4 ms·

Have not read the article, but I think "Big Tobacco" is something of a scapegoat for a larger pattern, and basically they were just unlucky enough to produce on

Have not read the article, but I think "Big Tobacco" is something of a scapegoat for a larger pattern, and basically they were just unlucky enough to produce one of the most harmful products (recognized as such once the health bills started coming due). (edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.)

verisimi 3y ago
Yes, if you are going to look upwards, why wouldn't you look right to the top at banks and finance? Those who run banking are able to exercise some coordinating control over every industry. But if you look downwards, bad food and health are choices that people make. Many people want this stuff - individuals are getting what they want.
- 0dayz 3y ago
  No one is saying we shouldn't look into shady nonsense from banks. However banks aren't directly responsible for encouraging you to consume diabetes can. heart attack crisps or cancer sticks Hence why we push more for regulation against these industries thar are directly responsible while leaving financial watch dogs to look into banks for now.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    hmm - pushing for more regulation means more government, you do realise... Do you think govt and corporations aren't working together? You are asking for more of that.
    - 0dayz 3y ago
      Difference is that the government can be held accountable if its democratic, since then it's run by the people for the people.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  Yes, because they're primed for it. People make the bad choices they're constantly encouraged to make.
darthoctopus 3y ago
read the article. literally the first few paragraphs: > In the 1980s, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds acquired the major food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco, allowing tobacco firms to dominate America’s food supply and reap billions in sales from popular brands such as Oreo cookies, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Lunchables. > The new research, published in the journal Addiction, focuses on the rise of “hyper-palatable” foods, which contain potent combinations of fat, sodium, sugar and other additives that can drive people to crave and overeat them. The Addiction study found that in the decades when the tobacco giants owned the world’s leading food companies, the foods that they sold were far more likely to be hyper-palatable than similar foods not owned by tobacco companies. it is difficult to argue that they were simply unfortunate to happen to produce one class of unhealthy products when the same companies proceeded to then move on to an entirely different product class, and somehow also engineer products to also be maximally addictive and, as it turns out, unhealthy.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  So they're exceptional in producing unhealthy, but profitable products?
  - landemva 3y ago
    They are good at producing products that people willingly purchase and consume. It is voluntary. To contrast what voluntary can mean, children consuming unmetered fluoride doses via the water supply is not really voluntary.
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      The cravings are most involuntary however, I assure you.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Oreo cookies and Kraft Dinner are craved? They do very well on the convenience front, which is significant, but seem like the some of the last things you would want if you could have anything magically placed in front of you.
navigate8310 3y ago
Can you explain the larger pattern you are talking about?
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  A larger pattern of assuming the virtue of the product according to its profit value.
Timon3 3y ago
> (edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.) Even 1-4 cigarettes per day is very harmful: > Results: Adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) in smokers of 1–4 cigarettes per day, with never smokers as reference, of dying from ischaemic heart disease was 2.74 (2.07 to 3.61) in men and 2.94 (1.75 to 4.95) in women. The corresponding figures for all cancer were 1.08 (0.78 to 1.49) and 1.14 (0.84 to 1.55), for lung cancer 2.79 (0.94 to 8.28) and 5.03 (1.81 to 13.98), and for any cause 1.57 (1.33 to 1.85) and 1.47 (1.19 to 1.82). > Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315 Cigarettes also happen to create an addiction, which makes it harder over time to stay below 5 cigarettes per day.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  I agree mostly with your last paragraph. I'm surely not trying to encourage a habit I'm grateful to have been able to give up, but I believe 1-4 would significantly reduce the risk of emphysema - sorry, but I don't have much patience for "abstinence-nazis".
  - Timon3 3y ago
    A lower risk in one specific disease is a far cry from "not so harmful". Do you have any specific studies pointing towards 1-4 cigarettes significantly reducing the risk of emphysema compared to 5+?
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues. (edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)

verisimi 3y ago

Yes, if you are going to look upwards, why wouldn't you look right to the top at banks and finance? Those who run banking are able to exercise some coordinating control over every industry. But if you look downwards, bad food and health are choices that people make. Many people want this stuff - individuals are getting what they want.

0dayz 3y ago
No one is saying we shouldn't look into shady nonsense from banks. However banks aren't directly responsible for encouraging you to consume diabetes can. heart attack crisps or cancer sticks Hence why we push more for regulation against these industries thar are directly responsible while leaving financial watch dogs to look into banks for now.
- verisimi 3y ago
  hmm - pushing for more regulation means more government, you do realise... Do you think govt and corporations aren't working together? You are asking for more of that.
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    Difference is that the government can be held accountable if its democratic, since then it's run by the people for the people.
ttonkytonk 3y ago
Yes, because they're primed for it. People make the bad choices they're constantly encouraged to make.

darthoctopus 3y ago

read the article. literally the first few paragraphs: > In the 1980s, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds acquired the major food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco, allowing tobacco firms to dominate America’s food supply and reap billions in sales from popular brands such as Oreo cookies, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Lunchables. > The new research, published in the journal Addiction, focuses on the rise of “hyper-palatable” foods, which contain potent combinations of fat, sodium, sugar and other additives that can drive people to crave and overeat them. The Addiction study found that in the decades when the tobacco giants owned the world’s leading food companies, the foods that they sold were far more likely to be hyper-palatable than similar foods not owned by tobacco companies. it is difficult to argue that they were simply unfortunate to happen to produce one class of unhealthy products when the same companies proceeded to then move on to an entirely different product class, and somehow also engineer products to also be maximally addictive and, as it turns out, unhealthy.

ttonkytonk 3y ago
So they're exceptional in producing unhealthy, but profitable products?
- landemva 3y ago
  They are good at producing products that people willingly purchase and consume. It is voluntary. To contrast what voluntary can mean, children consuming unmetered fluoride doses via the water supply is not really voluntary.
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    The cravings are most involuntary however, I assure you.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Oreo cookies and Kraft Dinner are craved? They do very well on the convenience front, which is significant, but seem like the some of the last things you would want if you could have anything magically placed in front of you.

navigate8310 3y ago

Can you explain the larger pattern you are talking about?

ttonkytonk 3y ago
A larger pattern of assuming the virtue of the product according to its profit value.

Timon3 3y ago

> (edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.) Even 1-4 cigarettes per day is very harmful: > Results: Adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) in smokers of 1–4 cigarettes per day, with never smokers as reference, of dying from ischaemic heart disease was 2.74 (2.07 to 3.61) in men and 2.94 (1.75 to 4.95) in women. The corresponding figures for all cancer were 1.08 (0.78 to 1.49) and 1.14 (0.84 to 1.55), for lung cancer 2.79 (0.94 to 8.28) and 5.03 (1.81 to 13.98), and for any cause 1.57 (1.33 to 1.85) and 1.47 (1.19 to 1.82). > Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315 Cigarettes also happen to create an addiction, which makes it harder over time to stay below 5 cigarettes per day.

ttonkytonk 3y ago
I agree mostly with your last paragraph. I'm surely not trying to encourage a habit I'm grateful to have been able to give up, but I believe 1-4 would significantly reduce the risk of emphysema - sorry, but I don't have much patience for "abstinence-nazis".
- Timon3 3y ago
  A lower risk in one specific disease is a far cry from "not so harmful". Do you have any specific studies pointing towards 1-4 cigarettes significantly reducing the risk of emphysema compared to 5+?
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues. (edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)