4 ms·

I think the assumption that diets have materially improved needs to be clarified and challenged. I very much doubt that in the West, our diets have 'improved' s

I think the assumption that diets have materially improved needs to be clarified and challenged. I very much doubt that in the West, our diets have 'improved' since (say) the 50s/60s. The increase in sugars in just about everything, the increase in consumption of highly processed foods and acidic drinks - none of this is good for oral health.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
You underestimate food insecurity in the 50s, especially at the lower end of the economic scale. Heck, it's still an issue today. Worse in the sense, that diets are under nourished *and* packed with sugar. Let's not forget meth.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Also dramatic changes in the availability and cost of fresh produce. Depending on time, geography, and species, it might be a choice between canned and nothing at all. Getting an orange for Christmas was a rare treat, not simply a healthier filler to displace candy.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Let's not forget meth As both are relevant to the context of "famously bad for you": methamphetamine, or methyl alcohol?
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Good point. Let's go with both as both are detrimental to health and oral health.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > Heck, it's still an issue today. Worse in the sense, that diets are under nourished and packed with sugar. The passive voice is always an accomplice in deception, have you noticed? "Diets" are not under-nourished. People choose to purchase unhealthy food. Progressives insist that food stamps should pay for sugar water, candy, chips, etc. Meanwhile in the real world, 10 pounds of rice costs less than a bag of Doritos. Four pounds of lentils costs less than a 12 pack of soda. If progressives were interested in good outcomes for the poor, they could radically improve the lives of the poor overnight by enforcing healthy standards of food stamps spending. But outcomes aren't the point--the point is to buy votes--so don't expect it to change any time soon.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Two things 1) The ads for "Feed America" and other non-profits having to feed the under-fed. 2) Obesity. We're getting plenty of calories. However, calories !== nourishment. You can be overweight and yet not well fed. The overall point is, giving fluoride credit for improved oral health is disingenuous.
  - milesvp 2y ago
    >People choose to purchase unhealthy food Yeah, sort of. I’m immediately reminded of reports of health problems of people in countries that traditionally grow quinoa. The global demand for this amazingly nutritious food has priced it so high that many of the poorer in the regions that grow it have switched to cheaper, less nutritious foods. I am also reminded that if I want to buy “peasant food”, I have to pay a huge premium over much cheaper, crappier, less nutritious processed food. That is to say, foods that were commonly cheap and readily available many centuries ago, are no longer cheap. I find it slightly disengenuous to simply say that people choose to purchase unhealthy food without acknowledging that individuals are presented choices that are often suboptimal. I cannot reasonably buy bread without added sugar. That is not a choice I have made, that is the landcape I live in. I choose to buy less bread as a result. But I alone cannot change the economic landscape, even though you are absolutely correct that there are food which are cheaper and more nutritious than alternatives. I would also be really cautious about “enforcing healthy standards”. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to have seen some pretty shitty “healthy standards” pushed en mass, and then codified through major lobbying by interested parties.
  - phs318u 2y ago
    > by enforcing healthy standards of food stamps spending Ah yes. Freedom for me but not for thee.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      [flagged]
- heyoni 2y ago
  OP isn’t arguing about volume. Of course there’s more food today, and it probably is thanks to cheap processed foods that we can have so much of it. But in solving scarcity we invented new problems.
weberer 2y ago
Back when people would regularly die of pellagra? Diets have absolutely improved since then.
- heyoni 2y ago
  You can’t overturn that argument with a one dimensional quip about fortified foods not existing. Imagine a diet with less sugar, more whole foods _and_ fortification?
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  They were almost certainly referring from a Western perspective. People in the West were not regularly dying from pellagra in the mid-20th century. In the US, the disease had become almost non-existent by the 1950s.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

You underestimate food insecurity in the 50s, especially at the lower end of the economic scale. Heck, it's still an issue today. Worse in the sense, that diets are under nourished *and* packed with sugar. Let's not forget meth.

Terr_ 2y ago
Also dramatic changes in the availability and cost of fresh produce. Depending on time, geography, and species, it might be a choice between canned and nothing at all. Getting an orange for Christmas was a rare treat, not simply a healthier filler to displace candy.
ben_w 2y ago
> Let's not forget meth As both are relevant to the context of "famously bad for you": methamphetamine, or methyl alcohol?
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Good point. Let's go with both as both are detrimental to health and oral health.
marcusverus 2y ago
> Heck, it's still an issue today. Worse in the sense, that diets are under nourished and packed with sugar. The passive voice is always an accomplice in deception, have you noticed? "Diets" are not under-nourished. People choose to purchase unhealthy food. Progressives insist that food stamps should pay for sugar water, candy, chips, etc. Meanwhile in the real world, 10 pounds of rice costs less than a bag of Doritos. Four pounds of lentils costs less than a 12 pack of soda. If progressives were interested in good outcomes for the poor, they could radically improve the lives of the poor overnight by enforcing healthy standards of food stamps spending. But outcomes aren't the point--the point is to buy votes--so don't expect it to change any time soon.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Two things 1) The ads for "Feed America" and other non-profits having to feed the under-fed. 2) Obesity. We're getting plenty of calories. However, calories !== nourishment. You can be overweight and yet not well fed. The overall point is, giving fluoride credit for improved oral health is disingenuous.
- milesvp 2y ago
  >People choose to purchase unhealthy food Yeah, sort of. I’m immediately reminded of reports of health problems of people in countries that traditionally grow quinoa. The global demand for this amazingly nutritious food has priced it so high that many of the poorer in the regions that grow it have switched to cheaper, less nutritious foods. I am also reminded that if I want to buy “peasant food”, I have to pay a huge premium over much cheaper, crappier, less nutritious processed food. That is to say, foods that were commonly cheap and readily available many centuries ago, are no longer cheap. I find it slightly disengenuous to simply say that people choose to purchase unhealthy food without acknowledging that individuals are presented choices that are often suboptimal. I cannot reasonably buy bread without added sugar. That is not a choice I have made, that is the landcape I live in. I choose to buy less bread as a result. But I alone cannot change the economic landscape, even though you are absolutely correct that there are food which are cheaper and more nutritious than alternatives. I would also be really cautious about “enforcing healthy standards”. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to have seen some pretty shitty “healthy standards” pushed en mass, and then codified through major lobbying by interested parties.
- phs318u 2y ago
  > by enforcing healthy standards of food stamps spending Ah yes. Freedom for me but not for thee.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    [flagged]
heyoni 2y ago
OP isn’t arguing about volume. Of course there’s more food today, and it probably is thanks to cheap processed foods that we can have so much of it. But in solving scarcity we invented new problems.

weberer 2y ago

Back when people would regularly die of pellagra? Diets have absolutely improved since then.

heyoni 2y ago
You can’t overturn that argument with a one dimensional quip about fortified foods not existing. Imagine a diet with less sugar, more whole foods _and_ fortification?
TeaBrain 2y ago
They were almost certainly referring from a Western perspective. People in the West were not regularly dying from pellagra in the mid-20th century. In the US, the disease had become almost non-existent by the 1950s.