose.

    Also, with sucrose, the glucose half of the molecule enters the bloodstream quickly followed by a second hit when the liver has processed the fructose half.

    My wife has two unrelated cousins who are GPs. I have known them for 30+ years. From the 1980s, both have laughed at the alcohol limits, have never thought fat was harmful, or dairy or meat; but, quite separately, they brought up their children not to smoke and not to add sugar to their diet, and also to eat a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and veg.

  21. Henry>

    “how the fuck to you add sugar to an apple?”

    Selective breeding, of course. There’s a huge variation in the levels of sugar in different types of apple.

  22. ‘Five teaspoons of refined sucrose in your tea does you no good and in the long term will do you harm.’

    Bull hockey.

  23. Surreptitious Evil

    A cup of tea with five spoons of sugar was (probably correctly) thought to be a decent prophylactic for artillery induced PTSD.

    Although they called is “shell shock” back in those heathen times.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    Henry Crun – “how the fuck to you add sugar to an apple?”

    Am I the only one old enough to remember when toffee apples had actual apples in the middle there somewhere?

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “A cup of tea with five spoons of sugar was (probably correctly) thought to be a decent prophylactic for artillery induced PTSD. ”

    I don’t know about PTSD, which may not even exist, but the other sort of shock, from something like a bullet wound, used to be treated, back in the day, by a hot cup of tea with five sugars. Which is pretty much what paramedics do these days – give them fluids, with added sugars, keep them warm and their blood pressure drops so a little caffeine is probably a good thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *