One wonders how many lives were lost by abandoning this in 1990.
One wonders how many lives were lost by abandoning this in 1990.
If I could only name two big "things" that contributed most to the obesity problem of today it would be:
- Agricultural Act of 1970 and the polices of the 1970s, resulted in corn so cheap and abundant that other industries actively looked for usages. HFCS was obviously one such use, and it out-competed all other nutritional sources on price.
- The 1990s "fat bad, sugar good" which resulted in reformulating a lot of staple foods and the beginning of standard sweet food allowing the cheap HFCS to flow.
The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side. That way it can still exist for animal feed, and be used where appropriate without being unnaturally and unreasonably inexpensive.
The reason they don't is that it is political suicide to suggest sugar taxes in personal-freedom loving US that is pretty anti-tax regardless.
The article is well written, and I WOULD recommend it for anyone interest in this topic. But ultimately I'd just point to the same facts presented in the article, and you determine if we're being mean to the sugar industry or fair.
The result is the same either way, regardless of who gets the blame.
30% of the US was obese in 2000, now it's over 40%, despite per capita sugar consumption reverting to what it was pre-1975.
> The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side.
If anything, we need a tax on added fat and sodium, the two biggest drivers of food hyperpalatability, when added in excess of the thresholds identified in this paper (> 25% kcal from fat and ≥ 0.30% sodium by weight):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22639
> The HPF criteria identified 62% (4,795/7,757) of foods in the FNDDS that met criteria for at least one cluster. Most HPF items (70%; 3,351/4,795) met criteria for the FSOD cluster. Twenty-five percent of items (1,176/4,795) met criteria for the FS cluster, and 16% (747/4,795) met criteria for the CSOD cluster. The clusters were largely distinct from each other, and < 10% of all HPF items met criteria for more than one cluster.
(CSOD, carbohydrates and sodium; FS, fat and simple sugars; FSOD, fat and sodium; HPF, hyper-palatable foods.)
And the only result would be more people unable to pay their health insurances...
What else are kids eating these days for breakfast?
Kids also imitate what they see in parents, both good and bad. No point preaching healthy lifestyle if one is obese and spends hours daily in front of TV eating junkfood. Also, back in 80s I had maybe 4 years and I knew very well sweet stuff is bad for one's health, it was always as obvious as ie that cigarettes were very harmful and highly addictive.
I love how many folks desperately try to throw blame on literally anybody, anything for their failures in life, rather than taking a cold hard look at the mirror and accepting one's own failures, as a parent but also generally as human in this case. Sure, it makes life with oneself a bit easier, instead of huge instant dose of misery and self-disappointment its slowly dripping through the cracks of illusions for the rest of their lives and people love feeling like a victim, but it very effectively prevents actually fixing anything.
So sure, lets blame sugar industry (which is doing exactly what all other businesses do - sell to as many people as possible), lets blame tobacco industry or wine producers for people's failures. Lets wait till politicians will sweep away all obstacles and traps from our lives, of course that's a reasonable expectation. Anything but throwing away that 3rd cupcake or starbucks latte.
Bread/toast also isn't particularly healthy (too high in salt, spikes your insulin too much).
Fruit is also just very similar than sweets with a bit more fiber, isn't it?
So, a plate of some veggies?
And don't get me started on spreads which are available: you can choose between fat (butter/margerine/cheese/most other spreads), high salt (meat/salami) and sweet (jam, honey, nutella)
When I read opinions like this, I immediately have two thoughts.
1) What makes people think it's their right to shame anyone else? The 'look in the mirror' advice is pretty universal.
2) Is there even anyone qualified to make comments like this? Am I to assume that the folks who imply their superiority do not in fact have their own failings? Glass house and all that.
I think perhaps it's more complicated, and declaring it a moral failing is not going to improve anyone's life.
I chose the owning approach, it works very nicely for my entire life so far, since its work between me and me so whatever is happening outside has no impact. Doesn't make it an easier life, in contrary, but much much better overall. A plus is building stronger 'character' in challenges for lack of better words.
ok, but we can very much start with blaming corporations. sure, there are other factors at play, these are very large systems acting on individuals.
that’s the point. corporations are sufficiently complex and large to manipulate the system.
individuals rarely are, and when they do, it is often by forming a corporation around themselves. influencers are faces for larger operations, they have employees, payroll… just like a more traditional brick and mortar.
it's very easy, in american fast food, for example, to ingest a great amount of unnecessary sugars (difficult to digest lipids, etc) while your body is trying to just get necessary nutrients themselves. worse, since we are built to remember results of eating, if some low nutritional signal to noise "food" satisfies some necessary essential nutrient craving, it's easy to remember what it was that alleviated a craving before, and tail recursively go eat the same shit again.
I am going through a weight loss journey myself and it is very eye opening now that I am tracking my calories and nutrition. I was eating very poorly