4 ms·

> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? Wha

> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils? I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? What are their positive attributes that contribute to a healthy body? They're cheap, that's it. We deserve higher quality food. Let's subsidize something else.

infecto 2y ago
Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt. Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.
- pton_xd 2y ago
  A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem. Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
  - infecto 2y ago
    All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount. Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.

infecto 2y ago

Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt. Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.

pton_xd 2y ago
A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem. Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
- infecto 2y ago
  All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount. Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.