Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 329 posts

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#171

Post by kaybe »

leggomylibro wrote: post #74
ashark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.

The diesel fumes you get from walking along any road will probably be high on the list. One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners fo…

Funfact: The highest concentration of NO2 is not found around pedestrians but inside the cars. Most models don't have suitable filter in the standard issue outside of Europe and Japan (and there only the higher-class private ones).

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#172

Post by mpd »

Retric wrote: post #164
mpd wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even peanuts become candy under your definition.

Peanuts are candy. Just look at a snickers/payday/Mr. Goodbar or 50+ others that add peanuts with say caramel/chocolate/etc. They can be fine as part of a larger dish, but really don't make a heathy snack on their own.

I'm not sure why you brought chocolate and caramel into the picture, but I'm going to stick with my opinion that peanuts are not candy.

I think you're attempting to redefine a word to fit your narrative, and I'm not having it.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#173

Post by jessaustin »

tinha wrote: post #72
ams6110 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is that in the 1970s and 80s people started freaking out about fat. Everyone from the FDA to USDA to family doctor was telling people fat was bad. So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and muffins. The latter probably h…

There's a documentary on Netflix about this, I think it's called Sugar x Fat.

Does anyone have an opinion on this one, also on Netflix?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Health

It's pro-veganism and the narrator is a goofy manchild, but has credible (to me anyway) medical experts.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#174

Post by ellyagg »

Being overweight is a much stronger correlate to cancer and heart disease than "sugar".

And, despite what you might have read in the press, it's nowhere near a consensus that sugar is the primary cause of being overweight. You really think a 50-year-old study is the smoking gun that's going to usher in a consensus among nutrition scientists everywhere?

Personally, I buy Stephen Guyenet's theory that palatability is the driver of overweight. I think it's increasing palatability and falling food costs.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#175

Post by megy »

kaybe wrote: post #171
leggomylibro wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The diesel fumes you get from walking along any road will probably be high on the list. One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners fo…

Funfact: The highest concentration of NO2 is not found around pedestrians but inside the cars. Most models don't have suitable filter in the standard issue outside of Europe and Japan (and there only the higher-class private ones).

Good, exactly where it should be highest.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#176

Post by DonHopkins »

Happy Jax => Sugar Crisp => Super Sugar Crisp => Super Golden Crisp => Golden Crisp

But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws there or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp

At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cracker Jack's candy-coated popcorn. The product concept was re-introduced unsuccessfully in 1939 by another business as Ranger Joe, the first pre-sweetened, candy-coated breakfast cereal. Post Foods introduced their own version in 1948. The Post version was originally called Happy Jax, and was renamed to Sugar Crisp the next year. The name was later changed to Super Sugar Crisp, and in 1985, it was changed again to Super Golden Crisp. Finally, it was changed to Golden Crisp (during a time when many cereals dropped the word "Sugar" from their titles) in the American market.

In the early 1970s, there was a short-lived variation on the original Sugar Crisp, called Super Orange Crisp, which had orange-flavored O's in it.

The product is still sold as Sugar Crisp in Canada. In Canada, the box still displays the Sugar Bear mascot and the phrase "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp."

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#177

Post by jessaustin »

wolco wrote: post #126
tomjen3 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only upvoted you because Aspartame is such an interesting case - no other food that I can think of has had such vitrol thrown at it, yet every single scientific study has shown no effect on blood sugar, the chemical is simple, the two compounds it breaks down to in the liver are already present in the body and its properties are well known. Yet people still hate it.

From my limited life experience: It tastes bad to the average male, it leaves a bad after taste that is really noticable. Females don't seem to notice the after taste.

I used to feel that way and I am male, but I've found that now that I've consumed a lot, it no longer has that effect.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#178

Post by anigbrowl »

jmurinello wrote: post #132
anigbrowl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit similar but I don't think it's good to make second-hand comparisons. Cravings are not a simple binary. Like, if you consume cocaine for pleasure then you can have a craving to keep doing more until you run out or its time to go home or whatever. But below a certain threshold the craving isn't that strong, so you could have a little bit and then get on with your day, much as you might have a cup of coffee i…

I agree, although when it comes to sugar we way past that threshold, since most of us crave for food many times a day when glucose levels drops.

Ah sorry, I was thinking of craving in terms of 'you want it whether or not you actually need it' as happens in abuse and addiction.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#179

Post by megaman22 »

wolco wrote: post #126
tomjen3 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only upvoted you because Aspartame is such an interesting case - no other food that I can think of has had such vitrol thrown at it, yet every single scientific study has shown no effect on blood sugar, the chemical is simple, the two compounds it breaks down to in the liver are already present in the body and its properties are well known. Yet people still hate it.

From my limited life experience: It tastes bad to the average male, it leaves a bad after taste that is really noticable. Females don't seem to notice the after taste.

I don't notice any bitterness, but I've been drinking Diet Pepsi for something like 20 years.

Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago

#180

Post by blackbagboys »

jmurinello wrote: post #86

I consider sugar to be no different from cocaine (not that I ever tried), but we crave for it the same way people who consume that drug or any other, crave for. Sugar is everywhere, and it's our main source of energy, being that our body feels terrible when its levels are low, but as soon as you eat it feels wonderful. The same goes with cocaine.

If you ever do try cocaine I suspect you'll quickly revise your opinion.
Post reply on HN