5 ms·

> Food companies such as Procter and Gamble, Kraft, and Campbell Soup were also curious about Lands’s work and invited him to give presentations. “But they didn

by Doji 9y ago

> Food companies such as Procter and Gamble, Kraft, and Campbell Soup were also curious about Lands’s work and invited him to give presentations. “But they didn’t want to touch the idea that they might be selling foods that were harmful to people with a ten-foot pole,” says Lands. “Bill, we sell foods that people ask for,” Lands recalls one executive explaining. “We don’t tell the people what to eat. If you convince the public that our food should have a different balance, we’ll change it.” - The Queen of Fats by Susan Allport Corporations are not guilt free in this mess, but they are not the root of the problem. The high carb, high omega 6 guidelines that have caused our health crisis were instituted in haste and ignorance by the government. The government corn subsidies have distorted the market and make junk processed corn products cheaper than healthy food. Guidelines to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol have caused people to move to industrial seed oils, causing a overconsumption of omega6 fatty acids and consequential inflammatory disease. Corporations have simply provided what we have asked for. The author of this argument is ignorant of the real causes of disease and chooses to blame cheese and salt for our problems. I'm much happier with corporations and the ability to make my own, well informed health choices than government interference.

waynecochran 9y ago
Yes. Government guidelines are bogus. The article actually scares me a little bit, that people think the gov't should be deciding what the individual should do. That is not America and I hope it never is.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  Please. You really think the government hasn't decided anything in your life? The very infrastructure of the USA and why it is an oil-guzzling, car-crazy country is thanks to government design. The ghettoisation of urban neighbourhoods, resulting in poor education and high crime rates came about thanks to government legislation. Unless you have a very comfortable income so you can buy your way into a relatively "government-safe" situation (which is made available to the rich thanks to more government intervention btw), then you are very much at the whim of the government (or powerful corporations, which are essentially the same thing) for much of your basic day-to-day operations.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    The USA developed the way it has because there is tons of open space available and as shocking as it may be to some of the current generation, people like owning their own home and little plot of land and a car. FTA: Discover what consumers want to buy and give it to them with both barrels explains almost everything. Note that "what they want to buy" isn't necessarily what they like the best or without influence. As you've noted, governments and other lobbyists can have an impact. McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef lard. It made for crispy fries and it tasted good. The government and their subsidized agitators such as the CSPI got involved and started telling everyone that animal fat was bad. McDonalds switched to a vegetable/seed oil blend that is actually worse for you to eat and also produces an inferior product -- but so strong was the "no saturated fat" activism that they gave consumers what they were asking for even when blind taste-tests showed that they liked something else better.
  - waynecochran 9y ago
    Yes, and if the writer of this article had their way it would be far worse.
jbarciauskas 9y ago
The guidelines created by the USDA have always been and continue to be the product of corporate lobbying, not science. https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10726606/2015-us-dietary-guidelines-meat-and-soda-lobbying-power https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10726606/2015-us-dietary-g...
- Doji 9y ago
  I believe there is likely a lot of truth to this. I'm sure we can all agree crony capitalism is awful. However, I do not agree with this article that red meat is a cause for health concern. Such claims tend to be based on weak associations from flawed epidemiological studies, which cannot prove cause and effect.
  - jbarciauskas 9y ago
    TBH it was a quick citation for the general allegation of lobbying and the USDA, not endorsing any part in particular, just noting that it's a real thing.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    I think there is very strong evidence that replacing "red meat" in the Standard American Diet is healthier, and that is as far as the Verge is going to dive into that particular argument. I do agree the red meat in the Standard American Diet is a health concern, but that's because the healthiest options to consume red meat in our collective dietary preferences are still going to be laden with sugary dressings or carbohydrate rich mashed potatoes. Meat always comes with additional and excessively plentiful carbohydrates.
    - yarden 9y ago
      That's because people in the United States as a general rule eat tons of cheap, processed meat. When removed, there's a slight chance it'll be replaced by actual vegetables, of which their diet has tremendous lack of, so in almost any case it will be a win-win for their digestive system and cholesterol. It's not the meat it's you
yarden 9y ago
The thing is, this regulation doesn't appear out of thin air. It came about because corporations had, and still have, so much power in the united states. In places where corporations are powerful, they will use that power to influence government. This is why Libertarian free market policies are pretty much as conceptually impossible as communism. When power is concentrated in the hands of few, they will gain economic power in the case of communism, and political power in the case of free market. It's not by chance that many are turning a blind eye to the root and noticing only the regulatory component of the problem as that is very beneficial to the corporations, and there's hardly anyone left to make arguments against them when they hold all the power.
- winstonewert 9y ago
  In the "Libertarian" scenario it isn't the free market that lets corporations gain political power. Its the democratic institutions that the corporations are able to subvert. The question is: is there anyway to organize society that doesn't led to some entities gaining power at the expense of everybody else?

by Doji 9y ago

waynecochran 9y ago

Yes. Government guidelines are bogus. The article actually scares me a little bit, that people think the gov't should be deciding what the individual should do. That is not America and I hope it never is.

kiliantics 9y ago
Please. You really think the government hasn't decided anything in your life? The very infrastructure of the USA and why it is an oil-guzzling, car-crazy country is thanks to government design. The ghettoisation of urban neighbourhoods, resulting in poor education and high crime rates came about thanks to government legislation. Unless you have a very comfortable income so you can buy your way into a relatively "government-safe" situation (which is made available to the rich thanks to more government intervention btw), then you are very much at the whim of the government (or powerful corporations, which are essentially the same thing) for much of your basic day-to-day operations.
- ams6110 9y ago
  The USA developed the way it has because there is tons of open space available and as shocking as it may be to some of the current generation, people like owning their own home and little plot of land and a car. FTA: Discover what consumers want to buy and give it to them with both barrels explains almost everything. Note that "what they want to buy" isn't necessarily what they like the best or without influence. As you've noted, governments and other lobbyists can have an impact. McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef lard. It made for crispy fries and it tasted good. The government and their subsidized agitators such as the CSPI got involved and started telling everyone that animal fat was bad. McDonalds switched to a vegetable/seed oil blend that is actually worse for you to eat and also produces an inferior product -- but so strong was the "no saturated fat" activism that they gave consumers what they were asking for even when blind taste-tests showed that they liked something else better.
- waynecochran 9y ago
  Yes, and if the writer of this article had their way it would be far worse.

jbarciauskas 9y ago

The guidelines created by the USDA have always been and continue to be the product of corporate lobbying, not science. https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10726606/2015-us-dietary-guidelines-meat-and-soda-lobbying-power https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10726606/2015-us-dietary-g...

Doji 9y ago
I believe there is likely a lot of truth to this. I'm sure we can all agree crony capitalism is awful. However, I do not agree with this article that red meat is a cause for health concern. Such claims tend to be based on weak associations from flawed epidemiological studies, which cannot prove cause and effect.
- jbarciauskas 9y ago
  TBH it was a quick citation for the general allegation of lobbying and the USDA, not endorsing any part in particular, just noting that it's a real thing.
- undersuit 9y ago
  I think there is very strong evidence that replacing "red meat" in the Standard American Diet is healthier, and that is as far as the Verge is going to dive into that particular argument. I do agree the red meat in the Standard American Diet is a health concern, but that's because the healthiest options to consume red meat in our collective dietary preferences are still going to be laden with sugary dressings or carbohydrate rich mashed potatoes. Meat always comes with additional and excessively plentiful carbohydrates.
  - yarden 9y ago
    That's because people in the United States as a general rule eat tons of cheap, processed meat. When removed, there's a slight chance it'll be replaced by actual vegetables, of which their diet has tremendous lack of, so in almost any case it will be a win-win for their digestive system and cholesterol. It's not the meat it's you

yarden 9y ago

The thing is, this regulation doesn't appear out of thin air. It came about because corporations had, and still have, so much power in the united states. In places where corporations are powerful, they will use that power to influence government. This is why Libertarian free market policies are pretty much as conceptually impossible as communism. When power is concentrated in the hands of few, they will gain economic power in the case of communism, and political power in the case of free market. It's not by chance that many are turning a blind eye to the root and noticing only the regulatory component of the problem as that is very beneficial to the corporations, and there's hardly anyone left to make arguments against them when they hold all the power.

winstonewert 9y ago
In the "Libertarian" scenario it isn't the free market that lets corporations gain political power. Its the democratic institutions that the corporations are able to subvert. The question is: is there anyway to organize society that doesn't led to some entities gaining power at the expense of everybody else?