Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children • Hacker News Board

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#231

Post by jeffreyrogers » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

tomjakubowski wrote: post #201

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #86

This is a good idea, and the people in the comments are rightly pointing out sugar's problems. But just as problematic as sugar are vegetable oils which are in almost every packaged product you can buy at the grocery store. They cause all sorts of health problems because the vegetable oils are extremely reactive (due to being unsaturated fats and so having double bonds that can react with other molecules inside your…

> (due to being unsaturated fats and so having single hydrogen bonds that can react with other molecules inside your body). What do you mean by "single hydrogen bonds"? C-H bonds are always single bonds, and I am unfamiliar with any kind of "double" hydrogen (intermolecular) bonding. Unsaturated fats, by definition, have at least one double bond, between carbon atoms.

Sorry, you are correct. I fixed my comment. What I meant was the carbon-carbon double bonds replace a hydrogen atom that would otherwise be there, so the bond can be easily broken when interacting with other molecules (because the carbon-carbon bond is electron rich).

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#232

Post by munk-a » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #185

lhorie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah good catch. Thanks. So we're looking at >99.9% of the population not committing murders.

Doesn't that stat just mean that >99.9% of population has not been murdered. It says nothing to the number of people doing the murdering. It could be a single individual on a massive serial spree, or an individual murder per killing which I find just as unlikely. The point is, your stat isn't stating what you think it is

The calculation above is putting an upper limit on the number of murderers (probably, that's discounting groups of participants in murders, but I'm fine with that as serial murderers are far more common than murder groups)

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#233

Post by hyeomans » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #65

the_70x wrote: post #57

so under the law, anyone selling a candy to a child could be prosecuted as a criminal activity, with Mexico broken law system this seems to be a really bad idea

Would this make the cartels even stronger?

always

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#234

Post by flavor8 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

xtracto wrote: post #188

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #86

This is a good idea, and the people in the comments are rightly pointing out sugar's problems. But just as problematic as sugar are vegetable oils which are in almost every packaged product you can buy at the grocery store. They cause all sorts of health problems because the vegetable oils are extremely reactive (due to being unsaturated fats and so having double bonds that can react with other molecules inside your…

I've read that Safflower oil or Avocado oil are one of the healthiest oils to cook. Safflower oil is supposedly even good for you. As with everything, moderation is a key factor.

"Everything in moderation" isn't actually great diet advice. There's a paper floating around somewhere showing that people with a limited diet of healthy things fare better than people with a very wide diet that included unhealthy things.

My take is that "everything in moderation" is a mental crutch that people adopt when there's some part of their diet that they know isn't _good_ but that they don't want to give up completely. It is true that we can sneak in unhealthy food here and there without hugely detrimental effects, but that doesn't mean it's a good baseline practice.

The one scenario where it might be useful advice is with somebody whose diet is terrible, and you want to ease them towards a somewhat nutritionally positive diet; even in this circumstance, a more direct approach of "eat less crap and more good stuff" would be more accurate.

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#235

Post by ksdale » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #121

ksdale wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs are only borne by the taxpayer where the taxpayer pays for healthcare, but that's a choice as well. We could just as easily say that the taxpayer won't be responsible for the cost. We've chosen to have the taxpayer bear the cost, which is very probably good and right, but I think we should be careful using that fact to make decisions about other people's body's. I think this can be distinguished from other exte…

> We could just as easily say that the taxpayer won't be responsible for the cost. I thought Covid made it obvious that there is no insular, zero-externality health of individuals. Public health is a public commons, and we will be responsible for the cost whether through taxes and preventive action or through other channels in a reactive manner. Being obese has tons of externalities other than healthcare costs. Highe…

These are very interesting points! Though, I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP, and people who die younger generally incur lower lifetime medical expenses than people who die older, which plausibly more than offsets things like aircraft fuel. People who eat too much also plausibly subsidize food for the rest of us.

Mental health is a good point, though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not? And then the issue of defining where something veers from merely annoying to "mental health problem."

I'm wary of defining externalities so expansively that they justify any intervention.

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#236

Post by aylmao » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

thebean11 wrote: post #118

Mexico is known for disregarding laws on alcohol sales to minors..what exactly do they expect the outcome of this to be? Just another way for the police to steal money from the poor. Great job.

> Mexico is known for disregarding laws on alcohol sales to minors..what exactly do they expect the outcome of this to be?

I grew up in Mexico. You can definitely get booze before you're 18 if you're crafty and find the right store, but I don't see any general "outright disregard" of laws on alcohol sales to minors. I went to college in the USA— it's essentially the same.

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#237

Post by mytailorisrich » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #216

mytailorisrich wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring the point. The issue is one of culture (and parenting when it comes to children), in Mexico and in all other countries. Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. It's also a complete fallacy to claim that people cannot see through things. People are not stupid they know that it is their diet that makes them fat. People deserve at least this credit and respect.…

> Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. Calling things 'left', 'ideology', 'fallacy' and randomly saying things are 'completely different' aren't great arguments if you keep it at statements instead of an argument. Marketing is _very_ effective. Further, people are paid for to ensure it is effective. Having rules to restrict that behaviour does go against some peoples ide…

Well, I'm happy to hear your arguments, then...

It seems obvious to me that alcohol and cigarettes are not the same thing as telling people what to eat or feed their children. I'm happy to hear your take on this.

It also seems obvious to me that people in fine choose what to eat and drink. No-one ever put a gun to my head, for example. I absolutely agree that marketing influences choices, but only up to a point. Certainly the quantity is a personal choice. Giving Coke to your children for breakfast (I have seen it here in England) is a personal choice. A crap diet is a personal choice.

I also think that parents are responsible for their children. Marketing targeted at children is beside the point. Of course it will work, but again only up to a point: in fine it is the parents' decision to let anything go or to impose limits. I am a parent, I know but I'm also happy to hear your views on this.

And finally, it is also clear to me that blaming corporations (and behind them capitalism) for people's bad diets is a political stance because it fits the view that people are oppressed and victims of the system. But it's also the politically easy and low-risk thing to do because you don't scold people you want to convince to vote for you.

I agree that parents and children should be educated, that's even what I wrote in my previous comment. But let's also acknowledge people's responsibility in their life choices.

My take on the situation (at least here in England) is not that people don't know or that they are victims, it's simply that they couldn't care less.

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#238

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

calibas wrote: post #137

navailable wrote: post #39

Covid shows that governments who fail to encourage nutritious diets will end up with higher healthcare costs.

So it's not controversial to suggest a poor diet leads to things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease, nor is it controversial to suggest that the novel coronavirus is much more deadly for people with preexisting conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. For some reason though, if I put those two things together and suggest people eat healthier during this pandemic, it's this incredibly controversial thing…

i mean it does sound kind of jerk-ish because it's not like telling someone who is obese right now to eat better is going to drastically reduce his pandemic risks in a week.

I'm generally sceptical of tying this kind of advice to crises anyway. It's a social and long-term issue. We ought to eat better not just so that we are better prepared for a pandemic but because it's the right thing to do in general.

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#239

Post by aylmao » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

cpursley wrote: post #159

It's interesting how quick people are to blame US corporations when it's the US government that subsidizes cheap carbs through the farm subsidy program (and on the flip-size in the US, subsidize the purchase of junk food via food stamps). Also, banning sales to children doesn't solve the real culprit - parents buying the junk food for their own children. At least in America, watch any parent fill up their carts and p…

> Also, banning sales to children doesn't solve the real culprit - parents buying the junk food for their own children. At least in America, watch any parent fill up their carts and pay attention to what they buy.

I grew up in Mexico. There's definitely a culture of drinking soda with meals for example. Parent's are definitely responsible for that.

There's also definitely a lot of children buying junk food with their allowances. The individual bag of chips is very popular, and it's sold in every "corner store" on every neighborhood (I've seen less of these in the USA, but they're everywhere in Mexico).

Re: Mexican states are moving to ban the sale of junk food to children

#240

Post by bkor » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #205

calibas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not controversial to suggest a poor diet leads to things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease, nor is it controversial to suggest that the novel coronavirus is much more deadly for people with preexisting conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. For some reason though, if I put those two things together and suggest people eat healthier during this pandemic, it's this incredibly controversial thing…

People just hate being told what to eat - it's as simple as that. I've given up trying to explain that dietary preferences are surprisingly elastic, and highly dependant on what you've recently eaten. It's something that's obvious to anyone who's dabbled with any sort of dietary modification (e.g. cutting down on carbs, or trying out vegetarianism for a bit, or just cutting out soda). Your tastes change surprisingly…

> People just hate being told what to eat - it's as simple as that.

In Netherlands in loads of restaurant the vegetarian option will taste terrible. In recent years that's slowly changing. I often wondered why someone chose the vegetarian option, it looked and tasted terrible. It wasn't just the initial impression, everything vegetarian was bad to terrible. Plus stupidity on my part, instead of buying something nice that's vegetarian I'd try terrible meat-replacements.

To me someone eating vegetarian was someone giving up enjoying food.

IMO it's nicer to focus on the positives rather than on what someone cannot or should not do. E.g. various colleagues are now vegan. Some just because the vegan diet is better for them (more energy, sleeping, etc). That's stuff they experienced, I'm not vegan/vegetarian.

Another thing I realized is that sometimes the meat part in a dish is actually terrible. A lot of the chicken in Netherlands is sold with a huge amount of added water. It actually does not taste any good, sometimes it is not even noticeable that it is in a dish. A vegan friend was visiting, I already was doubting why I was adding chicken to a dish. Replacing the chicken resulted in a nicer dish (cauliflower with mango chutney plus loads of other spices). Since that experience that dish will at least be vegetarian.

Further, why not let people experience it? Instead of saying that they'll change, maybe say it might happen. IMO it's not that important someone completely changes their diet or never eats something. If they go from regularly eating meat to sometimes eating meat that's already a huge change.