3 ms·
Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose
by raegis 5y ago
Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
- commoner 5y agoYou're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.) I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.
- 8note 5y agoRemove the profit incentive from selling food is what we really need; that or charging food producers for the bad health impacts they create. After removing fructose, food producers will find a new thing to make people want to eat more, ad infinitum.