4 ms·

"evidence piles up" well of course it does. Who is paying for studies to show the benefits of processed foods? The time individuals don't have to spend prepari

"evidence piles up" well of course it does. Who is paying for studies to show the benefits of processed foods? The time individuals don't have to spend preparing their meals, the energy they don't buy and the fuel they don't burn to cook these items; surely those social and environmental factors should be added to the balance, when we weigh the costs and benefits? Imagine someone does start studies to publicize the benefits of industrial foods. Imagine the NPR headlines about "Science for Sale" and how the industry is buying propaganda.

wk_end 3y ago
I guarantee the industrial-food-complex is paying scientists to identify potential benefits of ultra-processed food.
- stakhanov 3y ago
  > I guarantee the industrial-food-complex is paying scientists to identify potential benefits of ultra-processed food. I just don't think that this particular mode of "money corrupts science" is happening much. I mean the kind of thing where a big industry facing an image problem would say: Hey, let's bribe some scientists to do bogus studies, and use the "findings" as ammo in a public relations war. Maybe that kind of thing was happening when the tobacco industry was lobbying against regulation. But nowadays, I'm having a hard time believing that. Because, nowadays, science is the weakest it's ever been in history (going back, maybe to the middle ages, where it might have been even worse), as a method of actually changing minds. So public relations wars would be fought differently, in a way that didn't involve science much. Second, I think it doesn't jibe with the personality structures of most scientists, as far as their motivations go. They've already decided for themselves that money is not all that high on their hierarchy of motivations, otherwise they wouldn't be scientists. What I think is happening instead is that money is an instrument that corrupts science in a direction of confirmation bias. Essentially you have to ask yourself: What happens if scientist X tells us about their research on YouTube? Would that person be able to build a successful following? -- Even if that scientist despises YouTube, there is a ton of institutional pressure on scientists these days to communicate their work publicly, so to a first approximation, thinking of the "YouTube court of public opinion on science" to decide a scientists' career fate, is an approximation that's not too far off the mark. "Ultra-processed foods are bad for you" is currently very much the way the wind is blowing. Any scientist who claimed otherwise would be seriously sticking their necks out with regard to the institutional context they're embedded in. Any scientist who goes an YouTube and tells people "my research shows that ultra-processed foods are bad for you and, oh by the way, here is a food product I really recommend" can become world-famous and rich. You do the math.
- qgin 3y ago
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-industry-backed-research-gives-results-funders-want-new-analysis-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-industry-bac...
seanhandley 3y ago
Companies like Coca Cola overplay the benefits of exercise as the solution to health problems so they can continue to sell ultra processed "food" with an extremely healthy profit margin. UPF isn't food. It's "edible food-like substances" and it exists to make money, not to keep you in good health through your life.
- qgin 3y ago
  It's why nearly every soda vending machine has a sticker like this: "Balance what you EAT, DRINK, and DO" https://www.bevindustry.com/articles/89678-aba-addresses-obesity-crisis-through-balance-calories-initiative https://www.bevindustry.com/articles/89678-aba-addresses-obe...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
qgin 3y ago
I'm not sure I believe that companies making ultra processed foods are victims of a catch-22 where they are unable to reveal the truth of how healthy their ultra processed food is because of the social shame that would come from funding a study.
ipython 3y ago
That was an npr headline. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
maxcoder4 3y ago
I can't identify your point. Studies that show harms/benefits of processed food are good, because they let us make decisions based on facts (as opposed to emotions). Of course there are tradeoffs involved.

wk_end 3y ago

I guarantee the industrial-food-complex is paying scientists to identify potential benefits of ultra-processed food.

stakhanov 3y ago
> I guarantee the industrial-food-complex is paying scientists to identify potential benefits of ultra-processed food. I just don't think that this particular mode of "money corrupts science" is happening much. I mean the kind of thing where a big industry facing an image problem would say: Hey, let's bribe some scientists to do bogus studies, and use the "findings" as ammo in a public relations war. Maybe that kind of thing was happening when the tobacco industry was lobbying against regulation. But nowadays, I'm having a hard time believing that. Because, nowadays, science is the weakest it's ever been in history (going back, maybe to the middle ages, where it might have been even worse), as a method of actually changing minds. So public relations wars would be fought differently, in a way that didn't involve science much. Second, I think it doesn't jibe with the personality structures of most scientists, as far as their motivations go. They've already decided for themselves that money is not all that high on their hierarchy of motivations, otherwise they wouldn't be scientists. What I think is happening instead is that money is an instrument that corrupts science in a direction of confirmation bias. Essentially you have to ask yourself: What happens if scientist X tells us about their research on YouTube? Would that person be able to build a successful following? -- Even if that scientist despises YouTube, there is a ton of institutional pressure on scientists these days to communicate their work publicly, so to a first approximation, thinking of the "YouTube court of public opinion on science" to decide a scientists' career fate, is an approximation that's not too far off the mark. "Ultra-processed foods are bad for you" is currently very much the way the wind is blowing. Any scientist who claimed otherwise would be seriously sticking their necks out with regard to the institutional context they're embedded in. Any scientist who goes an YouTube and tells people "my research shows that ultra-processed foods are bad for you and, oh by the way, here is a food product I really recommend" can become world-famous and rich. You do the math.
qgin 3y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-industry-backed-research-gives-results-funders-want-new-analysis-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/food-industry-bac...

seanhandley 3y ago

Companies like Coca Cola overplay the benefits of exercise as the solution to health problems so they can continue to sell ultra processed "food" with an extremely healthy profit margin. UPF isn't food. It's "edible food-like substances" and it exists to make money, not to keep you in good health through your life.

qgin 3y ago
It's why nearly every soda vending machine has a sticker like this: "Balance what you EAT, DRINK, and DO" https://www.bevindustry.com/articles/89678-aba-addresses-obesity-crisis-through-balance-calories-initiative https://www.bevindustry.com/articles/89678-aba-addresses-obe...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

qgin 3y ago

I'm not sure I believe that companies making ultra processed foods are victims of a catch-22 where they are unable to reveal the truth of how healthy their ultra processed food is because of the social shame that would come from funding a study.

ipython 3y ago

That was an npr headline. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

maxcoder4 3y ago

I can't identify your point. Studies that show harms/benefits of processed food are good, because they let us make decisions based on facts (as opposed to emotions). Of course there are tradeoffs involved.