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

#271

Post by aeternum » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:59 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 think in the US people see it as an assault on freedom. Concern that what starts as a suggestion will turn into a tax, and then the tax into a ban. Some value freedom over health.

That may seem illogical since you can't have freedom if you're dead, but we ask people to make a similar trade-off (risk life/health for freedom) when joining the military, and many do.

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

#272

Post by portpecos » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #267

rsanek wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> studies of fat consumption that break out fats into saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fat categories generally show worse health outcomes for people consuming high intakes of poly-unsaturated fats. I will try to find a good study. This is counter to any study that I am familiar with and flies in the face of all nutritional recommendations. Studies that support MUFAs and PUFAs over saturated fats can…

I believe this study does not control for whether the fat is hydrogenated or not. So they are really measuring the effects of trans-fats, which are already known to be bad. That is my general concern with almost all of the nutrition research on fats. They are not grouping the fats appropriately. If you group butter and hyrogenated vegetable oils together because they are both "saturated" fats and then do your analysi…

But Canola oil is higher in monounsaturated fats like Olive Oil: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000785.htm

Why is Canola oil bad if it has the same quantity of monounsaturated fats as Olive Oil?

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

#273

Post by jeffreyrogers » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

portpecos wrote: post #272

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this study does not control for whether the fat is hydrogenated or not. So they are really measuring the effects of trans-fats, which are already known to be bad. That is my general concern with almost all of the nutrition research on fats. They are not grouping the fats appropriately. If you group butter and hyrogenated vegetable oils together because they are both "saturated" fats and then do your analysi…

But Canola oil is higher in monounsaturated fats like Olive Oil: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000785.htm Why is Canola oil bad if it has the same quantity of monounsaturated fats as Olive Oil?

Because it has substantially more poly-unsaturated fats. See this graphic for info: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4DmwKT6rrQf2BMJQwvX2cX-650...

It's not really that saturated or mono-unsaturated fats are good for you, but that poly-unsaturated fats are bad for you. I realize this is contrary to what much of modern nutrition says, but the lipid science says the poly-unsaturated fats are worse because they react more with other molecules in your body.

Also, saturated fat consumption has been declining and unsaturated fat consumption increasing over the past decades while health keeps getting worse. To me, this suggests that something is wrong with our current nutritional understanding, and I believe the lipid science shows that the problem is the poly-unsaturated fats (as one part of it at least, it's obviously not monocausal).

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

#274

Post by throwaway57002 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #243

munk-a wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really go any way towards explaining why Canada, Europe or the Oceania[1] democracies have done so well in the crisis - nor does it explain how Brazil has done so poorly. I think there is more counter evidence then supporting evidence for authoritarian governments being necessary for dealing with pandemics. 1. Please note - comparatively well, Canada, Europe & Oceania aren't doing perfect they're just do…

> Europe [has] done so well in the crisis UK, Sweden, Italy, Spain, and Belgium all have had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than the US. And France has a rate nearly equal to the US. UK, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, and Netherlands all have worse case fatality rates than the US. And so does Canada. (But, this may be because the US has done more testing.) https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05…

Why on earth would 'per capita' be a relevant metric? Is a death less impactful or important when it's in a more populated country?

Also keep in mind Europe was struck before the US - the worst of the first wave is behind them while the US is still riding it down

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

#275

Post by asveikau » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:30 PM UTC

jachell wrote: post #84

thisisnico wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic. Heart attack and stroke are the number one killers, with obesity the highest cause. I'm all for putting warning labels on food showing the potential problems of overconsumption.

I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes. I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.

I think McDonald's is probably ok for you in small portion sizes, no soda, and with reasonable exercise throughout the day.

I think the trouble is that people get big portions, a big soda, and they live their entire lives in a car or seated.

We had McDonald's in the 80s and if you look at random footage of any 1980s street scene you will see fewer obese people than the same places today.

Relatedly, I have a suspicion our basic food ingredients since that time have higher sugar now.

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

#276

Post by macspoofing » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #64

macspoofing wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These products should be outright banned. Folks can make wonderful pastries at home. Sugar is sugar. What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?

You can choose to put less sugar in your homemade pastries. I sometimes bake cookies at home and I use less than half the "recommended" sugar amount, and they still taste sweet. I've never really liked commercial sweet baked food because the high amount of sugar causes a "burning" sensation when I eat them.

You can also buy sugar free pastries. You can also add extra sugar when you bake your pastries.

I don't understand how this invalidates my point that sugar is sugar. That there is no difference between sugar in commercial goods, and sugar you add when you bake at home.

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

#277

Post by acituan » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:39 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #235

acituan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 int…

> I don't really think it's the responsibility of individuals to maximize GDP

Insofar we are in economic competition with other countries, I think being as productive as we can be is also a game of autonomy, survival and values. Ultimately it all drives from individuals carrying their weight (sorry for the pun) which is affected by being in their best shape or disabled.

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

I totally agree. I would say if it comes down to government interventions, there has already been a considerable delay in response. But markets are unable to implement corrective measures proactively, so NGOs and governmental support seems to be the best tools we have for designing a better society. After all, those externalities do exist and keep flowing, whether we take account of them or not.

> though justifying government intervention on that point also justifies forcing medication on people, does it not?

I get your point that these might be on a continuum, but forcing ingestion that defies bodily autonomy is not in the same class of interventions as collecting taxes that try to solve the problem through market based incentives. To add more, to the extent forced institutionalization is implemented, forced medication also does happen.

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

#278

Post by rsanek » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #267

rsanek wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> studies of fat consumption that break out fats into saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fat categories generally show worse health outcomes for people consuming high intakes of poly-unsaturated fats. I will try to find a good study. This is counter to any study that I am familiar with and flies in the face of all nutritional recommendations. Studies that support MUFAs and PUFAs over saturated fats can…

I believe this study does not control for whether the fat is hydrogenated or not. So they are really measuring the effects of trans-fats, which are already known to be bad. That is my general concern with almost all of the nutrition research on fats. They are not grouping the fats appropriately. If you group butter and hyrogenated vegetable oils together because they are both "saturated" fats and then do your analysi…

> Saturated fat consumption is decreasing, while unsaturated fat consumption is increasing

Do you have any source for this? The best I could find suggests that this is probably untrue: "An increase in saturated fat in 2008-12 is notable in several product categories, especially breakfast cereals and yogurt (approximately 15 percent) and frozen/refrigerated meals (6 percent)." [0]

I'd welcome any kind of nutritional study you can reference that shows the problems you're raising with PUFAs. Even if the above studies mentioned didn't control for hydrogenation, if PUFAs were bad for you, we would expect to see poor outcomes from those consuming them. It's weird that people in that category actually did best in the study.

> what is the one common feature of almost all food generally considered harmful?

It's far simpler than looking at added sugar content or amount/type of fat -- the commonality is simply, how processed is this. Any whole food you can consider healthy, but most harmful food is processed (and most processed food is harmful!)

[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/85761/eib-183....

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

#279

Post by thebean11 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

aylmao wrote: post #236

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.

I guess I'm thinking more about restaurants, I never purchased alcohol from a store while underage.

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

#280

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

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…

Is it the vegetable oil or the fact that processed foods come with vegetable oil? Sauteed vegetables with a drizzle of olive oil is a bit different than a TV dinner.