14 ms·

Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar and a company producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage over consum

by mhurron 10y ago

Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar and a company producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar. I don't see what the actual problem is.

k33n 10y ago
The leading cause of diabetes is poor diet. Nestle is selling you foods that if consumed in large quantities will absolutely result in you becoming a diabetic. It's called vertical integration and it's not accidental.
- vixen99 10y ago
  That's their job - to sell legal products to those who want them. What happens to the purchased products is a matter for people's own assessment and capacity for self-control. What was it a McDonalds' guy told folk? Something along the lines "It's not my job to teach your kids to eat vegetables".
- mhurron 10y ago
  > if consumed in large quantities And when consumed in moderation, has no adverse affect. Poor diet is you, not a company. Nestle is simply going where the money is. If you need diabetes pills because of your poor decisions though, that is your fault.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    You're right that responsibility ultimately lies in the individual, but people aren't silos. If advertising didn't work, people wouldn't do it. Some responsibility must be given to those who try to convince others to do unhealthy things.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Nestle also sells water, which if consumed in large quantities, will absolutely result in you being dead. They also advertise it like crazy. How are these two things meaningfully different?
djrobstep 10y ago
Actually, they do encourage exactly that. Stating the obvious, the choices people make are a function of the choices available to them.
- mhurron 10y ago
  So people didn't over eat sugar until there were diabetes pills?
  - vidarh 10y ago
    He's saying that people didn't overeat sugar until they were given sufficiently easy access to significant quantities of sugar to make it easy to overeat it.
- matwood 10y ago
  So we should remove all choice that isn't considered safe? Who decides what is safe?
  - Retra 10y ago
    Safety is something you can actually measure.
sledgehammers 10y ago
Really, you don't see any problem here? You said it yourself. It's not _always_ a (direct) byproduct of over consuming sugar. However, it often is.
- mhurron 10y ago
  No, diabetes is often a byproduct of choosing to over consume sugar. Nestle didn't make them diabetic, they did that to themselves. There is no direct cause and effect, producing sugary snacks does not cause diabetes. People choose to over consume to the point they develop diabetes. People's lack of self control created a market, Nestle wants to be one of the companies in that market.
  - warmblood 10y ago
    There is a deep difference of power and control between the average consumer and a multinational food processing corporation. The argument of the burden being on individual responsibility you are trying to make can only be made if the consumer is not being aggressively misinformed about the limited choices of products available to them for the prices they can afford. The company in question has the resources to make their relationship with the target consumer a very asymmetrical one, and they are always positioned with more information and more leverage. Surely if you're taking the dry, deterministic outlook on this discussion you'd take this into consideration.
  - dasboth 10y ago
    Honest question: do you see nothing wrong with someone monetising other people's lack of self control?
    - gruez 10y ago
      Devil's advocate: why shoud they not do it? Unless every other food producer does the same, sugary foods will still be available but Nestle would lose out on the profits.
      - 10y ago
jld89 10y ago
"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar." Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children. Their marketing campaigns are specially tailored to that objective. Just look at the cereal advertisements, most of their cereal brands have a lot of sugar in them. If that is not encouraging over consumption of sugar I don't know what is...
- jzwinck 10y ago
  Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest (short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are. I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths.
  - maus42 10y ago
    ...extra tax for high-sugar products?
    - Erwin 10y ago
      We tried a tax on fatty foods in Denmark and it was a huge mess. People would just drive to Germany to get the stuff, and managing it was an administrative nightmare: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in...
      - jacobush 10y ago
        That's like taxing it only in Idaho. Of course it must be done in an economic block, like the US or the EU or China.
      - rlucas 10y ago
        Interesting anecdote, but 1. It's quite possible (though it's a huge rabbit hole we shouldn't plumb here) that they were taxing the wrong macronutrient entirely, that is to say, that fat on the body is more a factor of sugar going in than fat going in. So in addition to imposing costs it may have failed to give benefits (whereas had it worked to improve health outcomes maybe it would have been worth the costs of enforcement etc.) 2. The Danes taxing butter?!? That seems extremely odd given the dairy industry and culture. But I suppose major kudos for being able to overcome such prior biases to even run the experiment.
parennoob 10y ago
> a company producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar First of all, it is going a bit far to say they don't encourage over consumption of sugar. Nestle dropped a couple of billion on advertising last year [1], and that is primarily sugary food, or at least food that's broadly unhealthy. Secondly, what about the tobacco companies? They did not force anyone to consume their products either; but with strict limiting of their marketing, especially to young children, the rate of smoking has gone down a lot in the States. Studies show that willpower is a limited resource [2]. If you are being assaulted on all sides by a barrage of advertising, cheap snacks on display, and have been marketed to from your childhood, you are going to have a much harder time abstaining from these products. I understand, or at least guess that you are putting forth a point of personal responsibility here – "Hey, don't eat those Hot Pockets, and you will be all good". But there are a ton of obstacles to that. These large food companies have pretty much ensured that most "convenience" stores carry only their products, and have little to no fresh produce or what you would consider "healthy" food. If you live in a poor neighborhood, a lot of times the only place that sells produce is located really far away, like 5 or 10 miles. Thus, for some people it is clearly easier to eat healthy, and maybe some of that is on account of their socioeconomic class, current health, etc. But extrapolating that to all people should be a bit more nuanced, and maybe these companies' marketing should be a bit more regulated. ------------------ [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/286531/nestle-advertising-spending-worldwide/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/286531/nestle-advertising... [2] https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-limited-resource.pdf https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-limited-resource.pd...
erikb 10y ago
Even considerung a possible connection I don't see a problem. That's how business works.
- Retra 10y ago
  "I don't see a problem with the status quo. That's just how the world works."
rhinoceraptor 10y ago
The foods that Nestle sells are unprecedented in history, they are engineered to be much more palatable than normal whole foods. It's not surprising that people have a hard time eating them moderately.
GordonS 10y ago
> Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar Refined carbs in general are the big issue, but sugar in particular is a very large part of the problem. It's difficult to buy any processed food that doesn't contain sugar these days. > or even encourage over consumption of sugar They market sugar-laden foods to children, such as sickly-sweet breakfast cereals - IMO they do encourage over consumption of sugar. > I don't see what the actual problem is I think the problem with Nestle doing both of these things is that it creates a pretty clear conflict of interest - to maximise revenue, they need to sell as many sugar laden products as they can, so they can sell more much diabetes medication.

by mhurron 10y ago

k33n 10y ago

The leading cause of diabetes is poor diet. Nestle is selling you foods that if consumed in large quantities will absolutely result in you becoming a diabetic. It's called vertical integration and it's not accidental.

vixen99 10y ago
That's their job - to sell legal products to those who want them. What happens to the purchased products is a matter for people's own assessment and capacity for self-control. What was it a McDonalds' guy told folk? Something along the lines "It's not my job to teach your kids to eat vegetables".
mhurron 10y ago
> if consumed in large quantities And when consumed in moderation, has no adverse affect. Poor diet is you, not a company. Nestle is simply going where the money is. If you need diabetes pills because of your poor decisions though, that is your fault.
- coldpie 10y ago
  You're right that responsibility ultimately lies in the individual, but people aren't silos. If advertising didn't work, people wouldn't do it. Some responsibility must be given to those who try to convince others to do unhealthy things.
Karunamon 10y ago
Nestle also sells water, which if consumed in large quantities, will absolutely result in you being dead. They also advertise it like crazy. How are these two things meaningfully different?

djrobstep 10y ago

Actually, they do encourage exactly that. Stating the obvious, the choices people make are a function of the choices available to them.

mhurron 10y ago
So people didn't over eat sugar until there were diabetes pills?
- vidarh 10y ago
  He's saying that people didn't overeat sugar until they were given sufficiently easy access to significant quantities of sugar to make it easy to overeat it.
matwood 10y ago
So we should remove all choice that isn't considered safe? Who decides what is safe?
- Retra 10y ago
  Safety is something you can actually measure.

sledgehammers 10y ago

Really, you don't see any problem here? You said it yourself. It's not _always_ a (direct) byproduct of over consuming sugar. However, it often is.

mhurron 10y ago
No, diabetes is often a byproduct of choosing to over consume sugar. Nestle didn't make them diabetic, they did that to themselves. There is no direct cause and effect, producing sugary snacks does not cause diabetes. People choose to over consume to the point they develop diabetes. People's lack of self control created a market, Nestle wants to be one of the companies in that market.
- warmblood 10y ago
  There is a deep difference of power and control between the average consumer and a multinational food processing corporation. The argument of the burden being on individual responsibility you are trying to make can only be made if the consumer is not being aggressively misinformed about the limited choices of products available to them for the prices they can afford. The company in question has the resources to make their relationship with the target consumer a very asymmetrical one, and they are always positioned with more information and more leverage. Surely if you're taking the dry, deterministic outlook on this discussion you'd take this into consideration.
- dasboth 10y ago
  Honest question: do you see nothing wrong with someone monetising other people's lack of self control?
  - gruez 10y ago
    Devil's advocate: why shoud they not do it? Unless every other food producer does the same, sugary foods will still be available but Nestle would lose out on the profits.
    - 10y ago

jld89 10y ago

"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar." Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children. Their marketing campaigns are specially tailored to that objective. Just look at the cereal advertisements, most of their cereal brands have a lot of sugar in them. If that is not encouraging over consumption of sugar I don't know what is...

jzwinck 10y ago
Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest (short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are. I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths.
- maus42 10y ago
  ...extra tax for high-sugar products?
  - Erwin 10y ago
    We tried a tax on fatty foods in Denmark and it was a huge mess. People would just drive to Germany to get the stuff, and managing it was an administrative nightmare: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in...
    - jacobush 10y ago
      That's like taxing it only in Idaho. Of course it must be done in an economic block, like the US or the EU or China.
    - rlucas 10y ago
      Interesting anecdote, but 1. It's quite possible (though it's a huge rabbit hole we shouldn't plumb here) that they were taxing the wrong macronutrient entirely, that is to say, that fat on the body is more a factor of sugar going in than fat going in. So in addition to imposing costs it may have failed to give benefits (whereas had it worked to improve health outcomes maybe it would have been worth the costs of enforcement etc.) 2. The Danes taxing butter?!? That seems extremely odd given the dairy industry and culture. But I suppose major kudos for being able to overcome such prior biases to even run the experiment.

parennoob 10y ago

> a company producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar First of all, it is going a bit far to say they don't encourage over consumption of sugar. Nestle dropped a couple of billion on advertising last year [1], and that is primarily sugary food, or at least food that's broadly unhealthy. Secondly, what about the tobacco companies? They did not force anyone to consume their products either; but with strict limiting of their marketing, especially to young children, the rate of smoking has gone down a lot in the States. Studies show that willpower is a limited resource [2]. If you are being assaulted on all sides by a barrage of advertising, cheap snacks on display, and have been marketed to from your childhood, you are going to have a much harder time abstaining from these products. I understand, or at least guess that you are putting forth a point of personal responsibility here – "Hey, don't eat those Hot Pockets, and you will be all good". But there are a ton of obstacles to that. These large food companies have pretty much ensured that most "convenience" stores carry only their products, and have little to no fresh produce or what you would consider "healthy" food. If you live in a poor neighborhood, a lot of times the only place that sells produce is located really far away, like 5 or 10 miles. Thus, for some people it is clearly easier to eat healthy, and maybe some of that is on account of their socioeconomic class, current health, etc. But extrapolating that to all people should be a bit more nuanced, and maybe these companies' marketing should be a bit more regulated. ------------------ [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/286531/nestle-advertising-spending-worldwide/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/286531/nestle-advertising... [2] https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-limited-resource.pdf https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-limited-resource.pd...

erikb 10y ago

Even considerung a possible connection I don't see a problem. That's how business works.

Retra 10y ago
"I don't see a problem with the status quo. That's just how the world works."

rhinoceraptor 10y ago

The foods that Nestle sells are unprecedented in history, they are engineered to be much more palatable than normal whole foods. It's not surprising that people have a hard time eating them moderately.

GordonS 10y ago

> Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar Refined carbs in general are the big issue, but sugar in particular is a very large part of the problem. It's difficult to buy any processed food that doesn't contain sugar these days. > or even encourage over consumption of sugar They market sugar-laden foods to children, such as sickly-sweet breakfast cereals - IMO they do encourage over consumption of sugar. > I don't see what the actual problem is I think the problem with Nestle doing both of these things is that it creates a pretty clear conflict of interest - to maximise revenue, they need to sell as many sugar laden products as they can, so they can sell more much diabetes medication.