3 ms·

I'm saying that banning addictive sugary food be a thousand times more effective w.r.t public health than banning trans fats. Making a big show of banning one

I'm saying that banning addictive sugary food be a thousand times more effective w.r.t public health than banning trans fats. Making a big show of banning one while letting the other run wild is very bad optics. (Then again, I'm not sure how we might even go about curtailing sugars, they're just way too embedded in our culture.)

wahern 7y ago
> I'm saying that banning addictive sugary food be a thousand times more effective w.r.t public health than banning trans fats. I get that, but I don't think the empirical science supports a claim that sugar is more costly than trans fats from a public health perspective; and certainly not that it's 1000x worse. In any event, the effects of sugar are indirect and complex. For example, AFAIU a high sugar but low calorie diet isn't particularly bad for you. By contrast, trans fats have a simple, clear, and substantial causal relation to arteriosclerosis. 50 years of prescribing partially hydrogenated oils and low-fat foods was based on poor, incomplete, and sloppy science. Going forward maybe we should instead base public policy on sound, concrete, reproducible science and straight-forward regulations. Not everything needs to be fixed with government mandates, and usually shouldn't without clear reasons.