Hacker News Reader

Comment by UweSchmidt | Hacker News Reader

It appears that sentiments that downplay or dispute the health risks are growing in large social media bubbles, with strong effects on the real world. Efforts to push back on serving unhealthy food are undermined, doctors discouraged from discussing weight with their patients as a personal and sensitive issue; overweight models validate unhealthy body compositions. This surely has to please the food industry, which is as culpable as the tobacco industry in harming peoples health.

I would propose a concerted effort through mandatory levels of food quality that is served to the public (e.g. schools, hospitals), funded by a higher tax on sugary atrocities, limits on sale of sugary food and drinks to children, and an outright ban on any substance designed to create cravings.

View on HN

Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?

I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.

The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security.

Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates.

Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.

I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few:

- agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically)

- A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production.

- subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming.

- corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor.

- I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.

> agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another

Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains.

> A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production.

Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes.

> subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability

Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons:

Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else.

> part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol)

This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.

I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more.

Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives.

I do think your ethanol stance is a circular argument. The US produces a lot of ethanol because of the subsidies, so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies. Fracking is a good counterpoint, but also a politically contentious one if your stance is that the US should ramp up fracking to offset agricultural subsidies.

I certainly agree that subsidies have inertia that's hard to overcome. (My favorite example is the alpaca subsidy that was implemented for warm-weather clothing for the Korean War that stayed on the books until the 1990s). I also agree they need to be tailored to the current environment.

The bulk of your point seems to be we can get rid of subsidies in exchange for higher and less stable food prices. Historically, our food is quite cheap today but I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha). I personally don't think that is a good tradeoff because my position is it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem. My OP was not saying "keep subsidies" but rather "be aware of the systemic effects of getting rid of subsidies". I think there are lots of arguments to get rid of corn subsidies, but I find the obesity one pretty weak. So the simple solution of "just get rid of subsidies" will create all these negative consequences that need to be managed for something that isn't likely to move the needle much on obesity. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff and I'd label it as one of those simple solutions that sounds great as a sound byte but isn't particularly pragmatic. Going back to the original point, if your goal is to make food more expensive to curb obesity, there are probably more straightforward and effective ways of doing so that don't have all those additional factors.

The only way that take makes sense to me is if you think there is something unique about HFCS that leads to obesity compared to other sweeteners when controlled for calories. I don't think the science supports this.

> I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more.

To transition, yes. This is an upfront cost that can be alleviated, food does not need to cost more after-the-fact. Trump haphazardly paid off farmers in his previous tenure, it happens.

> Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives.

That is the point, I think. Those particular foods are calorie-dense.

> so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies.

Unless you think production levels would fall to pathetic levels on the global stage, and that this production-level is essential, I don't see why not.

> I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha).

Specific foods, to be clear. Packaged products with added sugar would be affected. Meat does not have to be if the new policies account for it.

> it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem

non-satiating (nil fiber + protein) caloric-dense foods facilitate higher calorie consumption. Sugar is not the only vehicle for this, but it's part of the equation. Sugary drinks deliver lots of calories for very little satiety, for example. Other vectors are flour + fat + salt, fried foods.

I agree that "just get rid of subsidies" can be overly simplistic, but it belongs in the conversation. The point is that cheap and highly-available highly-promoted junk food creates a perverse incentive for consumers to eat more of it at the expense of their health. It's everywhere, including school cafeterias.

Any large-scale national solution invariably entails some kind of deterrence. Either junk food costs more, or is less available, or healthier alternatives are actively promoted and cheaper ($$$, I would throw education in this category too). Pick your poison.

Ostensibly, cutting spending would be more popular with voters in general than increasing taxes and spending. Also, falling tobacco smoking rates are a major success story which can be attributed primarily to sin tax (high prices), eliminating advertisement, and educating the masses.

>Unless you think production levels would fall to pathetic levels on the global stage, and that this production-level is essential, I don't see why not.

A few reasons: 1) again, it's partly a national security issue. Under crisis, "global supply" is a concern; just ask Germany after trying to turn away from Russian fuel supply 2) Infrastructure has a relatively large lead time; we can't just ramp up production on a whim. 3) It's odd that you point to global supply as the rationale while simultaneously advocating the largest global supplier severely reduce production. Again, that feels like circular logic. Ie "The US doesn't need to produce ethanol because the world has so much ethanol production." No, the world has so much ethanol production because the US produces a disproportionate amount. Remove the latter and the argument doesn't hold.

I don't think we disagree that making food more expensive can change eating habits. I think we disagree on the most effective vehicle for that.

Look at it this way: we both seem to agree that calories are the problem. Your argument hinges on sweeteners being a proxy for calories, and HFCS being a proxy for sweeteners, and agricultural corn being a proxy for HFCS. You're targeting something that is three levels of abstraction away from what you actually care about. My position is that it makes more sense to target what you're actually after: calories.

If your stance is getting rid of corn subsidies is administratively simple compared to targeting calories, I think I disagree mainly because of the administrative burden of all the other effects we've discussed.

I don't disagree that deterrence is part of an overall strategy. I'm simply pointing out that one should be wary of the tradeoffs. Policy is about prioritizing, and IMO there are likely more pragmatic approaches with less tradeoffs that need to be managed.

I'm not convinced of the strategic importance of ethanol in the grand scheme; the US produces more of it because the subsidy creates that incentive. Incentive structures can change, entrenchment just makes it less politically viable.

> You're targeting something that is three levels of abstraction away from what you actually care about. My position is that it makes more sense to target what you're actually after: calories.

It's not abstracted away as healthy eating is concerned. Overconsumption is downstream.

You haven't elucidated how you'd merely target calories through policy, but leaving that aside, a) by default people do not count calories nor would they as a measure to protect against weight-gain, b) it's redundant given a whole-foods diet, no one becomes obese from too much broccoli, chicken breast and lentils, c) for those looking to lose weight, mere calorie counting absent leveraging satiating foods and eschewing junk is woefully ineffective in practice, because of lack of sustainability. Dieters typically do lose some weight, then gain it back. Not only is it difficult to adhere to, it's difficult to eyeball calories on a plate, particularly when they're processed foods, such that they'd have to weigh everything on a scale indefinitely.

Encouraging healthier eating patterns solves several problems at once. It protects against overconsumption, and against disease, which would lessen a burden on the healthcare system. That seems quite pragmatic to me. What's at stake is certain corporations stand to make less money, and corn farmers sell less.

Whether through change in diet patterns or "just eating less" as you might posit, if on the national scale people did end up consuming fewer calories and lose weight, then they'd more than likely consume less sugar/HFCS. The end result is still that a healthier populace == selling less corn. We can't discount any and all policy on the conceit that inconveniencing corn farmers is not acceptable.

>I'm not convinced of the strategic importance of ethanol in the grand scheme; the US produces more of it because the subsidy creates that incentive.

Yes, that's the intent. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you're looking for strategic rationale, the US relies much more on gasoline than, say, the EU. Couple that with the fact that US strategic oil reserves are at the lowest levels in 40 years, that only leaves about a month of fuel in the reserve at current usage. Meaning, there is a strategic need to have the infrastructure in place to supplement fuel supply if needed. Even if we don't need it now, the lead time for building out infrastructure is long enough that is makes sense to have slack capacity in place now.

>It's not abstracted away as healthy eating is concerned. Overconsumption is downstream.

Corn subsidies are abstracted away. They're related, but not directly considering the other uses of corn. Irrespective of that point, I think we may have lost the thread here. We don't seem to disagree on the central premise that overconsumption of calories is the root issue. The original claim was that a sugar tax would help remedy this issue. The counter-claim was that removing corn subsidies would be a better approach than a sugar tax.

My point is that the counter-claim is lacking nuance, and ignores all the second order effects. I'm not against removing subsidies, but I would want someone to acknowledge how they would mitigate the negative knock-on effects. What you've presented is a bit hand-wavy for my taste, implying we can just swap this crop for that and ignore concerns related to strategic fuel, agricultural stability, and costs. In the context of all those secondary and tertiary impacts, it seems like a direct tax (like a sugar tax) is preferential. I probably wouldn't limit it to just a sugar tax though, and would look to target other food that leads to overconsumption (including those that aren't disproportionately affecting lower socio-economic groups), and ideally making healthier choices less expensive if we're making the others more costly.

My point is that every approach has second-order effects, there's no free lunch. If you pick one approach, then you're dealing with the externalities.

> In the context of all those secondary and tertiary impacts, it seems like a direct tax (like a sugar tax) is preferential

Not to voters. Taxes are unpopular, ending a subsidy to a small powerful cohort would be relatively more popular (in terms of messaging I mean, the end result would still be that consumers pay more for sugar, but of course the govt spending less frees up spending for other things). However, farmer support is right-coded which would lead to opposition by right-wing pundits and media.

It's a toss-up. A tax could be effective, but I don't agree that it's necessarily more viable or palatable. It's probably less-so. Hence I would pitch ending or curbing the subsidy.

We agree that it's always about tradeoffs. I just think there are probably more complex and less transparent (and potentially negative) tradeoffs with ending subsidies if the goal is reducing obesity. It doesn't mean subsidies are good, but just that they are more loosely aligned with obesity than you let on.

I just don't see how it's a more effective strategy given the fact that it's a much more complicated apparatus to do the same thing (raise prices on food). Your position seems to be, stated differently, that higher prices lead to a deterrent to overconsumption and that reducing subsidies is the best way to increase prices. Logically, I can’t find a way that is a better mechanism than affecting prices directly and in a more targeted manner with less tangential effects. It reads to me as a way to find a rationale to go after a particular policy one doesn't like, rather than being focused on the problem at hand (obesity).

Most corn is actually farmed for meat production (beef, pork, and poultry) not human consumption. I doubt the farmer cares if their corn goes to a human or a cow, so long as they get the best price, and uncle sam fills in the rest.

Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.

I still feel like the root causes are not well known. Blaming sugar is the current trend, but this article talks about weight, American have a fat heavy diet as well, which is very high in calories. Sure, cutting our sugar helps you lose weight, but did sugar cause you to eat all those calories or was it fried food? Who knows?

Then there are processed foods, is that actually the culprit? Or is it really sugar?

Then some things are confusing, someone else linked to a study that showed that "lowest All-cause mortality is at a BMI of 25". Well that's verging on overweight, so people with "healthier" BMI have higher rates of death, weird.

A few days ago a study showed that sugar intake from pastries, ice creams, chocolate and candy reduced your risks of 7 cardiovascular diseases. What's going on?

I say that as someone that's normal weight. I can understand some counter-reaction being wishful thinking, or part of body positivity movements, but objectively when I look at what we know, it's still quite fuzzy.

Having said that, I would not mind over-enforcing in this case. I'd love it for portion sizes to be smaller, for processed foods to be phased out, for sugar content to be lowered in packaged and restaurant products, for deep fried foods to be less common, etc. And ideally, for what we do know is healthy, vegetables, fruits, lean meats, fish, poultry, often the least refined as possible, to be both accessible, convenient and cheap.

Anecdotally, I feel like I can consume way more calories from carbs than fat or protein. I burn out on the other two way faster, and stay satiated longer. Though I agree deep fried is probably second to sweets.

I think there's something to be said about what we take with the food.

I mostly cook at home, and if I have meat, I'll only season it with some herbs and have some steamed vegetables or baked potatoes with it. If I have ham or similar, I'll eat it raw. This leaves me feeling full for the afternoon.

But having a similarly sized piece of meat at a restaurant, which usually comes in some form of sauce (which I don't go out of my way to eat), will leave me hungry almost as soon as the meal is over.

Anecdotally, when I stopped going to the office every day and switched to home-cooked meals as described above, I pretty quickly lost some weight.

I feel that will depend on what you prefer eating to some extent no?

I admit carbs, especially simple ones, can leave you hungry. But when you calorie count, you really start realizing how killer fats are. A slice of cheese, the oil or butter you cooked things in, a handful of nuts, it's crazy how much calories those have.

Fries for example, are so high calorie, because of all the fat in the batter and oil.

The causality seems more likely to go the other way to me.

For almost any problem people care about enough to discuss on a forum like this, it's a fools errand to try to determine "which" way causality goes. It goes both ways. You can't isolate the cause. It's a feedback loop which is what makes it persistent and hard to solve and ergo worth discussing on a forum.

I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend.

> I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend.

Key question: are they cured now after you were a jerk? What was the ROI on relationship damage per pound lost?

It's fine because when I say this it's because the context of the conversation has been set that I'm going to tell them hard truths

You avoided the actual question: did it work?

Great question - it has worked sometimes. I don't just do it for the fats. I had a serious discussion with one of my best friends who narrowly escaped a DUI after successfully beating the patrolman's tests and lucking out when they didn't have a breathalyzer, and he stopped drunk driving. Another time I told my friend he was a fat, disgusting lard and he successfully slimmed up and hit the gym more. So it depends.

Sometimes if you just outright tell someone they are making huge mistakes in the bluntest terms it can shake them, when they know you are their friend.

You're having this conversation as if I'm against having honest conversations with your loved ones.

Actually this conversation is about what is an effective intervention for our obesity epidemic, and there's pretty much zero evidence that "tell the fats they're making a huge mistake in the bluntest terms" is a meaningful intervention at any scale that matters.

OK well if they are disgustingly obese, gross, and dying of being fat, which is 100% preventable by not eating a ton of gross shit, then looking them straight in the eye and saying "You are not only an unattractive obese blob but also about to die" sometimes works

You should publish a study on this breakthrough! The medical community would love to hear about your strong evidence for success.

Some people may need to be told that, much like some alcoholics are in denial about their condition. But many other fat people know they have a problem, are trying to solve it, and are struggling because it's incredibly difficult to overhaul your lifestyle (even with help and resources). While telling the first group of fat people "hard truths" might be what they need, it will simply demoralize the second group and might get them to stop trying. It's not as simple as you're painting it.

There are voluminous materials and studies explaining why obesity will kill you. Is there a study that compares being addicted to alcohol vs. being morbidly obese? Maybe they should switch the chicken wings for vodka

There is a middle ground, and I agree that there are some people that have gone too far.

I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story.

But I also see the extremes of just ignoring it, not even wanting your doctor to talk about it. (I do realize that there are some exceptions to this like when it comes to eating disorders) I don't understand this. I want my doctor to tell me everything, hell I will overshare in the hopes that something is a thing that needs to be addressed.

I have also personally seen a subset of people that push back on anyone wanting to loose weight. I have lost about 45 lbs over the last year (still not at my target weight but I am very close, about 5-10 lbs off so really not stressing and for context I am 6'5). A friend I have not seen in a while recently gave me a hug, commented that I was loosing weight and asked me "Why". I was put off by it, because why is that even a question? You would get mad if I asked why you were gaining weight.

My point here, there is a middle ground and there is a right and wrong place to address this. Society shaming someone isn't the right choice and ignores that we don't know what is really going on with someone.

> I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story.

I’m slightly overweight and an ex-smoker. For years, nothing seemed to help me quit—high taxes, indoor smoking bans, health risks, and so on didn’t diminish my desire to smoke. I tried quitting a few times for financial and health reasons, but it never stuck.

What ultimately got me to quit was social stigma, especially after having kids. The stigma around smoking has grown over the years, but it reaches another level when you become a parent. Other parents didn’t hesitate to judge me for smoking, and I realized there was no way my kids wouldn’t face social consequences because of my habit. That was the push I needed to quit.

I do believe it’s wrong to judge people for their choices, but at the same time, I sometimes wonder if we’re going too far with body positivity. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m grateful for the stigma surrounding smoking—it helped me make a positive change.

I know a few people who lost weight and got super fit out of body positivity movements.

In general, the body positivity movement I've seen is about respect, encouragement, and support. It's not about encouraging bad habits, but being inviting to those who feel ashamed and would normally avoid going to the gym, a dance class, or to ask advice about healthy eating, etc.

As usual it comes down to the increasing individualism, that rejects any overarching societal guidance in favour of judgement-free self-expression ("body positivity"). This removes any collective bargaining or collective action (some of which I proposed in my parent comment) and exposes the individual to systemic risks (food industry making people fat, medical industry giving them a pill to feel better), unless the individual is equipped with enough of Bourdieu's social capital to navigate the pervasive health risks of the modern food supply. Allowing this minefield in place is also a convenient way to maintain class, leaving the unwashed masses hampered by health issues (like diabetes), reduced cognitive function and less attractiveness.

> not even wanting your doctor to talk about it

There's been a lot of misdiagnosis due to doctors just thinking it's a weight issue. I think that's one of the reason people have an issue with doctor's handling of weight.

The other area is that it often ignores that the patient is already actively aware, and trying to combat their weight gain. The doctors are not being helpful by just stating the obvious.

Lastly, many doctors are kind of outdated in their knowledge, they'll recommend old diets that are not as effective anymore, or they won't encourage exercise, just diet, or they won't consider family history, and so on.

In those cases, your "doctor bringing it up" can actually just lead to more weight gain, because it can create increased cortisol level from stress and worries, make you more depressed, and so on, which won't help you lose weight.

I agree that what you're saying is a problem but if your doctor is not handling anything about your health properly why are you not finding a new doctor instead of saying you don't want to talk about something?

And I am not saying that your doctor needs to constantly bring it up, but at a yearly physical I would expect that anything that could be contributing to other issues or my health in general would be brought up no matter how many times it was brought up. There are exceptions to this that I would generally expect the doctor to know and you not needing to ask it.

I mean replace weight with any other thing that could (not saying it's easy or possible for everyone) change and it sounds ridiculous. I cannot imagine a doctor respecting being asked, I don't want to talk about me smoking. Or sitting all day for work, or other risky behavior. It's all part of your entire health picture.

I think it's a matter of tact, that not all doctor will have equally. How they approach the topic, how compassionate they are when doing so, and how much they pester you about it.

> I would propose a concerted effort through mandatory levels of food quality that is served to the public (e.g. schools, hospitals)

The issue I've found is that it's much easier (= cheaper) to have tasty-enough food which is actually "junk". I love me some broccoli or other random steamed veggies with a steak. But when I was in school, these things were horrendous. Everything was a soggy, slimy mess. So fries it was, almost every day, except when they had pizza.

And since this was in my formative years, I can understand how people learn to associate "eating healthy" with that atrocious thing nobody wanted to get close to. So they will tend to gravitate to what they remember as being reasonably tasty.

It was my case, too, until I got fat and tried to do something about it. Which allowed me to discover it's not that much more work to make a tasty meal, which I actually like better. But it does take longer than throwing two frozen burgers in the microwave and calling it a day.

Tax won't solve anything - just make it socially unacceptable to be obese.

Interesting because Pigouvian taxes have a long and storied history of being extremely effective while your proposed solution has... zero evidence of effectiveness?

Feel free to provide it though.

It already is. If you are obese, you:

* Can't get clothes that fit you

* Are uncomfortable on public transit, in public places like theaters, etc as the seats are designed for someone much smaller than you

* Can't get into relationships

* Get social feedback ranging from well meaning (but still embarrassing) to downright cruel on a regular basis

In discussions like this, someone always says "the solution is to shame people" as if it's some kind of picnic to be fat. It's not - it's fucking miserable. And even with all that people are still having a hard time taking control of their lifestyle. Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing.

> Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing.

It do accomplish a thing of helping people that don't want to be ashamed to take better care of their weight before it becomes a bigger issue.

Bullshit. We already know that adding a stressor to problem eaters is the opposite of a solution!

I don't know about you but I'm paid to sit in a chair for 12 hours a day.

America got fat from a culture of fat shaming. So like, we know that doesn't work. Or at least this is not how I see the cause/effect.

To me, it appears that being fat was unacceptable and shameful culturally, but everyone still got fat, and insanely fat even. And once so many people were fat, they started to campaign against the fat shaming.

So fat shaming could actually be seen as having caused the issue.

I think being able to openly talk about the difficulty, challenges, and struggles of weight gain/loss, recognizes the people's struggle, encouraging weight loss, promoting methods and mechanisms, etc. might be more effective.

From the research I've seen, this is also supported by it. Fat shaming can cause increased stress and cortisol levels, emotional eating, avoidance of exercise (especially in public), depression and anxiety, and avoiding medical care due to fear of judgment. Which all in-turn contributes to weight gain.

I don't believe this. Other countries (mostly in SE Asia) have cultures of fat shaming and low levels of obesity.

I am not endorsing fat shaming, I just don't think your causal suggestion stands up to scrutiny.

That would reinforce my causal suggestion no?

We have two places that fat shamed, one got fat, one stayed lean. That tells us fat shaming doesn't seem to be a factor in getting fat or not.

But the place that has low level of obesity still fat shames. Where as the place where everyone is fat stopped fat shaming. So that seem to show that when the majority is fat, fat shaming tends to stop.

I'm referring to this: America got fat from a culture of fat shaming and your last paragraph. Now you're saying that it doesn't seem to be a factor, which completely contradicts your earlier claims.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say, sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com