9 ms·

Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain

Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population.

00deadbeef 5y ago
Is this the solution, though? Even if you could prevent new diabetes cases there are still countless millions of diabetics who wouldn’t be helped by a sugar tax.
Smithalicious 5y ago
Any tax on food hits poor people much more than wealthier people. You are taking food out of people's mouths.
- Retric 5y ago
  Taxes can be redirected to the poor or even used to subsidize other food choices. The point is people and companies would make different choices if empty calories where relatively more expensive. The same is true of carbon taxes, they don’t extract money from the economy they move it around within the same economy.
  - Smithalicious 5y ago
    Sure, though in my experience that rarely really happen. Here's another angle: it creates a kind of social stratification where only the wealthier can afford to eat certain popular foods. I grew up poor, it's very humiliating to not be able to eat the same things as your peers.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Sugar is not an essential food.
nostromo 5y ago
Good luck explaining to people that Apple Juice has a sugar tax applied to it now even though the only ingredient listed is “apples.” And, yes, it’s just as bad for you as soda. Don’t forget that we'll be needing a flour tax too…
post_break 5y ago
Stop taxing everything. Tax is not the solution for everything. The people buying soda are generally the poor or middle class. All this does it take more money from those who need it the most. What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. But we can't do that. We have to prop up the corn industry with subsidies. Sugar and HFCS is in literally everything. By adding a sugar tax you're basically saying everything you eat must get more expensive, that'll teach you to eat.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I think it’s probably worth examining how well taxing tobacco worked (and where/when it didn’t work).
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Tax sugar and give it back as a UBI. That alleviates the regressive tax concern. But I suspect that that's not the real reason you're against it. If your real concern is the expansion of the state, then implement a sugar tax and reduce other taxes. Whatever your concern, a sugar and carbon tax are great ideas (due to incentive alignment) and can be made to work.
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    Exactly. The tax externalities and dividend system is such an underappreciated idea. Sugar, carbon, and land are things that we move quickly to implement and bring it to more and more externalities.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      What do you mean by "dividend" in this context?
      - ItsMonkk 5y ago
        UBI. The verbiage comes from the climate plan[0] using the same mechanism. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
mattrighetti 5y ago
*Easiest also non working solution
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
So, a giant corporation outsources their production to china, pays zero carbon tax, and still pollutes the same planet, but Johnny average cannot heat his house and drive his car, because he cannot afford it anymore?
- option 5y ago
  then tax import goods from China on entry to US until US authorities are satisfied with the amounts of carbon taxes paid in China (to China).
  - MrFlibbles 5y ago
    I believe we had a recent President who tried to raise import taxes (for whatever reason) on imports from China and the opposition went totally berserk. If it didn't work then or for whatever those reasons were, why would it work now?
    - option 5y ago
      why do you think it didn’t work? It certainly hurt China economically and they aren’t exactly the friend of US.
- nend 5y ago
  Taxing sugar means people can no longer heat their house or pay for gas? Sounds like a bit of a reach. How much exactly is Johnny Average spending on sugar every month?
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    taxing carbon does that.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      No, you can cut other taxes or give a UBI to offset it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 5y ago
A lot of the people who buy those things also object.
fortran77 5y ago
80% of people with Type 2 diabetes who are overweight would be asymptomatic if they lost weight. Perhaps we should tax obesity and not burden those who know how to eat responsibly?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Perhaps we should treat unhealthy foods like we treat other unhealthy things like cigarettes and alcohol. Tax them at 90%, must be 21 or older, ban advertising, and require scary warning labels on the retailers that sell them, the containers, and the menus. The real problem is two fold. tons of people are negligently ignorant about what they eat and how it affects them. Lots of people’s livelihoods depend upon most people having terrible diets. Like seafood? You’re probably eating multiple times the safe limit of heavy metals. Like live events with popup food services? Would you like it as much if the only affordable foods were vegetable and fiber rich options without the large servings of carbs and sugars? Want cirrhosis with your alcohol? Want diabetes warnings on your ice cream and coffees? To solve the diabetes epidemic we must get structure the parts of society that rely on people actively eating themselves too expensive and early deaths.
jimbob45 5y ago
The right solution is to educate people about what their A1C means and to incentivize them to check it. Most people don't know what theirs is - I would bet that less than five people in this very thread have checked their A1C in the last six months. Remember that diet isn't always sufficient to lower A1C and you may need drugs or other lifestyle changes. Mandate A1C checks bi-yearly for insurance providers or have them pass along the penalty.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  It sounds like you don't really understand what A1C tests are meant for either. There's a reason it's not part of a standard physical while blood sugar is.
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    And that reason would be? HbA1C is effectively a measure of the average amount of sugar that has been in your blood over the last couple of months. A spot sugar level is the amount of sugar in your blood right now, and can vary a huge amount, depending on when you last ate, what you ate, and what exercise you have just done. It's less useful. You can do a fasting blood glucose, and a glucose challenge, but these tests are much more inconvenient for the patient. Outside the US, most testing has switched to HbA1C for these reasons.
oxymoran 5y ago
It’s not just sugar though, it’s junk, processed, and fast food in general. It’s astonishing how bad our current nutritional advice is.
slownews45 5y ago
No question - but there is so much special interest tied into things like climate change that there is no will to actually solve it. We've got now the hydrogen thing (aka fossil fuel with a ton of steps before you actually run an electric motor). We're going to have billions in special interest for this in the dems new bill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956 We've got the ethanol thing https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntr... I could go on endlessly.
collaborative 5y ago
Everyone talks about sugar. But the real problem is food culture (or the lack of). American, and now many European diets now consist of either fast food, oven-ready food or fried food. I recently went shopping and had a look at the "healthy" aisle. I could only find supposedly healthy food consisting of extremely savory dishes -carbonara, paella, etc. This is no way to eat healthy In many western countries, no one is willing to eat a plate of barely seasoned boiled potatoes, or of barely seasoned pulses, etc Everything is meaty, savory, rich. Edit: I see I caused a reaction. I will explain. We are training our taste, and our children's tastes, to expect an explosion of flavor in every bite. This is not healthy. It promotes ordering take-out food, buying ready-meals, etc. Food doesn't need to be complex. We have fallen to "recipe book" diets. For example, I am mediterranean. When I read mediterranean recipe books, I see the same meals we eat, but turbo-charged with flavor. You can see the same thing in Chinese take-outs, where you will rarely see the owner eat the loaded meals he sells. He'll sautee some bean sprouts and mix them with boiled rice Our stomachs aren't nuclear reactors, but in the western world, they are trained to be Recipe book meals are ok to eat twice a week. The rest of the week should include steamed veggies with olive oil and salt, boiled apple puree, lentil soup, chick peas with carrots, mash with cabbage and til, leek and potato cream, etc
- Arrath 5y ago
  Honest question, why the push for 'barely seasoned'? What are the dietary implications of a dash of pepper, paprika, garlic powder, turmeric, garam masala etc. if the salt and sugar is kept in check?
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    I think it's because people don't know how to cook. Seriously, adding those spices in has essentially no caloric effect on the meal (especially because many spices are strong enough you don't need to add a lot to have a massive effect on the flavor). The result, though, is that you can cook "the same thing" every day, but vary the spices and never get bored with chicken and vegetables or whatever it is you settle on.
- 00deadbeef 5y ago
mdbug 5y ago
Sugar does not cause diabetes.
- 00deadbeef 5y ago
  Too much sugar causes high insulin. Prolonged high insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes diabetes.
  - mdbug 5y ago
    This is a common misconception. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity. Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      > mdbug: Sugar does not cause diabetes. > mdbug: Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity. Your statements are misleading. Sugar can be addictive. Sugar can also cause obesity. Sugar can also cause insulin resistance. Sugar can also cause diabetes. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. 2007: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. 2010: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20138901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20138901/ It is thought that SSBs contribute to weight gain in part by incomplete compensation for energy at subsequent meals following intake of liquid calories. They may also increase risk of T2DM and CVD as a contributor to a high dietary glycemic load leading to inflammation, insulin resistance and impaired beta-cell function. 2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22289979/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22289979/ Temporal patterns over the past three to four decades have shown a close parallel between the rise in added sugar intake and the global obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) epidemics. 2013: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23657152/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23657152/ The incidence of T2D increased dramatically over the last decades mainly due to Western lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise and high calorie diets. In fact, high-sugar diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance predisposing to T2D 2015: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376619/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376619/ There are plausible mechanisms and research evidence that supports the suggestion that consumption of excess sugar promotes the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) both directly and indirectly. I'll just stop looking there.
someonevouchme 5y ago
The best solution is that people choose to eat less sugar. It's better because it doesn't require treating adults like children, or humans like pets or cattle. Diet choices are not a problem of policy.
- inetknght 5y ago
  > The best solution is that people choose to eat less sugar People choose to eat high-sugar foods because they're cheap. A tax will help make them less-cheap.
hansor 5y ago
>Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Wrong. You should BAN High-fructose corn syrup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup It is way more harmful than natural sugar. It is not banned yet because: - It is made from corn, and corn is heavily substituted by US government. - It is super cheap (high volume of corn available) - It is not only slightly sweet but also prevents spoilage (that's why they add it to US "bread" !) - It is good anti-oxidizer - It is good and cheap liaison
- hannob 5y ago
  This HFCS story is a bit of a strange thing. At some point it was marketed as a more "natural" alternative to plain sugar. Then it became the villain and people said you should use normal sugar. The truth is: HFCS is not much different from normal sugar. They're both calorie dense and not very healthy.
  - Guest42 5y ago
    Anecdote, but hfcs requires approximately 3 times the insulin, if anyone has a different experience, please tell
- BeetleB 5y ago
  It's funny you link to the Wikipedia page, and then make a comment like: > It is way more harmful than natural sugar. When the Wikipedia page doesn't agree with your assertion.
01100011 5y ago
Easiest reaction maybe. I'd need to see some evidence to be convinced it is a solution. It seems to me more like a feel good measure that just further burdens people who are making poor choices already. Sure, there's some sort of libertarianish, survival of the fittest argument to be made for that, but if you're actually interested in positive results I think you're going to need something more nuanced. My personal opinion, based on nothing more than my experiences, and probably not worth much: How did we reduce smoking, another addictive, pleasurable activity with negative health consequences? We taxed it, sure, but we also had aggressive public health campaigns, provided medical assistance, and developed harm-reducing substitutes. Most importantly, we changed the culture, marketing and image of smoking. We didn't simply tax cigarettes and get smoking rates to appreciably fall. Food is even more difficult. Everyone needs to eat. No one needs to smoke. People with unhealthy attitudes towards food can't just give up eating. We have a culture that celebrates overconsumption. We have holidays seemingly dedicated to it. Advertising and the media are constantly promoting unhealthy eating.. Unhealthy eating is an easily accessible pleasure to many in the lower economic classes thanks to subsidies combined with the inherently low cost of production. With such a low starting price, you'd have to have crushing taxes to cause a meaningful shift in habits. Such taxes would be unfair to the people who can safely consume those products. Does it help if we tax, say, sweetened, carbonated beverages while excluding fruit juices or sugary fruits? Honey has even more fructose than "high fructose" corn syrup. Should we tax that too?
lhorie 5y ago
I'm not opposed to the idea, but there are some counterpoints that suggest it may not be as effective as you think. Look at gasoline tax. California has the highest tax in the country, yet it's also the largest consumer. I think other commenters have it right when they say there's a culture problem. In Niagara Falls, for example, it's a fairly common occurrence for Americans going into the Canadian side to get into arguments with Starbucks employees because they think they're being scammed/ripped off, when the reality is simply that canadian sizes are smaller than the american ones. Japanese snack sizes look minuscule in comparison with american ones. Take out food in many places is pretty much restricted to just burgers and pizza, (compare to Japan selling oden at 7-eleven). "Healthy" food like salads is often drizzled with oily, high sodium dressings, the list goes on.
- brundolf 5y ago
  But the culture problem is a result of the corporate problem. Expectations are set by what people are used to being offered - heck, your stomach physically grows when you're regularly eating larger portions - it should be no surprise that those norms carry over when people leave their environment for short periods. I don't think it's fair to call it a moral failing of consumers. We've been set up to fail.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    I mean, it's partly its fault, sure. To see what happens if you completely let corporations dictate your diet, look no further than Super Size Me. But also, that's kinda abdicating responsibility a bit, don't you think? My in-laws live in North America, but cook traditional homemade chinese food (and they were teachers by trade in China, so the "low income peeps don't have time" argument doesn't exactly fly either). It costs them something to the tune of $150 a month in groceries to feed 6 lavishly when we go visit (probably even less otherwise because they're even thriftier when cooking for themselves). The fact that the vast majority of americans don't know how to cook rice in a regular pot, or pickle their own radishes is largely due to its culinary culture (or rather, a lack of it). In Japan, there's the concept of Yamato Nadeshiko, a desirable set of traits in a romantic partner which involves among other things being excellent at home cooking. I'm not aware of this kind of intertwining between cooking and other aspects of life in the US. IME, cooking is mostly just seen as an annoying chore, or associated with snobbishness. Another example: there's animes/mangas portraying cooking in home economics class in school (like cutting veggies and making rice). The closest I've seen in the US so far is third graders making homemade ice cream (which is basically just dumping cream in a bag of ice). Point being, I think there's more than just corporate narratives when it comes to culture.
bArray 5y ago
> Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. > > Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. It sounds all good and well, until you realize it's essentially just a tax on the least wealthy people. Cheap food is typically high in sugar, so all you're doing is removing cheap food. I offer the alternative of subsidizing healthy food, use the carrot and not the stick. Subsidizing healthy food also has the added bonus of supporting local farmers and manufacturing of food. > If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population. I think the fundamental assumption here is a lack of agency of the individual. The answer isn't to 'tax the plebs until they do what we want' - we need to understand exactly why people are making the decisions they do. I have some theories of my own about this, but it's an actively ongoing investigation. I spoke to a friend in Biology just the other day, and they had a completely different perspective from their field about why people are becoming more obese.
- prostoalex 5y ago
  > It sounds all good and well, until you realize it's essentially just a tax on the least wealthy people. You could in theory offset that by changing the mix of products qualified for SNAP program. 20% of food stamp money is spent on sugary stuff https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Summary.pdf https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPF...
  - bArray 5y ago
    > 20% of food stamp money is spent on sugary stuff I think the idea of a government dictating what you get to eat is still insane. How long till some politician gets paid off to pass some specific food? Such power should always be setup under the assumption that a bad actor will eventually corrupt it. And then of course you get the blind thinking "the government put it on the healthy list, so it must be healthy"... The better solution (in my opinion) is to educate people - to the point where they choose to make the right choices. Diet and exercise is just as important as Math and English when teaching kids to be productive members of the work force. This will massively pay off in the long run, as such habits usually get passed down for generations.
kyriakos 5y ago
Did it really stop smoking?
bwship 5y ago
Don't you tax my big gulp!
tomjen3 5y ago
How will you enforce a climate tax on China?

00deadbeef 5y ago

Is this the solution, though? Even if you could prevent new diabetes cases there are still countless millions of diabetics who wouldn’t be helped by a sugar tax.

Smithalicious 5y ago

Any tax on food hits poor people much more than wealthier people. You are taking food out of people's mouths.

Retric 5y ago
Taxes can be redirected to the poor or even used to subsidize other food choices. The point is people and companies would make different choices if empty calories where relatively more expensive. The same is true of carbon taxes, they don’t extract money from the economy they move it around within the same economy.
- Smithalicious 5y ago
  Sure, though in my experience that rarely really happen. Here's another angle: it creates a kind of social stratification where only the wealthier can afford to eat certain popular foods. I grew up poor, it's very humiliating to not be able to eat the same things as your peers.
adrianN 5y ago
Sugar is not an essential food.

nostromo 5y ago

Good luck explaining to people that Apple Juice has a sugar tax applied to it now even though the only ingredient listed is “apples.” And, yes, it’s just as bad for you as soda. Don’t forget that we'll be needing a flour tax too…

post_break 5y ago

Stop taxing everything. Tax is not the solution for everything. The people buying soda are generally the poor or middle class. All this does it take more money from those who need it the most. What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. But we can't do that. We have to prop up the corn industry with subsidies. Sugar and HFCS is in literally everything. By adding a sugar tax you're basically saying everything you eat must get more expensive, that'll teach you to eat.

sokoloff 5y ago
I think it’s probably worth examining how well taxing tobacco worked (and where/when it didn’t work).
fighterpilot 5y ago
Tax sugar and give it back as a UBI. That alleviates the regressive tax concern. But I suspect that that's not the real reason you're against it. If your real concern is the expansion of the state, then implement a sugar tax and reduce other taxes. Whatever your concern, a sugar and carbon tax are great ideas (due to incentive alignment) and can be made to work.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  Exactly. The tax externalities and dividend system is such an underappreciated idea. Sugar, carbon, and land are things that we move quickly to implement and bring it to more and more externalities.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    What do you mean by "dividend" in this context?
    - ItsMonkk 5y ago
      UBI. The verbiage comes from the climate plan[0] using the same mechanism. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

mattrighetti 5y ago

*Easiest also non working solution

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

So, a giant corporation outsources their production to china, pays zero carbon tax, and still pollutes the same planet, but Johnny average cannot heat his house and drive his car, because he cannot afford it anymore?

option 5y ago
then tax import goods from China on entry to US until US authorities are satisfied with the amounts of carbon taxes paid in China (to China).
- MrFlibbles 5y ago
  I believe we had a recent President who tried to raise import taxes (for whatever reason) on imports from China and the opposition went totally berserk. If it didn't work then or for whatever those reasons were, why would it work now?
  - option 5y ago
    why do you think it didn’t work? It certainly hurt China economically and they aren’t exactly the friend of US.
nend 5y ago
Taxing sugar means people can no longer heat their house or pay for gas? Sounds like a bit of a reach. How much exactly is Johnny Average spending on sugar every month?
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  taxing carbon does that.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    No, you can cut other taxes or give a UBI to offset it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MattGaiser 5y ago

A lot of the people who buy those things also object.

fortran77 5y ago

80% of people with Type 2 diabetes who are overweight would be asymptomatic if they lost weight. Perhaps we should tax obesity and not burden those who know how to eat responsibly?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
Perhaps we should treat unhealthy foods like we treat other unhealthy things like cigarettes and alcohol. Tax them at 90%, must be 21 or older, ban advertising, and require scary warning labels on the retailers that sell them, the containers, and the menus. The real problem is two fold. tons of people are negligently ignorant about what they eat and how it affects them. Lots of people’s livelihoods depend upon most people having terrible diets. Like seafood? You’re probably eating multiple times the safe limit of heavy metals. Like live events with popup food services? Would you like it as much if the only affordable foods were vegetable and fiber rich options without the large servings of carbs and sugars? Want cirrhosis with your alcohol? Want diabetes warnings on your ice cream and coffees? To solve the diabetes epidemic we must get structure the parts of society that rely on people actively eating themselves too expensive and early deaths.

jimbob45 5y ago

The right solution is to educate people about what their A1C means and to incentivize them to check it. Most people don't know what theirs is - I would bet that less than five people in this very thread have checked their A1C in the last six months. Remember that diet isn't always sufficient to lower A1C and you may need drugs or other lifestyle changes. Mandate A1C checks bi-yearly for insurance providers or have them pass along the penalty.

jaywalk 5y ago
It sounds like you don't really understand what A1C tests are meant for either. There's a reason it's not part of a standard physical while blood sugar is.
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  And that reason would be? HbA1C is effectively a measure of the average amount of sugar that has been in your blood over the last couple of months. A spot sugar level is the amount of sugar in your blood right now, and can vary a huge amount, depending on when you last ate, what you ate, and what exercise you have just done. It's less useful. You can do a fasting blood glucose, and a glucose challenge, but these tests are much more inconvenient for the patient. Outside the US, most testing has switched to HbA1C for these reasons.

oxymoran 5y ago

It’s not just sugar though, it’s junk, processed, and fast food in general. It’s astonishing how bad our current nutritional advice is.

slownews45 5y ago

No question - but there is so much special interest tied into things like climate change that there is no will to actually solve it. We've got now the hydrogen thing (aka fossil fuel with a ton of steps before you actually run an electric motor). We're going to have billions in special interest for this in the dems new bill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956 We've got the ethanol thing https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntr... I could go on endlessly.

collaborative 5y ago

Everyone talks about sugar. But the real problem is food culture (or the lack of). American, and now many European diets now consist of either fast food, oven-ready food or fried food. I recently went shopping and had a look at the "healthy" aisle. I could only find supposedly healthy food consisting of extremely savory dishes -carbonara, paella, etc. This is no way to eat healthy In many western countries, no one is willing to eat a plate of barely seasoned boiled potatoes, or of barely seasoned pulses, etc Everything is meaty, savory, rich. Edit: I see I caused a reaction. I will explain. We are training our taste, and our children's tastes, to expect an explosion of flavor in every bite. This is not healthy. It promotes ordering take-out food, buying ready-meals, etc. Food doesn't need to be complex. We have fallen to "recipe book" diets. For example, I am mediterranean. When I read mediterranean recipe books, I see the same meals we eat, but turbo-charged with flavor. You can see the same thing in Chinese take-outs, where you will rarely see the owner eat the loaded meals he sells. He'll sautee some bean sprouts and mix them with boiled rice Our stomachs aren't nuclear reactors, but in the western world, they are trained to be Recipe book meals are ok to eat twice a week. The rest of the week should include steamed veggies with olive oil and salt, boiled apple puree, lentil soup, chick peas with carrots, mash with cabbage and til, leek and potato cream, etc

Arrath 5y ago
Honest question, why the push for 'barely seasoned'? What are the dietary implications of a dash of pepper, paprika, garlic powder, turmeric, garam masala etc. if the salt and sugar is kept in check?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  I think it's because people don't know how to cook. Seriously, adding those spices in has essentially no caloric effect on the meal (especially because many spices are strong enough you don't need to add a lot to have a massive effect on the flavor). The result, though, is that you can cook "the same thing" every day, but vary the spices and never get bored with chicken and vegetables or whatever it is you settle on.
00deadbeef 5y ago

mdbug 5y ago

Sugar does not cause diabetes.

00deadbeef 5y ago
Too much sugar causes high insulin. Prolonged high insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes diabetes.
- mdbug 5y ago
  This is a common misconception. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity. Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > mdbug: Sugar does not cause diabetes. > mdbug: Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity. Your statements are misleading. Sugar can be addictive. Sugar can also cause obesity. Sugar can also cause insulin resistance. Sugar can also cause diabetes. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. 2007: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. 2010: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20138901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20138901/ It is thought that SSBs contribute to weight gain in part by incomplete compensation for energy at subsequent meals following intake of liquid calories. They may also increase risk of T2DM and CVD as a contributor to a high dietary glycemic load leading to inflammation, insulin resistance and impaired beta-cell function. 2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22289979/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22289979/ Temporal patterns over the past three to four decades have shown a close parallel between the rise in added sugar intake and the global obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) epidemics. 2013: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23657152/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23657152/ The incidence of T2D increased dramatically over the last decades mainly due to Western lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise and high calorie diets. In fact, high-sugar diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance predisposing to T2D 2015: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376619/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376619/ There are plausible mechanisms and research evidence that supports the suggestion that consumption of excess sugar promotes the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) both directly and indirectly. I'll just stop looking there.

someonevouchme 5y ago

The best solution is that people choose to eat less sugar. It's better because it doesn't require treating adults like children, or humans like pets or cattle. Diet choices are not a problem of policy.

inetknght 5y ago
> The best solution is that people choose to eat less sugar People choose to eat high-sugar foods because they're cheap. A tax will help make them less-cheap.

hansor 5y ago

>Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Wrong. You should BAN High-fructose corn syrup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup It is way more harmful than natural sugar. It is not banned yet because: - It is made from corn, and corn is heavily substituted by US government. - It is super cheap (high volume of corn available) - It is not only slightly sweet but also prevents spoilage (that's why they add it to US "bread" !) - It is good anti-oxidizer - It is good and cheap liaison

hannob 5y ago
This HFCS story is a bit of a strange thing. At some point it was marketed as a more "natural" alternative to plain sugar. Then it became the villain and people said you should use normal sugar. The truth is: HFCS is not much different from normal sugar. They're both calorie dense and not very healthy.
- Guest42 5y ago
  Anecdote, but hfcs requires approximately 3 times the insulin, if anyone has a different experience, please tell
BeetleB 5y ago
It's funny you link to the Wikipedia page, and then make a comment like: > It is way more harmful than natural sugar. When the Wikipedia page doesn't agree with your assertion.

01100011 5y ago

Easiest reaction maybe. I'd need to see some evidence to be convinced it is a solution. It seems to me more like a feel good measure that just further burdens people who are making poor choices already. Sure, there's some sort of libertarianish, survival of the fittest argument to be made for that, but if you're actually interested in positive results I think you're going to need something more nuanced. My personal opinion, based on nothing more than my experiences, and probably not worth much: How did we reduce smoking, another addictive, pleasurable activity with negative health consequences? We taxed it, sure, but we also had aggressive public health campaigns, provided medical assistance, and developed harm-reducing substitutes. Most importantly, we changed the culture, marketing and image of smoking. We didn't simply tax cigarettes and get smoking rates to appreciably fall. Food is even more difficult. Everyone needs to eat. No one needs to smoke. People with unhealthy attitudes towards food can't just give up eating. We have a culture that celebrates overconsumption. We have holidays seemingly dedicated to it. Advertising and the media are constantly promoting unhealthy eating.. Unhealthy eating is an easily accessible pleasure to many in the lower economic classes thanks to subsidies combined with the inherently low cost of production. With such a low starting price, you'd have to have crushing taxes to cause a meaningful shift in habits. Such taxes would be unfair to the people who can safely consume those products. Does it help if we tax, say, sweetened, carbonated beverages while excluding fruit juices or sugary fruits? Honey has even more fructose than "high fructose" corn syrup. Should we tax that too?

lhorie 5y ago

I'm not opposed to the idea, but there are some counterpoints that suggest it may not be as effective as you think. Look at gasoline tax. California has the highest tax in the country, yet it's also the largest consumer. I think other commenters have it right when they say there's a culture problem. In Niagara Falls, for example, it's a fairly common occurrence for Americans going into the Canadian side to get into arguments with Starbucks employees because they think they're being scammed/ripped off, when the reality is simply that canadian sizes are smaller than the american ones. Japanese snack sizes look minuscule in comparison with american ones. Take out food in many places is pretty much restricted to just burgers and pizza, (compare to Japan selling oden at 7-eleven). "Healthy" food like salads is often drizzled with oily, high sodium dressings, the list goes on.

brundolf 5y ago
But the culture problem is a result of the corporate problem. Expectations are set by what people are used to being offered - heck, your stomach physically grows when you're regularly eating larger portions - it should be no surprise that those norms carry over when people leave their environment for short periods. I don't think it's fair to call it a moral failing of consumers. We've been set up to fail.
- lhorie 5y ago
  I mean, it's partly its fault, sure. To see what happens if you completely let corporations dictate your diet, look no further than Super Size Me. But also, that's kinda abdicating responsibility a bit, don't you think? My in-laws live in North America, but cook traditional homemade chinese food (and they were teachers by trade in China, so the "low income peeps don't have time" argument doesn't exactly fly either). It costs them something to the tune of $150 a month in groceries to feed 6 lavishly when we go visit (probably even less otherwise because they're even thriftier when cooking for themselves). The fact that the vast majority of americans don't know how to cook rice in a regular pot, or pickle their own radishes is largely due to its culinary culture (or rather, a lack of it). In Japan, there's the concept of Yamato Nadeshiko, a desirable set of traits in a romantic partner which involves among other things being excellent at home cooking. I'm not aware of this kind of intertwining between cooking and other aspects of life in the US. IME, cooking is mostly just seen as an annoying chore, or associated with snobbishness. Another example: there's animes/mangas portraying cooking in home economics class in school (like cutting veggies and making rice). The closest I've seen in the US so far is third graders making homemade ice cream (which is basically just dumping cream in a bag of ice). Point being, I think there's more than just corporate narratives when it comes to culture.

bArray 5y ago

> Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. > > Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. It sounds all good and well, until you realize it's essentially just a tax on the least wealthy people. Cheap food is typically high in sugar, so all you're doing is removing cheap food. I offer the alternative of subsidizing healthy food, use the carrot and not the stick. Subsidizing healthy food also has the added bonus of supporting local farmers and manufacturing of food. > If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population. I think the fundamental assumption here is a lack of agency of the individual. The answer isn't to 'tax the plebs until they do what we want' - we need to understand exactly why people are making the decisions they do. I have some theories of my own about this, but it's an actively ongoing investigation. I spoke to a friend in Biology just the other day, and they had a completely different perspective from their field about why people are becoming more obese.

prostoalex 5y ago
> It sounds all good and well, until you realize it's essentially just a tax on the least wealthy people. You could in theory offset that by changing the mix of products qualified for SNAP program. 20% of food stamp money is spent on sugary stuff https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Summary.pdf https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPF...
- bArray 5y ago
  > 20% of food stamp money is spent on sugary stuff I think the idea of a government dictating what you get to eat is still insane. How long till some politician gets paid off to pass some specific food? Such power should always be setup under the assumption that a bad actor will eventually corrupt it. And then of course you get the blind thinking "the government put it on the healthy list, so it must be healthy"... The better solution (in my opinion) is to educate people - to the point where they choose to make the right choices. Diet and exercise is just as important as Math and English when teaching kids to be productive members of the work force. This will massively pay off in the long run, as such habits usually get passed down for generations.

kyriakos 5y ago

Did it really stop smoking?

bwship 5y ago

Don't you tax my big gulp!

tomjen3 5y ago

How will you enforce a climate tax on China?