
Our Food Is Killing Too Many of Us - mitchbob
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/food-nutrition-health-care.html
======
strict9
> _More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population —
> have pre-diabetes or diabetes._

Though one can't pin this staggering number on one thing (the article mentions
10 factors[1]) sugar-sweetened beverages are a nice first target.

Soda is looking more and more like cigarettes in terms of health effects and
nutrition.

At a bare minimum we should stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup and
other raw materials than enable soda to be so cheap.

[1]
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2608221)

~~~
benatkin
That sounds intuitively right, but that this might not be the main cause.
Fried potatoes (french fries and chips) are causing obesity, which in turn
causes diabetes. They also are high in carbs, though not sugar.

~~~
EpicEng
Where does that statement come from? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not
exactly an opinion. The problem with (refined) sugar is that it's in damn near
_everything_ (processed foods anyway).

~~~
benatkin
French fries top this list, are processed, and contain no sugar.
[https://www.ibtimes.com/what-causes-obesity-10-food-items-
ca...](https://www.ibtimes.com/what-causes-obesity-10-food-items-can-cause-
excessive-weight-gain-2554744)

It is strange that bread has sugar in it now but it's typically a small amount
like one gram per serving: [https://saraleebread.com/our-
breads/classic-100-whole-wheat-...](https://saraleebread.com/our-
breads/classic-100-whole-wheat-bread) It does make snacking more harmful
though, as a blood sugar spike can be added where not expected.

~~~
anaphor
French fries contain no sugar? What? What do you think starch is?

~~~
maxerickson
This sort of context ignorant pedantry is extremely tiresome.

The comment they replied to literally says "(refined) sugar". They are talking
about added sugar, not the constituent molecules of the food.

~~~
anaphor
Okay, but lots of people don't realize the effect things can have on your
blood sugar. Potatoes can raise your blood sugar just as quickly as white
bread, or even sugary drinks depending on how you cook them (i.e. baked
potatoes get processed differently than french fries). It isn't just added
sugar, it's also _how_ you cook it, and the other things you eat with it.

------
esotericn
The whole debate about nutrition confuses me.

We have all of this hyper-specific advice that sells a lifestyle, like telling
people to eat kale or chia seeds or whatever the new hip of the week is.
Hyper-optimization for overachievers; or at least those who like to pretend.

In reality, you could basically fix this situation overnight by killing off TV
dinners and fast food. Yes, my pleasure centers are also tickled by a
McDonalds, cause I'm an idiot just like you, we don't need it.

We call it "junk food" as a sort of humorous quip. If it's actually junk (and
it mostly is), then it shouldn't be on sale, because it crowds out
alternatives.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
You need people to eat real food, which means cooking, which means taking time
to cook. That's antithetic to the US way of doing things, which is to work all
the time and outsource everything else to someone else (I'm caricaturing a
little here of course).

~~~
knightofmars
It's not just cooking. The problem that we as Americans (and possibly other
countries have) is that we don't understand our ingredients. It's easy to
"cook" when you put a jar of store bought sauce over some noodles without ever
looking at the ingredients. The grams of sugar in lots of store bought "pre-
made" items is shocking.

As an example with the staple "PB&J" when you look at the P. One tablespoon of
a popular peanut butter has 1.5g of sugar. If you get an "organic" or
"natural" alternative you often see that number drop to 0.5g of sugar per
tablespoon. If you've been fed the 1.5g of sugar version growing up then
you're going to have a hard time accepting the 0.5g version.

Bread is another area. Bread shouldn't have sugar in it unless it's a dessert
bread. Yet most store bought breads have corn syrup or sugar in them.

Detoxing from sugar sounds like it could be a joke. But if you cut out most
sugar from your diet for a month (read ingredients and pick low or none sugar
alternatives as best you can). You'll be amazed at how much sweeter items such
as tomatoes, carrots, and other fresh fruits and vegetables begin to taste.

~~~
esotericn
Well yeah, that's why you don't buy pre-made stuff.

It makes me feel like some sort of weird Zen-master to say this, but you don't
need that. It's super overkill, not every meal has to be this thing with 500
ingredients like a budget version of what a high end restaurant might serve.

"Sauce" (saying that word without a qualifier makes me kind of shudder) is a
tin of chopped tomatoes, an onion, and maybe some spices. Done. It barely
takes longer than emptying a jar.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "Sauce" (saying that word without a qualifier makes me kind of shudder) is a
> tin of chopped tomatoes, an onion, and maybe some spices. Done. It barely
> takes longer than emptying a jar.

If you have decent prep skills, you can prep the ingredients for a basic sauce
of the type in question fairly quickly, but it still needs to be cooked, which
is more involved than bringing a canned sauce up to serving temp. It's a lot
more work than emptying a jar, when you consider prep, cooking, and added
cleanup.

~~~
esotericn
In the same vein, brushing your teeth is more work than not, cleaning the
table is more work than leaving it, etc.

I dunno, I don't subscribe to this 'hyper-optimize all the things' mindset,
you're already in the kitchen anyway, it's a normal thing for humans to do.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the same vein, brushing your teeth is more work than not, cleaning the
> table is more work than leaving it, etc.

Yeah, and it would be wrong to suggest the opposite, just as it was when you
did it for homemade sauce.

~~~
esotericn
My specific quote:

> It barely takes longer than emptying a jar.

Because it doesn't. Making pasta takes the same amount of time either way.

You know just as well as I do that this is silly, we both exist in the real
world and know how long things take, and you know the point I'm trying to
make.

Realistically people don't do these things because it's not habit, or because
their workplace has no cooking facilites, not because of some epsilon seconds
longer on meal prep or whatever.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Making pasta takes the same amount of time either way.

Making the complete dish does _not_ take the same amount of time either way,
even ignoring added cleanup; the prep+cooking time of a from-scratch sauce is
greater than the time it takes to boil water and cook the pasta (while
bringing premade sauce to temperature does not), so even though it can be
parallelized (which may be problematic if you are already multitasking, e.g.,
supervising children while making dinner, as a prepping and cooking a from-
scratch sauce also takes more _attention_ than reheating premade), it
definitely adds before-serving time.

It also adds cleanup time.

I’ve got two young kids, and cook pasta with premade sauces (often, sauce I
previously made from scratch, but sometimes store bought) and with scratch-
made-at-the-same-time sauces each fairly regularly.

> Realistically people don't do these things because it's not habit, or
> because their workplace has no cooking facilites, not because of some
> epsilon seconds longer on meal prep or whatever.

I did nothing but scratch-made sauces, mostly in parallel with cooking the
pasta, for several years before having kids; I now use store bought between a
third and half the time.

It's absolutely because of the delta in work involved, which is not mere
seconds.

------
tempsy
I don't get why Marianne Williamson gets labeled as some crazy person when she
says we have a sickness problem and that we need to have a conversation on all
the causes, including food, that contribute to people getting sick and thus
needed to seek healthcare in the first place.

I think most rational people inherently get that, but for whatever reason
talking about preventative care seems to be taboo at the national political
level. That needs to change.

~~~
maxerickson
I imagine it's usually because of her other views.

I'm just guessing though, I haven't looked closely.

~~~
tempsy
Possibly, though I think the bigger problem is that personal accountability
has somehow become politically dangerous.

------
m23khan
why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including
softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste
- sugar is as bad as cocaine when it comes to addiction.

Sugar is literally killing humanity as something inside of us makes us hooked
to it. And some ethnic cuisines are culprit in this: The stupid practice of
overloading sugar in sweets in Pakistan (I am Pakistani for record) and Middle
East, weird North American sickly sweet kids cereals (and Krispy Kreme, etc.).

Not only artificial sugar but even the propaganda about stuffing our mouth
with fruit needs to stop -- more than 1 fruit (e.g. banana or apple or orange)
per adult is excessive in terms of sugar.

Finally, not only sugar, low sodium levels need to be enforced.

Would also be nice to charge 100% tax on deep fried items and fatty products
such as cheese and white rice (in developed nations).

Frankly speaking, all unhealthy foods should be sold with a clear and bold
"THIS FOOD PRODUCT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" type of warning -- similar to
labels on cigarettes.

It is not about being a nanny state but rather than keeping our generations
and humanity healthy. For far too long the greedy, unethical food corporations
have been profiting off our health. This has caused untold misery for
countless people around the World - not only diabetes and heart attacks but
even forms of cancers are linked to unhealthy food.

~~~
EpicEng
>why not brutally enforce cut down of sugar in sweet items (including
softdrinks, ice cream, chocolates, cakes, etc.) by 50%? To he11 with the taste
- _sugar is as bad as cocaine when it comes to addiction._

No it's not.

>Not only artificial sugar but even the propaganda about stuffing our mouth
with fruit needs to stop -- more than 1 fruit (e.g. banana or apple or orange)
per adult is excessive in terms of sugar.

I'd love to see a source for that statement and you seem to be ignoring the
effects of the fiber in apples and oranges on digestion (i.e. insulin spikes).

>Finally, not only sugar, low sodium levels need to be enforced.

Outdated and incorrect.

>Would also be nice to charge 100% tax on deep fried items and fatty products
such as cheese and white rice (in developed nations).

And you completely lost me. There's nothing wrong with cheese and white rice.
Like almost any food, in moderation they are fine and healthy. Also, I stay in
very good shape; can I please opt out of your 2x tax on my occassional serving
of french fries?

>Frankly speaking, all unhealthy foods should be sold with a clear and bold
"THIS FOOD PRODUCT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH" type of warning -- similar to
labels on cigarettes.

Except the definition of what's bad for you seems to change about every ten
years. Again, moderation is key.

~~~
anaphor
> I'd love to see a source for that statement and you seem to be ignoring the
> effects of the fiber in apples and oranges.

How many people peel their apples or take the seeds out of their oranges,
which reduces the amount of fiber?

~~~
EpicEng
>How many people... take the seeds out of their oranges

...Everyone? Are you saying that you eat the seeds? What?

Either way, no one is developing diabetes because they eat three peeled apples
on a daily basis. C'mon.

~~~
anaphor
Yeah, I eat the seeds ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

And yeah, assuming the rest of your diet is healthy, eating a few apples won't
make you diabetic. The problem is a broader lack of knowledge about what is
healthy. People will eat a lot of garbage, and then eat a few apples and think
that it offsets all of the pizza/burgers/soda/etc they ate somehow.

Watch this show
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Eaters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Eaters)

~~~
EpicEng
>Yeah, I eat the seeds ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Ha, well more power to you brother.

>And yeah, assuming the rest of your diet is healthy, eating a few apples
won't make you diabetic. The problem is a broader lack of knowledge about what
is healthy. People will eat a lot of garbage, and then eat a few apples and
think that it offsets all of the pizza/burgers/soda/etc they ate somehow.

Sure, people tend to be pretty ignorant about how this stuff works on any
level. When I see someone talk about fibrous fruit in the same vein as refined
sugar though... I feel someone has to call that out.

------
decoyworker
>More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have
pre-diabetes or diabetes. Cardiovascular disease afflicts about 122 million
people and causes roughly 840,000 deaths each year, or about 2,300 deaths each
day. Three in four adults are overweight or obese. More Americans are sick, in
other words, than are healthy.

Jesus Christ. Aside from many of the obvious causes I think the public just
has no idea what a "good" scientifically supported eating habit looks like.
They turn to fad diets that go around social media. Their heart is in the
right place but it's become difficult to determine BS from scientifically
supported habits- even on this site I see fad diets being promoted. Internet
searches usually turn up blogs touting fad diets and not real science. The
deck is stacked against the average citizen in this regard.

------
gentro
To get people eating more healthily you have to get them accustomed to eating
healthy dishes. In India a go-to meal might be various curries with legumes
and vegetables. In Japan an everyday meal might include grilled fish and tofu
soup. In America many people default to foods like fatty ribs and butter-laden
mashed potatoes.

They may want to eat healthier but people turn to foods out of familiarity and
convenience. People don't have time to always think of new ways to eat
vegetables. When you encourage Americans to eat more vegetables many will
instantly think MORE SALAD. I mean salad is great but it's not enjoyable all
the time.

You can think of different food cultures as providing different proportions of
nutrients. American schools should introduce kids to food from other parts of
the world early on that taste great and are great for the body. If they
default to tried and true "American" foods like burgers and pizza, they
prepare young people for a lifetime of unhealthy eating.

------
tzs
This is way to radical to ever actually be tried, but sometimes I think what
we need to do is put taxes or subsidies on pretty much everything that has
calories to make it so that all foods cost the same per calorie to the eater.

That would make keeping track of your calories a lot easier, which may make it
easier for most people to get to and maintain a healthy weight.

It would probably also result in healthier eating for most people. When you
see that a big sugary soda takes up the same amount of your food budget as a
nice big steak, you are probably going to drink less sugary soda. To avoid
feeling hungry at the end of the day, you'll shift to more foods that make you
feel full without giving a lot of calories, and/or to foods that provide high
satiety.

~~~
Darkstack
IMHO, Calorie is an awfull unit when it comes to nutritions.

------
atlasunshrugged
I'm likely slightly biased due to recency (I'm researching the effect of
tobacco taxes in LMIC's) but I think the tax component is critical here. It's
not strongly emphasized here but as it's coming more into vogue, sin (or as
they're rebranding) health taxes, are one of the more effective ways to get
people to cut down on using something. I don't have the data on the company
side, just the consumer side, but if you look to other inelastic markets such
as tobacco, increased taxes have been massively effective. Add to this the
fact that the higher taxes on these goods can also lead not just to reduced
health care costs for individuals and the nation, but also to increased
revenues that can be allocated for net positive uses. It'll also likely be
more effective pound for pound than tobacco taxes because (well, I'm just
wildly speculating here) I can't imagine Kellogg's and Kraft engaging in some
of the schemes that the tobacco companies do to avoid taxes.

~~~
RandallBrown
Increased taxes on sugary drinks in Seattle have not led to a decrease in
consumption.

The consumption appears to be growing faster than the population.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-
les...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-less-soda-
the-sugar-tax-is-seattles-fastest-growing-revenue-source-for-2019/)

~~~
munificent
From the article:

 _> But by definition and by its main purpose, this tax should erode over
time. If the revenues don’t start dropping, at least relative to population
growth, then it just isn’t working._

This is an easy statistical mistake to make. He is comparing today's
consumption to the past and declaring failure because the today isn't better.
But the correct comparison to make is today versus _the alternate today we
would have now if the tax had not been passed._

It may be that sugary drink consumption has gone up, but would have gone up
_even more_ had the tax not been passed. In that case, the tax is a success.

Of course, figuring out how to estimate and measure an alternate timeline is
hard. But that's what you have to try to do to make sound choices.

------
h2odragon
Lots of plonking pronunciations about "what humans should eat" in the comments
here. Not everyone needs the same diet; sure there's some gross
classifications we can make but any individuals level of "too much" sugar will
be different from another's. There's little concern for this in most
discussion of nutrition.

I survive on meat, cheese, and refined sugars, chiefly dextrose. I wouldn't
recommend my diet even to those with my medical condition, universally; but it
does work for me. Most of the dietary advice thrown so confidently on this
thread would kill me quick.

------
acd
I have a theory that added food sugar makes people more aggressive as that
what is happening in monkeys. Could sugar have the same effect in humans?
Reason human and monkey dna are quite similar.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-
bann...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-
eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html)

~~~
anaphor
Any stimulant is likely to make you act more aggressively.

------
SolaceQuantum
One of the interesting things mentioned here but not really explored is the
claim that custom provided meals according to health needs delivered to the
home actually saves money.

Does anyone know if this is true and where this came from?

------
maxerickson
There's no inherent reason that new technologies will increase costs.

They are often introduced with high prices, but a closer look also often shows
that they are still cheaper than the care they replace.

------
amriksohata
Watch "fed up" and "cowspiracy" on netflix about how powerful the food
industry is to shut all this down, they rather you get ill and buy more meds

------
ivankolev
The ideas in "Sustainable"[1] are a good start.

[1] [https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/](https://sustainablefoodfilm.com/)

------
aswanson
I'm noticing this in my peer group. Folks way too young to be having serious
health issues dying or seriously sick, all diet related.

------
m3kw9
Coca-Cola is gonna do a counter study with findings that shows health benefits
of drinking Coke™

------
enginaar
any way I can read this without a paywall?

~~~
pizza
Try clicking on the 'web' link under the HN title and going through the google
search results page.

~~~
enginaar
got it, thanks a lot.

------
boyadjian
It is sad that the photo illustrating this article shows cheeseburgers.
Cheeseburgers haven't killed anybody. Cheeseburgers are not junk-food. Stop
making amalgams.

~~~
Ensorceled
Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese. One cheeseburger is basically a
quarter of your fat and sodium for the day.

Agreed that the large soda that many wash that cheeseburger down with is
certainly worse (320 calories of pure sugar), but they are certainly junk
food.

~~~
liability
> _" Highly processed flour bun. Processed cheese"_

If you choose to make a cheeseburger out of that sort of garbage, that's on
you.

> _" One cheeseburger is basically a quarter of your fat and sodium for the
> day."_

A cheeseburger is also one third of the meals I might eat in a day, so if
anything, one fourth of my daily sodium and fat intake is too little.

~~~
Ensorceled
Those WERE the cheeseburgers in the photo. Those are the garbage cheeseburgers
we are talking about.

If you make a burger out of lean ground chuck, a whole grain bun and real
cheese that is a different discussion.

Also, the burgers pictured (McDonald's cheeseburgers) are only ~250 calories,
so I don't see how that is one-quarter of your daily food intake.

------
giggles_giggles
It's sort of ironic that the NYT decided to caption a shot of a soda fountain
calling for more taxes on sugary drinks when the high fructose corn syrup is
only so cheap in the first place because of subsidies. Maybe instead of
subsidizing on one end and taxing the other we could just stop subsidizing
unhealthy foods?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Perverse incentives. Corn farmers are in Iowa. Iowa is where presidential
elections start [1], and several Congressional reps are from. Hence, the need
to pander to these folks and their biofuel and ag subsidies if your run for
office touches Iowa ag.

If you can't dissuade unhealthy subsidies as a state or other jurisdiction,
you're only left with enacting your own opposite disincentives. Farmers are
going to hold onto their subsidies to the bitter end, no different than fossil
fuel/O&G industry. I'm always surprised when people assume these economic
actors would do the "right thing" voluntarily.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses)

~~~
giggles_giggles
The Presidential caucus may have something to do with it but "and several
Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate
representation in Congress, or don't deserve representation. Iowa has 4 reps.
California, for comparison, has 48. I don't think those 4 reps are the reason
for these subsidies. Maybe the Caucus makes it a political third rail. I think
most voters are simply ignorant of the situation, however. That ignorance
could be alleviated by better reporting by large organizations like the NYT.

~~~
dragonwriter
> and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have
> disproportionate representation in Congress

They do, specifically in the upper house of Congress: Iowa has about one
Senator per 1.55 million people; the US as a whole has about 1 per 3.3
million, California has less than one per 19 million.

> Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48.

Actually, California has 53 seats in the House, but the House is approximately
proportional to population; while there is a pretty big range in
representation ratios for the songle-district states because of the limits of
whole representatives, the real ddisproportion in Congress is in the Senate.

