4 ms·

We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic.

We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic. Heart attack and stroke are the number one killers, with obesity the highest cause. I'm all for putting warning labels on food showing the potential problems of overconsumption.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
Warning labels aren't going to do anything aside from trigger busybody soccer moms when they go to buy their kid's cereal because they won't stop screaming for it. Taxing it is better, but still ultimately is not going to solve the root problem, which I think is the government's over-subsidization of corn and the overabundance of HFCS. Ban HFCS/similar garbage sweeteners in all food products, and incentivize farmers to grow something other than corn. Give them grants to build all-year-round hydroponic farms to grow vegetables or something. And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like. No need to wait for anyone for fixing school lunches as this is squarely a financial issue, the key thing there is that cities need some form of politically untouchable budget for education - because as soon as it gets politically touchable, it's the first thing to be axed when a budget crisis looms.
- Antipode 6y ago
  Subsidies are the reason HFCS is used in everything in the US, but sucrose is also cheap and isn't healthier than HFCS. I'm not convinced that the price difference between the two would significantly affect manufacturers' decisions of whether or not to include a sweetener.
jachell 6y ago
I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes. I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.
- riffraff 6y ago
  I remember some statistics that showed smokers thought cigarettes were more carcinogenic than non-smokers, and actually more than they actually are. So yeah, information is certainly necessary but not enough.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Information does nothing to counter addiction. Sugar is just as addictive as nicotine, but doesn't have the negativity associated with it.
- s5300 6y ago
  This is incorrect. Honestly - I can't blame anybody who could be found lurking, let alone posting on hackers news to think there's no way that this isn't common sense. However, it's not. It's really, unfortunately, very far from it in the U.S. I now cannot easily find it (at least in a brief search on Google) because of recent bullshit regarding the keywords, but a few years back, there was a medical case that briefly made news. Woman in her thirties, not mentally deficient (by any diagnosis anyways), job holding, etc - was hospitalized at near death from a variety of issues that had gradually become quite severe. Cause of the issues? She'd, by her, family, and friends accounts, not drank plain water in years, pushing near a decade. The majority of her fluid intake, that entire time, had been Coors Light (sparingly sodas, other sugary/alcoholic drinks that weren't plain water). Her justification as to why she had no idea this could cause any bodily harm is because it was "light" It's bad. Truthfully, I'm happy for you that you get to live a life where you don't know/haven't been exposed to how bad. But, it's bad and I don't see it getting better any time soon.
  - jachell 6y ago
    I don't appreciate the condescending tone. "2013 nationally representative phone survey of about 2000 subjects showed that one-fifth of Americans thought FF was good for health, whereas two-thirds considered FF not good. Even over two-thirds of weekly FF consumers (47% of the total population) thought FF not good." Note: FF = fast food https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/5/590/5062131 https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/5/590/5062131 There's also this scene from Fat Head: https://youtu.be/evcNPfZlrZs?t=1258 https://youtu.be/evcNPfZlrZs?t=1258
auganov 6y ago
Any amount of cigarettes or alcohol [0] will harm you. "Junk food" is a pseudo-scientific designation selectively targeting certain kinds of calorie dense foods. These foods may epidemiologically contribute to obesity, but on an individual level they're far from universally bad. I think warning about food over-consumption would be great. But selectively targeting some foods only misinforms the public. [0] And alcohol is still getting far less attention than cigarettes. Most places still don't have warning labels about the risk of cancer or even broad public awareness, despite 3.5% of cancer deaths being alcohol attributable.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

Warning labels aren't going to do anything aside from trigger busybody soccer moms when they go to buy their kid's cereal because they won't stop screaming for it. Taxing it is better, but still ultimately is not going to solve the root problem, which I think is the government's over-subsidization of corn and the overabundance of HFCS. Ban HFCS/similar garbage sweeteners in all food products, and incentivize farmers to grow something other than corn. Give them grants to build all-year-round hydroponic farms to grow vegetables or something. And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like.

mschuster91 6y ago
> And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like. No need to wait for anyone for fixing school lunches as this is squarely a financial issue, the key thing there is that cities need some form of politically untouchable budget for education - because as soon as it gets politically touchable, it's the first thing to be axed when a budget crisis looms.
Antipode 6y ago
Subsidies are the reason HFCS is used in everything in the US, but sucrose is also cheap and isn't healthier than HFCS. I'm not convinced that the price difference between the two would significantly affect manufacturers' decisions of whether or not to include a sweetener.

jachell 6y ago

I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes. I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.

riffraff 6y ago
I remember some statistics that showed smokers thought cigarettes were more carcinogenic than non-smokers, and actually more than they actually are. So yeah, information is certainly necessary but not enough.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Information does nothing to counter addiction. Sugar is just as addictive as nicotine, but doesn't have the negativity associated with it.
s5300 6y ago
This is incorrect. Honestly - I can't blame anybody who could be found lurking, let alone posting on hackers news to think there's no way that this isn't common sense. However, it's not. It's really, unfortunately, very far from it in the U.S. I now cannot easily find it (at least in a brief search on Google) because of recent bullshit regarding the keywords, but a few years back, there was a medical case that briefly made news. Woman in her thirties, not mentally deficient (by any diagnosis anyways), job holding, etc - was hospitalized at near death from a variety of issues that had gradually become quite severe. Cause of the issues? She'd, by her, family, and friends accounts, not drank plain water in years, pushing near a decade. The majority of her fluid intake, that entire time, had been Coors Light (sparingly sodas, other sugary/alcoholic drinks that weren't plain water). Her justification as to why she had no idea this could cause any bodily harm is because it was "light" It's bad. Truthfully, I'm happy for you that you get to live a life where you don't know/haven't been exposed to how bad. But, it's bad and I don't see it getting better any time soon.
- jachell 6y ago
  I don't appreciate the condescending tone. "2013 nationally representative phone survey of about 2000 subjects showed that one-fifth of Americans thought FF was good for health, whereas two-thirds considered FF not good. Even over two-thirds of weekly FF consumers (47% of the total population) thought FF not good." Note: FF = fast food https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/5/590/5062131 https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/5/590/5062131 There's also this scene from Fat Head: https://youtu.be/evcNPfZlrZs?t=1258 https://youtu.be/evcNPfZlrZs?t=1258

auganov 6y ago

Any amount of cigarettes or alcohol [0] will harm you. "Junk food" is a pseudo-scientific designation selectively targeting certain kinds of calorie dense foods. These foods may epidemiologically contribute to obesity, but on an individual level they're far from universally bad. I think warning about food over-consumption would be great. But selectively targeting some foods only misinforms the public. [0] And alcohol is still getting far less attention than cigarettes. Most places still don't have warning labels about the risk of cancer or even broad public awareness, despite 3.5% of cancer deaths being alcohol attributable.