8 ms·

I have this theory that in a couple decades or three most of the developed world will enter a health crisis, as everyone will suddenly realize that we've been e

by Mahn 9y ago

I have this theory that in a couple decades or three most of the developed world will enter a health crisis, as everyone will suddenly realize that we've been eating and drinking like shit for a long time. Almost 3/4 of what you can find in your average grocery store today has unnecessary amounts of sugar, salt and/or chemicals added and no one seems to care. Someday we'll look at the food we eat now like the way we see tobacco today.

wmccullough 9y ago
>and no one seems to care I'd have to disagree with that. There are lots of people who care and have tried to be good stewards to the public. The problem is that you also have corporations with major amounts of cash and influence that actively discredit anyone who speaks out. These are facts. For example, whether or not GMO issues are horseshit or not doesn't matter when anyone who speaks out is given a gag order or when we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage and our systems are so fucked we aren't even allowed to ask about it without getting sued into oblivion. People care, but caring isn't enough anymore.
- 18nleung 9y ago
  Could you elaborate? I myself haven't seen much compelling evidence against GMOs.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Aren't those that are making extraordinary claims supposed to bring the evidence? The idea that, given these premises: a) we who don't understand even 10% of how the ecological ecosystem works b) we don't understand even 10% of genes and how they interplay c) we don't understand even 10% of second order effects of such changes d) we don't yet have explanation for tons of interactions and functionality in the body (from what triggers cancers to all kinds of lesser stuff) e) we can't even have a decent dietary advice from medical bodies that is not revised completely every 10-20 years f) corporations will even put plutonium to kids milk if there's profit in it (and then lie about it) g) all kinds of industry-sponsored research has been shown to be paid lies ... GMOs are perfectly safe. It's more like changing various bits in working computer memory, with a ho-hum printout of parts of the program's in-memory structure and a crappy flow-chart of what it does, and wishing that the running program (and OS and such) will continue to play just fine...
    - Tade0 9y ago
      Given your attitude I expect you wouldn't be really happy getting to know how selective breeding works(it's waay more random - to the point where you get mainly unwanted side effects).
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Where does the assumption that I don't know how selective breeding works comes? Because if someone has concerns such as mine they must obviously be some anti-scientific luddite? For one, selective breeding has been going on for millennia -- and from people who had to eat its results, not mega corporations 10 times removed and interested in short term profit. If it was that dangerous we'd know it by now. Second, the species must be already related and/or compatible to a certain degree -- the same reason we don't have cat and snake hybrids in nature. Whereas with GMOs you can have arbitrary changes and mixes. So it's not "waay more random" as it has way more limited scope. It's only random in that practitioners are not certain of the successful inheritance of the desired traits. But it's like comparing playing with lego bricks to playing with creating stuff at the molecule level.
        Tade0 9y ago
        > Where does the assumption that I don't know how selective breeding works comes? Easy: You're against the less random of the two. This means that apparently you don't know how GMO and/or selective breeding works. > If it was that dangerous we'd know it by now. This same logic applies to GMO, which has been around since the nineties. Aside from some late capitalism-esque economic effects nothing interesting happened. > Whereas with GMOs you can have arbitrary changes and mixes. And that is bad because...?
        coldtea 9y ago
        >This same logic applies to GMO, which has been around since the nineties. Yes, I can see how "since the nineties and regulated" gives the same guarantees as "for millennia". >And that is bad because...? Because they don't know the side-effects of what they're doing on top of it.
  - pionar 9y ago
    The point isn't about whether GMOs are safe (I supsect they are), it's about the skewed debate. Companies that produce GMO products (and the groups on the other side as well) stifle debate to the point that it's nigh impossible to find unbiased research to form an actually cogent opinion.
  - sambull 9y ago
    Only thing I find compelling is many of the GMOs are just IP locked products that allow you to use more herbicide/pesticide on your crop.
    - madengr 9y ago
      Or less. Get rid of Round Up and you'll use a lot more herbicides/pesticides.
      - undersuit 9y ago
        Or more. Dicamba is coming onto the market and the amount of pesticides and herbicides has been increasing per field and not decreasing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044953/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044953/
  - ionised 9y ago
    My issue isn't so much with GMOs but rather the few companies that will end up owning the patents on the world's food supplies.
    - graphitezepp 9y ago
      GMOs are awesome. The fact that they are used to justify patenting a seed is horrifying.
      - positr0n 9y ago
        Honest question given that GMOs are awesome but patenting a GMO seed is bad. In that scenario, how are GMO creators incentivized to create more GMO products? Sell the first seed for a billion dollars and then the person that buys that seed can give out its progeny for free?
        undersuit 9y ago
        Honest question given that Genetically Engineered Babies are awesome but patenting a Genetically Engineered Baby genotype is bad. In that scenario, how are Genetically Engineered Baby creators incentivized to create more Genetically Engineered Baby genotypes? Sell the first baby for a billion dollars and then the baby can give its germline cells for free upon sexual maturity? They are selling life. Life forms reproduce. It's a pretty basic assumption and if GMO merchants want to change that then they need to embrace terminator seeds.
      - ptaipale 9y ago
        There's no connection really. Patenting seed has been around long, long before GMO technology (around 80 years or so in the US, around 50 years in my country).
- coldtea 9y ago
  >For example, whether or not GMO issues are horseshit or not doesn't matter when anyone who speaks out is given a gag order or when we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage and our systems are so fucked we aren't even allowed to ask about it without getting sued into oblivion. And my favorite group, the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe, "because science" -- when most of the research and assurances is from companies looking for a quick buck, not impartial scientists (which almost don't exist anymore the way they did when academic/research jobs where plenty, scientists were often independently wealthy, and tenure a sure thing).
  - sapote 9y ago
    >And my favorite group, the ones confusing technology with science This. It's far too common here at HN.
  - jonnycoder 9y ago
    Your argument also applies to the global warming 'settled science'.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      My argument is pro-science and against technology that misapplies or hastily applies science for profit. So in fact it's in the "global warming is real" side of the debate. Except if you mean someone could make the same argument I speak against, and say "global warming doesn't exist, because science is wonderful and would never hurt us" or "global warming doesn't matter because science will save us". Then yes, those people would be confusing science with technology again.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    > the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program. Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.
- loeg 9y ago
  > we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage Do you have any specific examples of damage from GMOs?
Shorel 9y ago
Most people care, but the general advice is not good. Low fat food is not really healthy.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  That's not the general advice though? Eat natural foods, eat less of them, avoid sugar. https://youtu.be/BOyebcrVWb4 https://youtu.be/BOyebcrVWb4
  - LambdaComplex 9y ago
    Fruits are natural and have plenty of sugar
0x4f3759df 9y ago
The documentary 'Fed Up' convinced me that a sugar calorie is worse than another type of calorie, and that sugar is really the cause of the obesity epidemic. There's also 'That Sugar Film' which makes many of the same points. Fed Up Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM
- martinko 9y ago
  Fed up is filled with horrible vegan propaganda
walterstucco 9y ago
> I have this theory than in a couple decades or three most of the developed world will enter a health crisis you need more than that for a theory of a dystopian future telling us how much you feel bad for eating too much is not a theory it's a therapy session
nbates80 9y ago
I hardly eat sugar or preprocessed food. But the biggest improvement in lifestyle was cutting wheat flour as much as possible. The first change I noticed was the weight loss, but I feel less "stuffy" too. I replaced it with corn flour. Other than that, I really think there is some truth to the documentary Cooked. I don't deprive myself from food, as long as it is homemade food out of real ingredients. I can't afford organic food and the weather of the place I live in is not that great to grow my own food (and my time availability is not that much either).
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  You don't even really need flower.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Nobody thinks you "need" it, but staples are cheap, easy, shelf-stable, unrefrigerated, and at least appear healthy. If we're going to feed billions of people, it's probably going to involve staples.
  - nbates80 9y ago
    I know I don't need it. The problem is it is hard to avoid it. You need a lot of planning, specially if you are going on a trip (at least in my country, avoiding flour while traveling through small towns is almost impossible if you want to have eat health)
the_cat_kittles 9y ago
so you knew sugar caused diabetes? ...yea and you knew it caused obesity? ...yea so you knew it was literally killing you? ...yea and you kept eating it anyway? ......sigh......yea.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  There's sugar in everything. It's pretty difficult to avoid unless you're willing to take drastic measures when compared to the average person. All you can do is attempt to minimize your intake.
  - yflu 9y ago
    If you stay mostly in the produce aisle of your supermarket, you're 90% of the way to being added sugar free. Which is admittedly different than completely sugar free, since that's entirely absurd. But we've survived every generation except the last 4 without so much processed sugar, and we now have global supply lines handing us crops practically to our doorstep.
  - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    yea i meant excessive sugar, and processed foods that have tons of it in them. not fruit etc... not that hard to avoid!
  - TACIXAT 9y ago
    I've actually cut out all products with added sugar (and foods that are naturally high in sugar like fruits). You need to read labels but it is not so difficult. It still leaves a pretty great variety of meats, legumes, dairy, corn, rice, and vegetables.
- madamelic 9y ago
  The issue isn't X, it is the quantity. Eating a Twinkie won't kill you, eating an entire box every day for 20 years will.
- abawany 9y ago
  I agree that there is significant willing suspension of disbelief. However, there are two additional factors that make it difficult to completely pin the tail on the donkey that is the hapless consumer: 1) Sugar in unexpected ingredients (I still can't believe McDonalds hamburger buns have HFCS and I learnt this in 2010), and 2) Terminology and presentation games to ensure the consumer is less likely to read the ingredients list and nutrition facts. EDIT: syntax. Also, forgot to mention food deserts and availability of fresh produce in various neighborhoods.

by Mahn 9y ago

wmccullough 9y ago

>and no one seems to care I'd have to disagree with that. There are lots of people who care and have tried to be good stewards to the public. The problem is that you also have corporations with major amounts of cash and influence that actively discredit anyone who speaks out. These are facts. For example, whether or not GMO issues are horseshit or not doesn't matter when anyone who speaks out is given a gag order or when we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage and our systems are so fucked we aren't even allowed to ask about it without getting sued into oblivion. People care, but caring isn't enough anymore.

18nleung 9y ago
Could you elaborate? I myself haven't seen much compelling evidence against GMOs.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Aren't those that are making extraordinary claims supposed to bring the evidence? The idea that, given these premises: a) we who don't understand even 10% of how the ecological ecosystem works b) we don't understand even 10% of genes and how they interplay c) we don't understand even 10% of second order effects of such changes d) we don't yet have explanation for tons of interactions and functionality in the body (from what triggers cancers to all kinds of lesser stuff) e) we can't even have a decent dietary advice from medical bodies that is not revised completely every 10-20 years f) corporations will even put plutonium to kids milk if there's profit in it (and then lie about it) g) all kinds of industry-sponsored research has been shown to be paid lies ... GMOs are perfectly safe. It's more like changing various bits in working computer memory, with a ho-hum printout of parts of the program's in-memory structure and a crappy flow-chart of what it does, and wishing that the running program (and OS and such) will continue to play just fine...
  - Tade0 9y ago
    Given your attitude I expect you wouldn't be really happy getting to know how selective breeding works(it's waay more random - to the point where you get mainly unwanted side effects).
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Where does the assumption that I don't know how selective breeding works comes? Because if someone has concerns such as mine they must obviously be some anti-scientific luddite? For one, selective breeding has been going on for millennia -- and from people who had to eat its results, not mega corporations 10 times removed and interested in short term profit. If it was that dangerous we'd know it by now. Second, the species must be already related and/or compatible to a certain degree -- the same reason we don't have cat and snake hybrids in nature. Whereas with GMOs you can have arbitrary changes and mixes. So it's not "waay more random" as it has way more limited scope. It's only random in that practitioners are not certain of the successful inheritance of the desired traits. But it's like comparing playing with lego bricks to playing with creating stuff at the molecule level.
      - Tade0 9y ago
        > Where does the assumption that I don't know how selective breeding works comes? Easy: You're against the less random of the two. This means that apparently you don't know how GMO and/or selective breeding works. > If it was that dangerous we'd know it by now. This same logic applies to GMO, which has been around since the nineties. Aside from some late capitalism-esque economic effects nothing interesting happened. > Whereas with GMOs you can have arbitrary changes and mixes. And that is bad because...?
        coldtea 9y ago
        >This same logic applies to GMO, which has been around since the nineties. Yes, I can see how "since the nineties and regulated" gives the same guarantees as "for millennia". >And that is bad because...? Because they don't know the side-effects of what they're doing on top of it.
- pionar 9y ago
  The point isn't about whether GMOs are safe (I supsect they are), it's about the skewed debate. Companies that produce GMO products (and the groups on the other side as well) stifle debate to the point that it's nigh impossible to find unbiased research to form an actually cogent opinion.
- sambull 9y ago
  Only thing I find compelling is many of the GMOs are just IP locked products that allow you to use more herbicide/pesticide on your crop.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Or less. Get rid of Round Up and you'll use a lot more herbicides/pesticides.
    - undersuit 9y ago
      Or more. Dicamba is coming onto the market and the amount of pesticides and herbicides has been increasing per field and not decreasing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044953/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044953/
- ionised 9y ago
  My issue isn't so much with GMOs but rather the few companies that will end up owning the patents on the world's food supplies.
  - graphitezepp 9y ago
    GMOs are awesome. The fact that they are used to justify patenting a seed is horrifying.
    - positr0n 9y ago
      Honest question given that GMOs are awesome but patenting a GMO seed is bad. In that scenario, how are GMO creators incentivized to create more GMO products? Sell the first seed for a billion dollars and then the person that buys that seed can give out its progeny for free?
      - undersuit 9y ago
        Honest question given that Genetically Engineered Babies are awesome but patenting a Genetically Engineered Baby genotype is bad. In that scenario, how are Genetically Engineered Baby creators incentivized to create more Genetically Engineered Baby genotypes? Sell the first baby for a billion dollars and then the baby can give its germline cells for free upon sexual maturity? They are selling life. Life forms reproduce. It's a pretty basic assumption and if GMO merchants want to change that then they need to embrace terminator seeds.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      There's no connection really. Patenting seed has been around long, long before GMO technology (around 80 years or so in the US, around 50 years in my country).
coldtea 9y ago
>For example, whether or not GMO issues are horseshit or not doesn't matter when anyone who speaks out is given a gag order or when we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage and our systems are so fucked we aren't even allowed to ask about it without getting sued into oblivion. And my favorite group, the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe, "because science" -- when most of the research and assurances is from companies looking for a quick buck, not impartial scientists (which almost don't exist anymore the way they did when academic/research jobs where plenty, scientists were often independently wealthy, and tenure a sure thing).
- sapote 9y ago
  >And my favorite group, the ones confusing technology with science This. It's far too common here at HN.
- jonnycoder 9y ago
  Your argument also applies to the global warming 'settled science'.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    My argument is pro-science and against technology that misapplies or hastily applies science for profit. So in fact it's in the "global warming is real" side of the debate. Except if you mean someone could make the same argument I speak against, and say "global warming doesn't exist, because science is wonderful and would never hurt us" or "global warming doesn't matter because science will save us". Then yes, those people would be confusing science with technology again.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program. Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.
loeg 9y ago
> we find leaked documents showing that companies know of damage Do you have any specific examples of damage from GMOs?

Shorel 9y ago

Most people care, but the general advice is not good. Low fat food is not really healthy.

kthejoker2 9y ago
That's not the general advice though? Eat natural foods, eat less of them, avoid sugar. https://youtu.be/BOyebcrVWb4 https://youtu.be/BOyebcrVWb4
- LambdaComplex 9y ago
  Fruits are natural and have plenty of sugar

0x4f3759df 9y ago

The documentary 'Fed Up' convinced me that a sugar calorie is worse than another type of calorie, and that sugar is really the cause of the obesity epidemic. There's also 'That Sugar Film' which makes many of the same points. Fed Up Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM

martinko 9y ago
Fed up is filled with horrible vegan propaganda

walterstucco 9y ago

> I have this theory than in a couple decades or three most of the developed world will enter a health crisis you need more than that for a theory of a dystopian future telling us how much you feel bad for eating too much is not a theory it's a therapy session

nbates80 9y ago

I hardly eat sugar or preprocessed food. But the biggest improvement in lifestyle was cutting wheat flour as much as possible. The first change I noticed was the weight loss, but I feel less "stuffy" too. I replaced it with corn flour. Other than that, I really think there is some truth to the documentary Cooked. I don't deprive myself from food, as long as it is homemade food out of real ingredients. I can't afford organic food and the weather of the place I live in is not that great to grow my own food (and my time availability is not that much either).

adamnemecek 9y ago
You don't even really need flower.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Nobody thinks you "need" it, but staples are cheap, easy, shelf-stable, unrefrigerated, and at least appear healthy. If we're going to feed billions of people, it's probably going to involve staples.
- nbates80 9y ago
  I know I don't need it. The problem is it is hard to avoid it. You need a lot of planning, specially if you are going on a trip (at least in my country, avoiding flour while traveling through small towns is almost impossible if you want to have eat health)

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

so you knew sugar caused diabetes? ...yea and you knew it caused obesity? ...yea so you knew it was literally killing you? ...yea and you kept eating it anyway? ......sigh......yea.

wavefunction 9y ago
There's sugar in everything. It's pretty difficult to avoid unless you're willing to take drastic measures when compared to the average person. All you can do is attempt to minimize your intake.
- yflu 9y ago
  If you stay mostly in the produce aisle of your supermarket, you're 90% of the way to being added sugar free. Which is admittedly different than completely sugar free, since that's entirely absurd. But we've survived every generation except the last 4 without so much processed sugar, and we now have global supply lines handing us crops practically to our doorstep.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  yea i meant excessive sugar, and processed foods that have tons of it in them. not fruit etc... not that hard to avoid!
- TACIXAT 9y ago
  I've actually cut out all products with added sugar (and foods that are naturally high in sugar like fruits). You need to read labels but it is not so difficult. It still leaves a pretty great variety of meats, legumes, dairy, corn, rice, and vegetables.
madamelic 9y ago
The issue isn't X, it is the quantity. Eating a Twinkie won't kill you, eating an entire box every day for 20 years will.
abawany 9y ago
I agree that there is significant willing suspension of disbelief. However, there are two additional factors that make it difficult to completely pin the tail on the donkey that is the hapless consumer: 1) Sugar in unexpected ingredients (I still can't believe McDonalds hamburger buns have HFCS and I learnt this in 2010), and 2) Terminology and presentation games to ensure the consumer is less likely to read the ingredients list and nutrition facts. EDIT: syntax. Also, forgot to mention food deserts and availability of fresh produce in various neighborhoods.