12 ms·

Our Food Is Killing Too Many of Us

72 points by mitchbob 7y ago

giggles_giggles 7y ago
It's sort of ironic that the NYT decided to caption a shot of a soda fountain calling for more taxes on sugary drinks when the high fructose corn syrup is only so cheap in the first place because of subsidies. Maybe instead of subsidizing on one end and taxing the other we could just stop subsidizing unhealthy foods?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Perverse incentives. Corn farmers are in Iowa. Iowa is where presidential elections start [1], and several Congressional reps are from. Hence, the need to pander to these folks and their biofuel and ag subsidies if your run for office touches Iowa ag. If you can't dissuade unhealthy subsidies as a state or other jurisdiction, you're only left with enacting your own opposite disincentives. Farmers are going to hold onto their subsidies to the bitter end, no different than fossil fuel/O&G industry. I'm always surprised when people assume these economic actors would do the "right thing" voluntarily. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
  - novok 7y ago
    Iowa can grow more than one crop yes? Why not subsidize not corn?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - giggles_giggles 7y ago
    The Presidential caucus may have something to do with it but "and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress, or don't deserve representation. Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. I don't think those 4 reps are the reason for these subsidies. Maybe the Caucus makes it a political third rail. I think most voters are simply ignorant of the situation, however. That ignorance could be alleviated by better reporting by large organizations like the NYT.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress They do, specifically in the upper house of Congress: Iowa has about one Senator per 1.55 million people; the US as a whole has about 1 per 3.3 million, California has less than one per 19 million. > Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. Actually, California has 53 seats in the House, but the House is approximately proportional to population; while there is a pretty big range in representation ratios for the songle-district states because of the limits of whole representatives, the real ddisproportion in Congress is in the Senate.
- GuiA 7y ago
  Sadly it seems like it is many times easier for politicians to push a soda tax (which also serves as a political gesture on its own that can be framed as being for the good of the every day people and against the controlling influence of Big Soda) rather than undo decades of agricultural policy, which would also be controversial amongst more rural bases. As you point out, it completely defies elementary logic - but politics and policy seem to have preoccupations and incentives that are orthogonal to elementary logic.
- new2628 7y ago
  I wonder why the downvotes -- this was a very insightful observation.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Replacing HFCS with cane sugar basically doesn't add any cost to the consumer. It's cheaper and more profitable to use HFCS, but the sugar calories in a serving of soda are ~$0.10 either way…
ivankolev 7y ago
The ideas in "Sustainable"[1] are a good start. [1] https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/ https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/
esotericn 7y ago
The whole debate about nutrition confuses me. We have all of this hyper-specific advice that sells a lifestyle, like telling people to eat kale or chia seeds or whatever the new hip of the week is. Hyper-optimization for overachievers; or at least those who like to pretend. In reality, you could basically fix this situation overnight by killing off TV dinners and fast food. Yes, my pleasure centers are also tickled by a McDonalds, cause I'm an idiot just like you, we don't need it. We call it "junk food" as a sort of humorous quip. If it's actually junk (and it mostly is), then it shouldn't be on sale, because it crowds out alternatives.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  You need people to eat real food, which means cooking, which means taking time to cook. That's antithetic to the US way of doing things, which is to work all the time and outsource everything else to someone else (I'm caricaturing a little here of course).
  - esotericn 7y ago
    It doesn't necessarily mean cooking though. That's the solution right now because the market is stuck in this minima. It means no junk food. There's nothing at all stopping McDonalds or whoever from making the hotpot I just cooked up from fresh vegetables without adding 1 billion bollocks preservatives or whatever else. Scaled up the labour costs become trivial. But that's not the world we live in. I go outside and I want non-shit food and there's nothing there, so yeah, the option is eat shit or don't eat.
  - smn1234 7y ago
    My concern with this statement is that restaurants can surely cook you "real" food and thus allow you to have your time back. Where I think we've made a big cultural mistake is in food _industry_ and in franchising. In essence, food isn't as "real" when it's meant for shelf life, to always look and taste the same, and to scale for every point of presence where it's intended to be sold such that there's strong profit margins / brand recognition to be made.
strict9 7y ago
>More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have pre-diabetes or diabetes. Though one can't pin this staggering number on one thing (the article mentions 10 factors[1]) sugar-sweetened beverages are a nice first target. Soda is looking more and more like cigarettes in terms of health effects and nutrition. At a bare minimum we should stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup and other raw materials than enable soda to be so cheap. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221
- degenerate 7y ago
  Obligatory "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" link for those that haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Best watched on a lazy Saturday morning or train ride. It's a long (but rewarding) lecture on how sugar is somewhat like poison to our bodies in the quantities we consume. It starts out jovial and gets very scientific.
  - benatkin 7y ago
    He's not the only doctor to suggest that the average person eat less sugar, but he does it in a way that oversimplifies it and makes people susceptible to fad diets with excessive meat consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...
- benatkin 7y ago
  That sounds intuitively right, but that this might not be the main cause. Fried potatoes (french fries and chips) are causing obesity, which in turn causes diabetes. They also are high in carbs, though not sugar.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Where does that statement come from? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not exactly an opinion. The problem with (refined) sugar is that it's in damn near everything (processed foods anyway).
efficax 7y ago
Cool to try and kneecap healthcare reform by saying that what we really need is nutrition reform. Eat better, you fat slobs. Your sickness is your own fault. We can't let you see a doctor until you put down the cheeseburger, lardass.
- sctb 7y ago
  Posting like this will get your account banned, so could you please review the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
maxerickson 7y ago
There's no inherent reason that new technologies will increase costs. They are often introduced with high prices, but a closer look also often shows that they are still cheaper than the care they replace.
acd 7y ago
I have a theory that added food sugar makes people more aggressive as that what is happening in monkeys. Could sugar have the same effect in humans? Reason human and monkey dna are quite similar. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-bann...
- anaphor 7y ago
  Any stimulant is likely to make you act more aggressively.
tempsy 7y ago
I don't get why Marianne Williamson gets labeled as some crazy person when she says we have a sickness problem and that we need to have a conversation on all the causes, including food, that contribute to people getting sick and thus needed to seek healthcare in the first place. I think most rational people inherently get that, but for whatever reason talking about preventative care seems to be taboo at the national political level. That needs to change.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  I imagine it's usually because of her other views. I'm just guessing though, I haven't looked closely.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    Possibly, though I think the bigger problem is that personal accountability has somehow become politically dangerous.
m23khan 7y ago
why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste - sugar is as bad as cocaine when it comes to addiction. Sugar is literally killing humanity as something inside of us makes us hooked to it. And some ethnic cuisines are culprit in this: The stupid practice of overloading sugar in sweets in Pakistan (I am Pakistani for record) and Middle East, weird North American sickly sweet kids cereals (and Krispy Kreme, etc.). Not only artificial sugar but even the propaganda about stuffing our mouth with fruit needs to stop -- more than 1 fruit (e.g. banana or apple or orange) per adult is excessive in terms of sugar. Finally, not only sugar, low sodium levels need to be enforced. Would also be nice to charge 100% tax on deep fried items and fatty products such as cheese and white rice (in developed nations). Frankly speaking, all unhealthy foods should be sold with a clear and bold "THIS FOOD PRODUCT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" type of warning -- similar to labels on cigarettes. It is not about being a nanny state but rather than keeping our generations and humanity healthy. For far too long the greedy, unethical food corporations have been profiting off our health. This has caused untold misery for countless people around the World - not only diabetes and heart attacks but even forms of cancers are linked to unhealthy food.
- hirundo 7y ago
  In my opinion, from their inception in the early 1970's, the official US food recommendations have been flat wrong, captured by the food industry from the start. The Food Pyramid and its successors, for instance, are far from an ideal diet, and actively harmful to people like me. I don't want the same people who made those decisions to have the power to force me to eat more of this or less of that. Even if they happen to be right now on a particular issue that is not their track record. If I were to eat according to USDA recommendations, or even the recommendation of the American Diabetes Association, I think my diabetes would be out of control, compared to being held in remission by a low carb diet.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  > why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste A lot of the processed stuff sold in the US would actually taste better with less sugar in it, I bet. I found the taste of sugar pretty much overpowering in a lot of sweets.
aswanson 7y ago
I'm noticing this in my peer group. Folks way too young to be having serious health issues dying or seriously sick, all diet related.
enginaar 7y ago
any way I can read this without a paywall?
- pizza 7y ago
  Try clicking on the 'web' link under the HN title and going through the google search results page.
  - enginaar 7y ago
    got it, thanks a lot.
boyadjian 7y ago
It is sad that the photo illustrating this article shows cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers haven't killed anybody. Cheeseburgers are not junk-food. Stop making amalgams.
- snazz 7y ago
  They have a lot of saturated fat (beef and cheese) and simple carbs (bun), but sugary drinks are probably worse. I’m sure excessive saturated fat consumption from a cheeseburger addiction has killed someone by way of heart disease.
  - boyadjian 7y ago
    Yes, sugary drinks are much worse, but also prepared industrial dishes that you can find in supermarkets.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese. One cheeseburger is basically a quarter of your fat and sodium for the day. Agreed that the large soda that many wash that cheeseburger down with is certainly worse (320 calories of pure sugar), but they are certainly junk food.
  - liability 7y ago
    > "Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese" If you choose to make a cheeseburger out of that sort of garbage, that's on you. > "One cheeseburger is basically a quarter of your fat and sodium for the day." A cheeseburger is also one third of the meals I might eat in a day, so if anything, one fourth of my daily sodium and fat intake is too little.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      Those WERE the cheeseburgers in the photo. Those are the garbage cheeseburgers we are talking about. If you make a burger out of lean ground chuck, a whole grain bun and real cheese that is a different discussion. Also, the burgers pictured (McDonald's cheeseburgers) are only ~250 calories, so I don't see how that is one-quarter of your daily food intake.
decoyworker 7y ago
>More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have pre-diabetes or diabetes. Cardiovascular disease afflicts about 122 million people and causes roughly 840,000 deaths each year, or about 2,300 deaths each day. Three in four adults are overweight or obese. More Americans are sick, in other words, than are healthy. Jesus Christ. Aside from many of the obvious causes I think the public just has no idea what a "good" scientifically supported eating habit looks like. They turn to fad diets that go around social media. Their heart is in the right place but it's become difficult to determine BS from scientifically supported habits- even on this site I see fad diets being promoted. Internet searches usually turn up blogs touting fad diets and not real science. The deck is stacked against the average citizen in this regard.
atlasunshrugged 7y ago
I'm likely slightly biased due to recency (I'm researching the effect of tobacco taxes in LMIC's) but I think the tax component is critical here. It's not strongly emphasized here but as it's coming more into vogue, sin (or as they're rebranding) health taxes, are one of the more effective ways to get people to cut down on using something. I don't have the data on the company side, just the consumer side, but if you look to other inelastic markets such as tobacco, increased taxes have been massively effective. Add to this the fact that the higher taxes on these goods can also lead not just to reduced health care costs for individuals and the nation, but also to increased revenues that can be allocated for net positive uses. It'll also likely be more effective pound for pound than tobacco taxes because (well, I'm just wildly speculating here) I can't imagine Kellogg's and Kraft engaging in some of the schemes that the tobacco companies do to avoid taxes.
- RandallBrown 7y ago
  Increased taxes on sugary drinks in Seattle have not led to a decrease in consumption. The consumption appears to be growing faster than the population. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-less-soda-the-sugar-tax-is-seattles-fastest-growing-revenue-source-for-2019/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-les...
  - munificent 7y ago
    From the article: > But by definition and by its main purpose, this tax should erode over time. If the revenues don’t start dropping, at least relative to population growth, then it just isn’t working. This is an easy statistical mistake to make. He is comparing today's consumption to the past and declaring failure because the today isn't better. But the correct comparison to make is today versus the alternate today we would have now if the tax had not been passed. It may be that sugary drink consumption has gone up, but would have gone up even more had the tax not been passed. In that case, the tax is a success. Of course, figuring out how to estimate and measure an alternate timeline is hard. But that's what you have to try to do to make sound choices.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m3kw9 7y ago
Coca-Cola is gonna do a counter study with findings that shows health benefits of drinking Coke™
gentro 7y ago
To get people eating more healthily you have to get them accustomed to eating healthy dishes. In India a go-to meal might be various curries with legumes and vegetables. In Japan an everyday meal might include grilled fish and tofu soup. In America many people default to foods like fatty ribs and butter-laden mashed potatoes. They may want to eat healthier but people turn to foods out of familiarity and convenience. People don't have time to always think of new ways to eat vegetables. When you encourage Americans to eat more vegetables many will instantly think MORE SALAD. I mean salad is great but it's not enjoyable all the time. You can think of different food cultures as providing different proportions of nutrients. American schools should introduce kids to food from other parts of the world early on that taste great and are great for the body. If they default to tried and true "American" foods like burgers and pizza, they prepare young people for a lifetime of unhealthy eating.
h2odragon 7y ago
Lots of plonking pronunciations about "what humans should eat" in the comments here. Not everyone needs the same diet; sure there's some gross classifications we can make but any individuals level of "too much" sugar will be different from another's. There's little concern for this in most discussion of nutrition. I survive on meat, cheese, and refined sugars, chiefly dextrose. I wouldn't recommend my diet even to those with my medical condition, universally; but it does work for me. Most of the dietary advice thrown so confidently on this thread would kill me quick.
tzs 7y ago
This is way to radical to ever actually be tried, but sometimes I think what we need to do is put taxes or subsidies on pretty much everything that has calories to make it so that all foods cost the same per calorie to the eater. That would make keeping track of your calories a lot easier, which may make it easier for most people to get to and maintain a healthy weight. It would probably also result in healthier eating for most people. When you see that a big sugary soda takes up the same amount of your food budget as a nice big steak, you are probably going to drink less sugary soda. To avoid feeling hungry at the end of the day, you'll shift to more foods that make you feel full without giving a lot of calories, and/or to foods that provide high satiety.
- Darkstack 7y ago
  IMHO, Calorie is an awfull unit when it comes to nutritions.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
One of the interesting things mentioned here but not really explored is the claim that custom provided meals according to health needs delivered to the home actually saves money. Does anyone know if this is true and where this came from?
greggeter 7y ago
Follow @fatemperor on Twitter for science on healthy eating. I've struggled with all the fads as well. After a year of real discovery, it's evident to me that healthy fats, protein, and limited carbs are the healthiest way to eat.
amriksohata 7y ago
Watch "fed up" and "cowspiracy" on netflix about how powerful the food industry is to shut all this down, they rather you get ill and buy more meds

72 points by mitchbob 7y ago

It's sort of ironic that the NYT decided to caption a shot of a soda fountain calling for more taxes on sugary drinks when the high fructose corn syrup is only so cheap in the first place because of subsidies. Maybe instead of subsidizing on one end and taxing the other we could just stop subsidizing unhealthy foods?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Perverse incentives. Corn farmers are in Iowa. Iowa is where presidential elections start [1], and several Congressional reps are from. Hence, the need to pander to these folks and their biofuel and ag subsidies if your run for office touches Iowa ag. If you can't dissuade unhealthy subsidies as a state or other jurisdiction, you're only left with enacting your own opposite disincentives. Farmers are going to hold onto their subsidies to the bitter end, no different than fossil fuel/O&G industry. I'm always surprised when people assume these economic actors would do the "right thing" voluntarily. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
- novok 7y ago
  Iowa can grow more than one crop yes? Why not subsidize not corn?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  The Presidential caucus may have something to do with it but "and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress, or don't deserve representation. Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. I don't think those 4 reps are the reason for these subsidies. Maybe the Caucus makes it a political third rail. I think most voters are simply ignorant of the situation, however. That ignorance could be alleviated by better reporting by large organizations like the NYT.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress They do, specifically in the upper house of Congress: Iowa has about one Senator per 1.55 million people; the US as a whole has about 1 per 3.3 million, California has less than one per 19 million. > Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. Actually, California has 53 seats in the House, but the House is approximately proportional to population; while there is a pretty big range in representation ratios for the songle-district states because of the limits of whole representatives, the real ddisproportion in Congress is in the Senate.
GuiA 7y ago
Sadly it seems like it is many times easier for politicians to push a soda tax (which also serves as a political gesture on its own that can be framed as being for the good of the every day people and against the controlling influence of Big Soda) rather than undo decades of agricultural policy, which would also be controversial amongst more rural bases. As you point out, it completely defies elementary logic - but politics and policy seem to have preoccupations and incentives that are orthogonal to elementary logic.
new2628 7y ago
I wonder why the downvotes -- this was a very insightful observation.
maxerickson 7y ago
Replacing HFCS with cane sugar basically doesn't add any cost to the consumer. It's cheaper and more profitable to use HFCS, but the sugar calories in a serving of soda are ~$0.10 either way…

ivankolev 7y ago

The ideas in "Sustainable"[1] are a good start. [1] https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/ https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/

esotericn 7y ago

The whole debate about nutrition confuses me. We have all of this hyper-specific advice that sells a lifestyle, like telling people to eat kale or chia seeds or whatever the new hip of the week is. Hyper-optimization for overachievers; or at least those who like to pretend. In reality, you could basically fix this situation overnight by killing off TV dinners and fast food. Yes, my pleasure centers are also tickled by a McDonalds, cause I'm an idiot just like you, we don't need it. We call it "junk food" as a sort of humorous quip. If it's actually junk (and it mostly is), then it shouldn't be on sale, because it crowds out alternatives.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago
You need people to eat real food, which means cooking, which means taking time to cook. That's antithetic to the US way of doing things, which is to work all the time and outsource everything else to someone else (I'm caricaturing a little here of course).
- esotericn 7y ago
  It doesn't necessarily mean cooking though. That's the solution right now because the market is stuck in this minima. It means no junk food. There's nothing at all stopping McDonalds or whoever from making the hotpot I just cooked up from fresh vegetables without adding 1 billion bollocks preservatives or whatever else. Scaled up the labour costs become trivial. But that's not the world we live in. I go outside and I want non-shit food and there's nothing there, so yeah, the option is eat shit or don't eat.
- smn1234 7y ago
  My concern with this statement is that restaurants can surely cook you "real" food and thus allow you to have your time back. Where I think we've made a big cultural mistake is in food _industry_ and in franchising. In essence, food isn't as "real" when it's meant for shelf life, to always look and taste the same, and to scale for every point of presence where it's intended to be sold such that there's strong profit margins / brand recognition to be made.

strict9 7y ago

>More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have pre-diabetes or diabetes. Though one can't pin this staggering number on one thing (the article mentions 10 factors[1]) sugar-sweetened beverages are a nice first target. Soda is looking more and more like cigarettes in terms of health effects and nutrition. At a bare minimum we should stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup and other raw materials than enable soda to be so cheap. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221

degenerate 7y ago
Obligatory "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" link for those that haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Best watched on a lazy Saturday morning or train ride. It's a long (but rewarding) lecture on how sugar is somewhat like poison to our bodies in the quantities we consume. It starts out jovial and gets very scientific.
- benatkin 7y ago
  He's not the only doctor to suggest that the average person eat less sugar, but he does it in a way that oversimplifies it and makes people susceptible to fad diets with excessive meat consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...
benatkin 7y ago
That sounds intuitively right, but that this might not be the main cause. Fried potatoes (french fries and chips) are causing obesity, which in turn causes diabetes. They also are high in carbs, though not sugar.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Where does that statement come from? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not exactly an opinion. The problem with (refined) sugar is that it's in damn near everything (processed foods anyway).

efficax 7y ago

Cool to try and kneecap healthcare reform by saying that what we really need is nutrition reform. Eat better, you fat slobs. Your sickness is your own fault. We can't let you see a doctor until you put down the cheeseburger, lardass.

sctb 7y ago
Posting like this will get your account banned, so could you please review the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

maxerickson 7y ago

There's no inherent reason that new technologies will increase costs. They are often introduced with high prices, but a closer look also often shows that they are still cheaper than the care they replace.

acd 7y ago

I have a theory that added food sugar makes people more aggressive as that what is happening in monkeys. Could sugar have the same effect in humans? Reason human and monkey dna are quite similar. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-bann...

anaphor 7y ago
Any stimulant is likely to make you act more aggressively.

tempsy 7y ago

I don't get why Marianne Williamson gets labeled as some crazy person when she says we have a sickness problem and that we need to have a conversation on all the causes, including food, that contribute to people getting sick and thus needed to seek healthcare in the first place. I think most rational people inherently get that, but for whatever reason talking about preventative care seems to be taboo at the national political level. That needs to change.

maxerickson 7y ago
I imagine it's usually because of her other views. I'm just guessing though, I haven't looked closely.
- tempsy 7y ago
  Possibly, though I think the bigger problem is that personal accountability has somehow become politically dangerous.

m23khan 7y ago

why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste - sugar is as bad as cocaine when it comes to addiction. Sugar is literally killing humanity as something inside of us makes us hooked to it. And some ethnic cuisines are culprit in this: The stupid practice of overloading sugar in sweets in Pakistan (I am Pakistani for record) and Middle East, weird North American sickly sweet kids cereals (and Krispy Kreme, etc.). Not only artificial sugar but even the propaganda about stuffing our mouth with fruit needs to stop -- more than 1 fruit (e.g. banana or apple or orange) per adult is excessive in terms of sugar. Finally, not only sugar, low sodium levels need to be enforced. Would also be nice to charge 100% tax on deep fried items and fatty products such as cheese and white rice (in developed nations). Frankly speaking, all unhealthy foods should be sold with a clear and bold "THIS FOOD PRODUCT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" type of warning -- similar to labels on cigarettes. It is not about being a nanny state but rather than keeping our generations and humanity healthy. For far too long the greedy, unethical food corporations have been profiting off our health. This has caused untold misery for countless people around the World - not only diabetes and heart attacks but even forms of cancers are linked to unhealthy food.

hirundo 7y ago
In my opinion, from their inception in the early 1970's, the official US food recommendations have been flat wrong, captured by the food industry from the start. The Food Pyramid and its successors, for instance, are far from an ideal diet, and actively harmful to people like me. I don't want the same people who made those decisions to have the power to force me to eat more of this or less of that. Even if they happen to be right now on a particular issue that is not their track record. If I were to eat according to USDA recommendations, or even the recommendation of the American Diabetes Association, I think my diabetes would be out of control, compared to being held in remission by a low carb diet.
gmueckl 7y ago
> why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste A lot of the processed stuff sold in the US would actually taste better with less sugar in it, I bet. I found the taste of sugar pretty much overpowering in a lot of sweets.

aswanson 7y ago

I'm noticing this in my peer group. Folks way too young to be having serious health issues dying or seriously sick, all diet related.

enginaar 7y ago

any way I can read this without a paywall?

pizza 7y ago
Try clicking on the 'web' link under the HN title and going through the google search results page.
- enginaar 7y ago
  got it, thanks a lot.

boyadjian 7y ago

It is sad that the photo illustrating this article shows cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers haven't killed anybody. Cheeseburgers are not junk-food. Stop making amalgams.

snazz 7y ago
They have a lot of saturated fat (beef and cheese) and simple carbs (bun), but sugary drinks are probably worse. I’m sure excessive saturated fat consumption from a cheeseburger addiction has killed someone by way of heart disease.
- boyadjian 7y ago
  Yes, sugary drinks are much worse, but also prepared industrial dishes that you can find in supermarkets.
Ensorceled 7y ago
Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese. One cheeseburger is basically a quarter of your fat and sodium for the day. Agreed that the large soda that many wash that cheeseburger down with is certainly worse (320 calories of pure sugar), but they are certainly junk food.
- liability 7y ago
  > "Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese" If you choose to make a cheeseburger out of that sort of garbage, that's on you. > "One cheeseburger is basically a quarter of your fat and sodium for the day." A cheeseburger is also one third of the meals I might eat in a day, so if anything, one fourth of my daily sodium and fat intake is too little.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Those WERE the cheeseburgers in the photo. Those are the garbage cheeseburgers we are talking about. If you make a burger out of lean ground chuck, a whole grain bun and real cheese that is a different discussion. Also, the burgers pictured (McDonald's cheeseburgers) are only ~250 calories, so I don't see how that is one-quarter of your daily food intake.

decoyworker 7y ago

>More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have pre-diabetes or diabetes. Cardiovascular disease afflicts about 122 million people and causes roughly 840,000 deaths each year, or about 2,300 deaths each day. Three in four adults are overweight or obese. More Americans are sick, in other words, than are healthy. Jesus Christ. Aside from many of the obvious causes I think the public just has no idea what a "good" scientifically supported eating habit looks like. They turn to fad diets that go around social media. Their heart is in the right place but it's become difficult to determine BS from scientifically supported habits- even on this site I see fad diets being promoted. Internet searches usually turn up blogs touting fad diets and not real science. The deck is stacked against the average citizen in this regard.

atlasunshrugged 7y ago

I'm likely slightly biased due to recency (I'm researching the effect of tobacco taxes in LMIC's) but I think the tax component is critical here. It's not strongly emphasized here but as it's coming more into vogue, sin (or as they're rebranding) health taxes, are one of the more effective ways to get people to cut down on using something. I don't have the data on the company side, just the consumer side, but if you look to other inelastic markets such as tobacco, increased taxes have been massively effective. Add to this the fact that the higher taxes on these goods can also lead not just to reduced health care costs for individuals and the nation, but also to increased revenues that can be allocated for net positive uses. It'll also likely be more effective pound for pound than tobacco taxes because (well, I'm just wildly speculating here) I can't imagine Kellogg's and Kraft engaging in some of the schemes that the tobacco companies do to avoid taxes.

RandallBrown 7y ago
Increased taxes on sugary drinks in Seattle have not led to a decrease in consumption. The consumption appears to be growing faster than the population. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-less-soda-the-sugar-tax-is-seattles-fastest-growing-revenue-source-for-2019/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-les...
- munificent 7y ago
  From the article: > But by definition and by its main purpose, this tax should erode over time. If the revenues don’t start dropping, at least relative to population growth, then it just isn’t working. This is an easy statistical mistake to make. He is comparing today's consumption to the past and declaring failure because the today isn't better. But the correct comparison to make is today versus the alternate today we would have now if the tax had not been passed. It may be that sugary drink consumption has gone up, but would have gone up even more had the tax not been passed. In that case, the tax is a success. Of course, figuring out how to estimate and measure an alternate timeline is hard. But that's what you have to try to do to make sound choices.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

m3kw9 7y ago

Coca-Cola is gonna do a counter study with findings that shows health benefits of drinking Coke™

gentro 7y ago

To get people eating more healthily you have to get them accustomed to eating healthy dishes. In India a go-to meal might be various curries with legumes and vegetables. In Japan an everyday meal might include grilled fish and tofu soup. In America many people default to foods like fatty ribs and butter-laden mashed potatoes. They may want to eat healthier but people turn to foods out of familiarity and convenience. People don't have time to always think of new ways to eat vegetables. When you encourage Americans to eat more vegetables many will instantly think MORE SALAD. I mean salad is great but it's not enjoyable all the time. You can think of different food cultures as providing different proportions of nutrients. American schools should introduce kids to food from other parts of the world early on that taste great and are great for the body. If they default to tried and true "American" foods like burgers and pizza, they prepare young people for a lifetime of unhealthy eating.

h2odragon 7y ago

Lots of plonking pronunciations about "what humans should eat" in the comments here. Not everyone needs the same diet; sure there's some gross classifications we can make but any individuals level of "too much" sugar will be different from another's. There's little concern for this in most discussion of nutrition. I survive on meat, cheese, and refined sugars, chiefly dextrose. I wouldn't recommend my diet even to those with my medical condition, universally; but it does work for me. Most of the dietary advice thrown so confidently on this thread would kill me quick.

tzs 7y ago

This is way to radical to ever actually be tried, but sometimes I think what we need to do is put taxes or subsidies on pretty much everything that has calories to make it so that all foods cost the same per calorie to the eater. That would make keeping track of your calories a lot easier, which may make it easier for most people to get to and maintain a healthy weight. It would probably also result in healthier eating for most people. When you see that a big sugary soda takes up the same amount of your food budget as a nice big steak, you are probably going to drink less sugary soda. To avoid feeling hungry at the end of the day, you'll shift to more foods that make you feel full without giving a lot of calories, and/or to foods that provide high satiety.

Darkstack 7y ago
IMHO, Calorie is an awfull unit when it comes to nutritions.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

One of the interesting things mentioned here but not really explored is the claim that custom provided meals according to health needs delivered to the home actually saves money. Does anyone know if this is true and where this came from?

greggeter 7y ago

Follow @fatemperor on Twitter for science on healthy eating. I've struggled with all the fads as well. After a year of real discovery, it's evident to me that healthy fats, protein, and limited carbs are the healthiest way to eat.

amriksohata 7y ago

Watch "fed up" and "cowspiracy" on netflix about how powerful the food industry is to shut all this down, they rather you get ill and buy more meds