4 ms·

This is discussed extensively in the article, and is in fact the main argument of the article. The thrust of his argument is that capitalism forces companies t

This is discussed extensively in the article, and is in fact the main argument of the article. The thrust of his argument is that capitalism forces companies to play to biological triggers that are bad for us, and to play them hard. And then use psychological tricks to make you feel ok for falling for them, even though you logically know you shouldn't. If they don't their competitors will. So the system is deliberately exerting pressure to become obese, it's not a symptom, it's a direct cause. He even uses examples of how Brazil and other countries have been targeted deliberately by companies selling sugar and salt and have suddenly developed obesity problems, after US companies ran around giving away desserts and other sugar laden food. I would re-read the article and pay attention to the parts about Coke, Raisin Bran and Minute Maid juice, plus him discussing Brazil, if you missed the arguments.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Yes. I got all that. I see it everyday. My point is that when we've reached a point where it's acceptable to blame anything but ourselves for what we buy at the supermarket...for what we put in our mouths...then we are in very bad shape. Fixing the system isn't going to fix The Problem. The lack of self responsibility will only manifest itself elsewhere. Put another way, in the bigger scheme of things, we can't keep complaining about the power of the overseers (i.e., the 1% et al) and make every solution one that champions the Nanny State.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  At a certain point I think it's reasonable to say that a company spending half a billion dollars on psychology research and manipulation (advertising) MIGHT just have the upper hand.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Pardon my non-HN tone but...does that reasonable point come before or after I look down and can't see my own penis when I pee? How isn't that a trigger for "something is wrong"? Yes, there is a well-armed enemy. But most people I've come in contact with are in denial that enemy exists. You can't stop a problem if you're unwilling to admit it exists. You can't improve your health if you're more committed to the idea that you have a God-given right to a sugar frosted donut. Is it unreasonable to expect people to look in the mirror, literally? I'm not suggesting it's easy, but why is trying a bad thing? Furthermore, and not to get too off-topic, but aside from too many sugars/carbs the average American diet includes too much factory farmed animals - whether that's milk or meat. Those animals are VERY resource intensive. Those animals also produce green horse gases (i.e, they fart, a lot). So when was the last time you heard ANYONE of significant leadership say "America! You need to change your diet - for your own good, as well as the good of the planet"? Sure Obama got us ACA but he never met the much bigger (no pun intended) - less politically beneficial - root problem head on. That's. Not. Leadership. Is it?
    - mattmanser 9y ago
      We're not talking about sugar coated donuts are we? We're talking about a supposedly innocuous looking water that turns out it's sugar laden and a healthy looking breakfast cereal that again has huge amounts of added sugar. While in the us/UK/etc. there is now widespread knowledge that coke and sweets are bad for you, the healthy looking alternatives also have tons of sugar added, deliberately, with manipulative packaging. But in poorer countries they're just using the old cheaper tactics, showing deliberate malice even though they know their product is generally damaging. In my supermarket in the UK if you want to buy sugar free yoghurt you have to inspect the fine print. A large number have sugar as their second biggest ingredient. They're out to trick you all the time, with things that look like they have no sugar in them. Not sure how your Obama beef is relevant.
      - mrguyorama 9y ago
        And in fact, Michelle Obama even went on a large scale campaign to improve American eating: https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/healthy-schools https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/healthy-school...
        chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Those are token, fuzzy, feel-good efforts. Great PR. But low on the priority / impact scale. That effort should have been on the table right next to the ACA. If past presidents (in times of war) can ask the American public to make sacrifices, why can't that happen or this issue? After all, the military has declared the obesity crisis as a threat to national security. https://www.usmilitary.com/29468/military-leaders-say-obesity-in-america-is-a-national-security-issue/ https://www.usmilitary.com/29468/military-leaders-say-obesit... ACA was great politically (for those on the Left), but it was only acknowledging half the problem, and in doing so is ultimately undermining the ACA itself.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Maybe this will help as it's a perfect example of the arc of my point. In my supermarket in the USA, if you want to buy sugar free yogurt you go right for the plain knowing you can add anything you want; and that you'll know EXACTLY what you're adding, how much, etc. Personal responsibility to my body & mind trumps convenience (and a sugar high); it's my pushback against blaming The System when I already have and use the tools I need. Plus, it also reduces shopping stress. There is no decision, just get the plain. (BTW, I'm not vegetarian / vegan but I do try to avoid yogurt as much as possible.) Food is for nourishment, and occasionally to stimulate the senses (read: strictly for enjoyment). The problem is, too many have inverted that ratio; too many are unwilling to modify their relationship with food so they are healthy. There is nothing more personal than that relationship (i.e., what goes in your mouth). The System offers temptations. That doesn't make it okay to cheat on yourself. p.s. My beef isn't with Obama. It's with (so called) liberals. Healthcare (which rightfully includes personal health), as well as the environment are both said to be liberal hot buttons. They are also connected. But all we get is ranting about the ACA and the Paris Accord? That's not leadership, at least not the type of leadership we really need at this point.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Yes. I got all that. I see it everyday. My point is that when we've reached a point where it's acceptable to blame anything but ourselves for what we buy at the supermarket...for what we put in our mouths...then we are in very bad shape. Fixing the system isn't going to fix The Problem. The lack of self responsibility will only manifest itself elsewhere. Put another way, in the bigger scheme of things, we can't keep complaining about the power of the overseers (i.e., the 1% et al) and make every solution one that champions the Nanny State.

mrguyorama 9y ago
At a certain point I think it's reasonable to say that a company spending half a billion dollars on psychology research and manipulation (advertising) MIGHT just have the upper hand.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Pardon my non-HN tone but...does that reasonable point come before or after I look down and can't see my own penis when I pee? How isn't that a trigger for "something is wrong"? Yes, there is a well-armed enemy. But most people I've come in contact with are in denial that enemy exists. You can't stop a problem if you're unwilling to admit it exists. You can't improve your health if you're more committed to the idea that you have a God-given right to a sugar frosted donut. Is it unreasonable to expect people to look in the mirror, literally? I'm not suggesting it's easy, but why is trying a bad thing? Furthermore, and not to get too off-topic, but aside from too many sugars/carbs the average American diet includes too much factory farmed animals - whether that's milk or meat. Those animals are VERY resource intensive. Those animals also produce green horse gases (i.e, they fart, a lot). So when was the last time you heard ANYONE of significant leadership say "America! You need to change your diet - for your own good, as well as the good of the planet"? Sure Obama got us ACA but he never met the much bigger (no pun intended) - less politically beneficial - root problem head on. That's. Not. Leadership. Is it?
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    We're not talking about sugar coated donuts are we? We're talking about a supposedly innocuous looking water that turns out it's sugar laden and a healthy looking breakfast cereal that again has huge amounts of added sugar. While in the us/UK/etc. there is now widespread knowledge that coke and sweets are bad for you, the healthy looking alternatives also have tons of sugar added, deliberately, with manipulative packaging. But in poorer countries they're just using the old cheaper tactics, showing deliberate malice even though they know their product is generally damaging. In my supermarket in the UK if you want to buy sugar free yoghurt you have to inspect the fine print. A large number have sugar as their second biggest ingredient. They're out to trick you all the time, with things that look like they have no sugar in them. Not sure how your Obama beef is relevant.
    - mrguyorama 9y ago
      And in fact, Michelle Obama even went on a large scale campaign to improve American eating: https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/healthy-schools https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/healthy-school...
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Those are token, fuzzy, feel-good efforts. Great PR. But low on the priority / impact scale. That effort should have been on the table right next to the ACA. If past presidents (in times of war) can ask the American public to make sacrifices, why can't that happen or this issue? After all, the military has declared the obesity crisis as a threat to national security. https://www.usmilitary.com/29468/military-leaders-say-obesity-in-america-is-a-national-security-issue/ https://www.usmilitary.com/29468/military-leaders-say-obesit... ACA was great politically (for those on the Left), but it was only acknowledging half the problem, and in doing so is ultimately undermining the ACA itself.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Maybe this will help as it's a perfect example of the arc of my point. In my supermarket in the USA, if you want to buy sugar free yogurt you go right for the plain knowing you can add anything you want; and that you'll know EXACTLY what you're adding, how much, etc. Personal responsibility to my body & mind trumps convenience (and a sugar high); it's my pushback against blaming The System when I already have and use the tools I need. Plus, it also reduces shopping stress. There is no decision, just get the plain. (BTW, I'm not vegetarian / vegan but I do try to avoid yogurt as much as possible.) Food is for nourishment, and occasionally to stimulate the senses (read: strictly for enjoyment). The problem is, too many have inverted that ratio; too many are unwilling to modify their relationship with food so they are healthy. There is nothing more personal than that relationship (i.e., what goes in your mouth). The System offers temptations. That doesn't make it okay to cheat on yourself. p.s. My beef isn't with Obama. It's with (so called) liberals. Healthcare (which rightfully includes personal health), as well as the environment are both said to be liberal hot buttons. They are also connected. But all we get is ranting about the ACA and the Paris Accord? That's not leadership, at least not the type of leadership we really need at this point.