Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" I think helps explain why poor Americans are gaining weight. You get what you incentivise and relieve responsibility for.
Big Ag and Big Food got the government, in typical regulatory capture fashion, to create a food pyramid that is largely inverted from what it should look like. They used classic propaganda methods to get people to eat more carbs and more seed oils (the latter of which barely existed a hundred years ago), at the same time telling everyone dairy and meat fats are bad. The "poor" are likely more susceptible to propaganda; hence, they are likely bigger believers in the lie that Ancel Keys started 60 years ago (famously before the obesity epidemic began) that "carbs good, fats bad."
It's a time bomb and a large part of the reason our lifespans averaged only about 79 years (shorter lives than those in many other countries) before the jab started killing off young people, bringing it down to 76.
While I agree with you on the contributions of long-standing food and farm programs and policies to our obesity crisis, could you explain how snack foods are made intentionally to be "addictive?" I spent 22 years in the food industry, including 16 for a company that made snack foods (baked), and never once did I ever hear a discussion about making them "addictive." Let's not forget restaurant world, which makes massive portions and loads their products up with all manner of calories, and the growth in alcohol consumption.
Yes, I remember that story (sigh) and my former food industry colleague Michael Mudd's campaign for the food industry to take the full blame for the obesity crisis. One of his tactics was to find the occasional food scientist to claim addiction was intentional, just like "Big Tobacco" in the 1950s. I've worked with dozens of food scientists and techologists over more than two decades. While food makers and marketers deserve some blame for some of their past decisions and claims, making foods "addictive" is not one anyone should take seriously. Food makers have clearly worked overtime to improve their foods, from reducing sodium to reducing calories. But they will continue to make food that consumers want that are inexpensive, taste good, and are convenient. If we would spend less time subsizing "program crops" like corn and soybeans and invest instead in nutrition education in schools, early, that might turn the tide over time. Obesity rates have only climbed as food makers have been over backwards to improve their products' profiles. Stop blaming food companies. This is a multi-faceted and complicated issue, and the key is incentiving consumers to purchase and behave differently.
I didn't blame food companies. 99% of the article focused on the government's role. A single line of acknowledging that food companies might be designing foods that people want to keep eating is hardly an indictment.
Yes, it is. It is a very loaded word. It led to today's policies and programs with tobacco. Unlike food, there was actual proof of addictiveness. In using it, you are blaming food companies.
Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" I think helps explain why poor Americans are gaining weight. You get what you incentivise and relieve responsibility for.
Get free, stay safe.
Big Ag and Big Food got the government, in typical regulatory capture fashion, to create a food pyramid that is largely inverted from what it should look like. They used classic propaganda methods to get people to eat more carbs and more seed oils (the latter of which barely existed a hundred years ago), at the same time telling everyone dairy and meat fats are bad. The "poor" are likely more susceptible to propaganda; hence, they are likely bigger believers in the lie that Ancel Keys started 60 years ago (famously before the obesity epidemic began) that "carbs good, fats bad."
It's a time bomb and a large part of the reason our lifespans averaged only about 79 years (shorter lives than those in many other countries) before the jab started killing off young people, bringing it down to 76.
its not the calories.. its the added poisons
While I agree with you on the contributions of long-standing food and farm programs and policies to our obesity crisis, could you explain how snack foods are made intentionally to be "addictive?" I spent 22 years in the food industry, including 16 for a company that made snack foods (baked), and never once did I ever hear a discussion about making them "addictive." Let's not forget restaurant world, which makes massive portions and loads their products up with all manner of calories, and the growth in alcohol consumption.
Link got stripped out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html
Yes, I remember that story (sigh) and my former food industry colleague Michael Mudd's campaign for the food industry to take the full blame for the obesity crisis. One of his tactics was to find the occasional food scientist to claim addiction was intentional, just like "Big Tobacco" in the 1950s. I've worked with dozens of food scientists and techologists over more than two decades. While food makers and marketers deserve some blame for some of their past decisions and claims, making foods "addictive" is not one anyone should take seriously. Food makers have clearly worked overtime to improve their foods, from reducing sodium to reducing calories. But they will continue to make food that consumers want that are inexpensive, taste good, and are convenient. If we would spend less time subsizing "program crops" like corn and soybeans and invest instead in nutrition education in schools, early, that might turn the tide over time. Obesity rates have only climbed as food makers have been over backwards to improve their products' profiles. Stop blaming food companies. This is a multi-faceted and complicated issue, and the key is incentiving consumers to purchase and behave differently.
I would also ask you to consider reading my friend Hank Cardello and his fine blog at Forbes Magazine for a more balanced and informative perspective.
I didn't blame food companies. 99% of the article focused on the government's role. A single line of acknowledging that food companies might be designing foods that people want to keep eating is hardly an indictment.
Yes, it is. It is a very loaded word. It led to today's policies and programs with tobacco. Unlike food, there was actual proof of addictiveness. In using it, you are blaming food companies.
You don't like the word choice. That's fine. I'm not going to sit here and quibble semantics with you.
But I'll point out corporations are also among the biggest supporters of SNAP benefits, and lobby year after year to increase them.
On that point, you are absolutely correct. Keep up the good work, I enjoy your posts.