7 ms·

A NYT Editor's Pick Comment: """ I'm glad the smoking gun has been found. High fructose corn syrup is in virtually everything people buy to eat. It needs to g

A NYT Editor's Pick Comment: """ I'm glad the smoking gun has been found. High fructose corn syrup is in virtually everything people buy to eat. It needs to go. Enough people's lives have been ruined. The design and engineering of prepared foods people commonly buy is toxic and addictive. Now we need to re-educate people and make sure long-held views are erased. People have long blamed gluttony for obesity and obesity for diabetes. We now know it isn't true and that the super-sugars we are being force-fed are the culprit. We must all, together, demand that processed sugars such as high-fructose corn syrup be banned or, at the very least, severely restricted. I don't use the words force-fed lightly. Those among us who are on food stamps or a limited income have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods. Those are the ones that most commonly have the highest amount of sugars added. Anyone with a busy lifestyle eats out a lot. Fast foods, including the ones that claim to be "better," are laced with sugars, sodium, and fat. We must demand policies that protect us from harm and the greed-driven irresponsible practices of Big Food. Thank you, Mr. Bittman, for keeping us informed. """ So is "Big Food" the new scapegoat? I guess the next article we'll see a comment proclaiming how "Big Grocery" prices unhealthy foods too low, so now it's their fault. This is a great study, and it's results are extremely interesting, but this article, and the inferences people are getting from it border on witch trials. The article does a great job of doing everything but coming out and saying what the commenter does "They're force feeding us toxins!". There is such a clear departure from responsibility in today's culture it's almost astonishing. The blame lies 100% with nobody, but the individual has just as much a part to play as those producing the food. Edit: Does anyone notice the language used in the comment? "Force-fed", "re-educate", "We must all, together", "Enough people's lives have been ruined". It sounds almost like something from 1984. Also, look how easily the commenter provides inclusion to victimhood... anyone "with a busy lifestyle", or those who "are on food stamps or a limited income". Limited income is pretty broad. It's interesting also, how they "have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods".

Strang 14y ago
> next article we'll see a comment proclaiming how "Big Grocery" prices unhealthy foods too low, so now it's their fault. And here it comes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012001581.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01... This is a backhanded attack on "Big Grocery." Wal-Mart is being "responsible" with an initiative "to offer more healthful foods and push its suppliers to do the same." Of course, Wal-Mart's competitors can't afford to manhandle their suppliers at the same scale.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  It's not exactly the worst thing Wal-Mart does. Maybe now their employees will be able to afford the mental and physical strength to change or displace Wal-Mart.
- contingencies 14y ago
  People buy crap. They buy on taste, they buy on price, they buy on marketing. The problem, in fact, is the consumer. Demand will always be filled, and demand is not subject to law. Here in China, I witnessed a commercial, western-style, pre-packaged apple juice drink yesterday that was sold for 6元 (just under 1USD) for 500mL. On further inspection, it contained 10% 'real' apple juice (which could mean anything...), some artificial flavoring and colouring, glucose syrup, aspartame, and preservatives. They must be making a killing: it was 90% water. Health impact? People used to drink tea - you be the judge.
ahoyhere 14y ago
Yes, the wording is sketchy, but are you aware… * one of the reasons HFCS is so prevalent in the US is because it's effectively government subsidized? * which is also why the worst foods are often the cheapest? * that HFCS is in all kinds of food you'd never expect, like "grilled" chicken in the salads at mid-level (or worse yet, fast food) restaurants? If you're a label reader, you will find HFCS in a million places it oughtn't be. Since nobody expects their grilled chicken strips to stuffed with sugar, they are being tricked -- an angry person might say "force-fed." "Big Food" may be inflammatory but it's also true, in this case. Agribusiness is an enormous industry and in the top 10 lobbyist groups in the US. Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't.
- jordan0day 14y ago
  > Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't. Nothing in your post appears to justify a ban on HFCS. Are "it gets used in foods you wouldn't expect" and "other countries ban it" justification enough? I'm not trying to defend HFCS, but if you're going to call for something to be banned, you need to provide better reasoning.
- Strang 14y ago
  You make a very good point: between tariffs, subsidies, FDA and UDSA regulations, etc., the government has effectively shaped the US food industry into what it is today. However, that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to ban HFCS. But I agree we should stop subsidizing it.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  The problem is, people do know that their "grilled chicken stripes [are] stuffed with sugar". McDonalds is unhealthy. Do not buy processed foods. Buy simple, fresh, unprocessed foods. A whole chicken, rice, and fresh broccoli can feed a family of up to 8-9 for under $20. There are very easy ways to eat healthy for cheap without ever having to resort to sketchy Tyson pre-packaged chicken, or suspicious Wonder Bread. There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. If it isn't, then that's fine, but don't go blaming other people for your misallocation of personal resources.
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
One of the harder lessons stamped into me by the last few years in finance is just how wrong the myth of the rational consumer is, regardless of my liberal individualist world-view. The best of us make terrible decisions in almost everything we don't consciously analyse, i.e. almost everything. The rest busy ourselves with illustrating Murphy's Law in strings of bad decisions. When a system provides individuals with easy bad decisions it should not be surprising when people behave per expectation, and thus, not sufficient to blame them.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  It's extremely dangerous to excuse someone of not wishing to make conscious, good decisions.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Despite studies showing that people have a limited amount of willpower, after which they revert to habit?
    - d23 14y ago
      I would think HNers of all people would understand the idea of abstraction and information hiding. We have so many parts of our lives that to try to get a complete understanding of even one of them is pretty complicated. What's the best toothpaste to buy if I want white teeth? Will it hurt my enamel? What about gingivitis? What about tooth brush hardness? What about flossing? What's the proper technique? Should I do it before or after I brush? And that's just dental hygiene. So yes, while this libertarian ideal of "the free market solves everything" and "fuck the consumer if they won't educate themselves" is nice in theory, in practice it's not effective public policy. It simply isn't possible to be completely informed on everything that goes into every part of our lives -- if you actually want to live, that is.
      - Gotttzsche 14y ago
        that doesnt mean there's a better option though. what else are we gonna do, have some committee tell us which toothpaste to use?
recuter 14y ago
You have a point here, the 1984-ish attitude is unpleasant. However, a broken clock is right twice a day. From earlier in the week, The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279307 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279307 Junk food is designed to be addictive. Furthermore, there's no truth in advertising, the fact is that people are being manipulated en messe. In the article they full admit to it. Finally, it is marketed at kids. (Besides, I've been to the US - I know what passes for cheese over there! Heh) Personal responsibility is all well and good but surely you can't expect the general population to watch the lectures of Dr. Lustig or even know what HFCS is to begin with, never mind that it is bad for you and why. Once upon a time doctors recommended smoking. What's obvious to you in the present is not necessarily 'common' sense. Have big warning labels, skull and bones, the works, just like cigarette packs. And ban them from marketing it at kids at least. "If you eat more than one pack of these a week, you will gain weight and increase your risk of diabetes" - I bet you MOST Americans have yet to connect those dots.
cooldeal 14y ago
There are heavy subsidies on corn and not enough on fresh vegetables and fruits. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit... So yes, lopsided subsidies indeed shape what some people eat.
- frankosaurus 14y ago
  If subsidies were put in place for fresh fruit, agribusiness would switch from corn sugar to sugar extracted and refined from, say, grapes. The end result is that the market finds a cheap way to put large quantities of sugar in foods. These are the unintended consequences of subsidies.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    That is true, but they're going to drop the sugar from some of the products as well, since it's not as cheap as HFCS right now. It's better to remove all subsidies though, or subsidize things like spinach and broccoli. If they want to extract something from those and add it, I guess I am fine.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    If the govt were concerned with the health of its populace, it could enact a law to limit what govt-subsidized fruit and vegetables could be used for. Imagine it: only whole corn, kernel corn, and popcorn from subsidized corn. Doritos would suddenly be too expensive to manufacture.
    - frankosaurus 14y ago
      This will be great once we can all agree on what is healthy! CSPI (mentioned in the article) campaigned hard in the 80s for fast food restaurants to switch from lard to cholesterol-free 100% vegetable oil. After all, back then, cholesterol and saturated fat were considered evil. They complied and switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was laden with trans fat... which is now widely thought to be worse than saturated fat and is itself being phased out (again at CSPI's urging).
Avshalom 14y ago
I have an infographic for that: http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-does-a-salad-cost-more-than-a-big-mac/ http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-does-a-...

Strang 14y ago

> next article we'll see a comment proclaiming how "Big Grocery" prices unhealthy foods too low, so now it's their fault. And here it comes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012001581.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01... This is a backhanded attack on "Big Grocery." Wal-Mart is being "responsible" with an initiative "to offer more healthful foods and push its suppliers to do the same." Of course, Wal-Mart's competitors can't afford to manhandle their suppliers at the same scale.

mkr-hn 14y ago
It's not exactly the worst thing Wal-Mart does. Maybe now their employees will be able to afford the mental and physical strength to change or displace Wal-Mart.
contingencies 14y ago
People buy crap. They buy on taste, they buy on price, they buy on marketing. The problem, in fact, is the consumer. Demand will always be filled, and demand is not subject to law. Here in China, I witnessed a commercial, western-style, pre-packaged apple juice drink yesterday that was sold for 6元 (just under 1USD) for 500mL. On further inspection, it contained 10% 'real' apple juice (which could mean anything...), some artificial flavoring and colouring, glucose syrup, aspartame, and preservatives. They must be making a killing: it was 90% water. Health impact? People used to drink tea - you be the judge.

ahoyhere 14y ago

Yes, the wording is sketchy, but are you aware… * one of the reasons HFCS is so prevalent in the US is because it's effectively government subsidized? * which is also why the worst foods are often the cheapest? * that HFCS is in all kinds of food you'd never expect, like "grilled" chicken in the salads at mid-level (or worse yet, fast food) restaurants? If you're a label reader, you will find HFCS in a million places it oughtn't be. Since nobody expects their grilled chicken strips to stuffed with sugar, they are being tricked -- an angry person might say "force-fed." "Big Food" may be inflammatory but it's also true, in this case. Agribusiness is an enormous industry and in the top 10 lobbyist groups in the US. Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't.

jordan0day 14y ago
> Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't. Nothing in your post appears to justify a ban on HFCS. Are "it gets used in foods you wouldn't expect" and "other countries ban it" justification enough? I'm not trying to defend HFCS, but if you're going to call for something to be banned, you need to provide better reasoning.
Strang 14y ago
You make a very good point: between tariffs, subsidies, FDA and UDSA regulations, etc., the government has effectively shaped the US food industry into what it is today. However, that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to ban HFCS. But I agree we should stop subsidizing it.
pdeuchler 14y ago
The problem is, people do know that their "grilled chicken stripes [are] stuffed with sugar". McDonalds is unhealthy. Do not buy processed foods. Buy simple, fresh, unprocessed foods. A whole chicken, rice, and fresh broccoli can feed a family of up to 8-9 for under $20. There are very easy ways to eat healthy for cheap without ever having to resort to sketchy Tyson pre-packaged chicken, or suspicious Wonder Bread. There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. If it isn't, then that's fine, but don't go blaming other people for your misallocation of personal resources.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

One of the harder lessons stamped into me by the last few years in finance is just how wrong the myth of the rational consumer is, regardless of my liberal individualist world-view. The best of us make terrible decisions in almost everything we don't consciously analyse, i.e. almost everything. The rest busy ourselves with illustrating Murphy's Law in strings of bad decisions. When a system provides individuals with easy bad decisions it should not be surprising when people behave per expectation, and thus, not sufficient to blame them.

pdeuchler 14y ago
It's extremely dangerous to excuse someone of not wishing to make conscious, good decisions.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Despite studies showing that people have a limited amount of willpower, after which they revert to habit?
  - d23 14y ago
    I would think HNers of all people would understand the idea of abstraction and information hiding. We have so many parts of our lives that to try to get a complete understanding of even one of them is pretty complicated. What's the best toothpaste to buy if I want white teeth? Will it hurt my enamel? What about gingivitis? What about tooth brush hardness? What about flossing? What's the proper technique? Should I do it before or after I brush? And that's just dental hygiene. So yes, while this libertarian ideal of "the free market solves everything" and "fuck the consumer if they won't educate themselves" is nice in theory, in practice it's not effective public policy. It simply isn't possible to be completely informed on everything that goes into every part of our lives -- if you actually want to live, that is.
    - Gotttzsche 14y ago
      that doesnt mean there's a better option though. what else are we gonna do, have some committee tell us which toothpaste to use?

recuter 14y ago

You have a point here, the 1984-ish attitude is unpleasant. However, a broken clock is right twice a day. From earlier in the week, The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279307 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279307 Junk food is designed to be addictive. Furthermore, there's no truth in advertising, the fact is that people are being manipulated en messe. In the article they full admit to it. Finally, it is marketed at kids. (Besides, I've been to the US - I know what passes for cheese over there! Heh) Personal responsibility is all well and good but surely you can't expect the general population to watch the lectures of Dr. Lustig or even know what HFCS is to begin with, never mind that it is bad for you and why. Once upon a time doctors recommended smoking. What's obvious to you in the present is not necessarily 'common' sense. Have big warning labels, skull and bones, the works, just like cigarette packs. And ban them from marketing it at kids at least. "If you eat more than one pack of these a week, you will gain weight and increase your risk of diabetes" - I bet you MOST Americans have yet to connect those dots.

cooldeal 14y ago

There are heavy subsidies on corn and not enough on fresh vegetables and fruits. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit... So yes, lopsided subsidies indeed shape what some people eat.

frankosaurus 14y ago
If subsidies were put in place for fresh fruit, agribusiness would switch from corn sugar to sugar extracted and refined from, say, grapes. The end result is that the market finds a cheap way to put large quantities of sugar in foods. These are the unintended consequences of subsidies.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  That is true, but they're going to drop the sugar from some of the products as well, since it's not as cheap as HFCS right now. It's better to remove all subsidies though, or subsidize things like spinach and broccoli. If they want to extract something from those and add it, I guess I am fine.
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  If the govt were concerned with the health of its populace, it could enact a law to limit what govt-subsidized fruit and vegetables could be used for. Imagine it: only whole corn, kernel corn, and popcorn from subsidized corn. Doritos would suddenly be too expensive to manufacture.
  - frankosaurus 14y ago
    This will be great once we can all agree on what is healthy! CSPI (mentioned in the article) campaigned hard in the 80s for fast food restaurants to switch from lard to cholesterol-free 100% vegetable oil. After all, back then, cholesterol and saturated fat were considered evil. They complied and switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was laden with trans fat... which is now widely thought to be worse than saturated fat and is itself being phased out (again at CSPI's urging).

Avshalom 14y ago

I have an infographic for that: http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-does-a-salad-cost-more-than-a-big-mac/ http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-does-a-...