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

61–70 of 329 posts

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

#61

Post by NegativeLatency »

test6554 wrote: post #58
losteric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.

Where I come from, if a person buys and eats junk and gets obese, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who sells junk, and certainly not the fault of taxpayers. Their additional costs should come out of their own pockets.

What about the gov subsidies of corn that got us to the current situation?

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

#62

Post by kunimu »

test6554 wrote: post #58
losteric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.

Where I come from, if a person buys and eats junk and gets obese, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who sells junk, and certainly not the fault of taxpayers. Their additional costs should come out of their own pockets.

I think there's certainly an argument to be made for social health care, the restriction of that health care for certain illnesses, and limiting the ability or capacity of companies to knowingly and deliberately entrap people into a cycle of sugar "addiction". Of course they are only offering goods to sell, but the effects of this simplified reductionist view are seen through society and deserve to be studied and inspected.

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

#63

Post by pizza234 »

leadingthenet wrote: post #51
gtrubetskoy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because price per pound: Erythritol: $20 Sugar: $0.44 Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mhVolO... [Google cache, the original PDF is 404 Not Found] Edit: looks like one can find erythritol for as little as $15, which is still 34 times more than sugar.

Well sure, now. But once the forces of scale take over it could potentially become cheaper than sugar.

> Doses over 50 grams (1.8 oz) can cause severe diarrhea, plus a significant increase in nausea and stomach rumbling.

... and that's "just" 50 grams.

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

#64

Post by doitLP »

Interesting but not surprising. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, don't publish or cancel studies that show unfavorable results all the time and no one makes a fuss. Who knows the loss to the community and consumers at large in terms of knowledge and health?

Beyond that, the take away is yet again: If it's a shortcut or if it's delicious, it's bad for you. (gazes longingly at holiday cookies on desk)

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

#65

Post by trhway »

QAPereo wrote: post #37
sddfd wrote: post #13

This doesn't surprise me at all. It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming. There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke…

Common factor: Money to be made. Tobacco was the core of many states' economies, and still remains a massive industry which makes many people wealthy. Dealing with CO2 emissions would have required dealing with fossil fuel use... and that's tons of money and power in play there. Sugar is, at the very least, another substance people crave, and has been making people rich for hundreds of years. Delaying tactics are fea…

another major key factor is to maintain majority of [voting] population in the mental state impossible to penetrate by voice of reason. Such state is typically initiated by low quality education and maintained by local and global populist hysteria (that includes religion) based on anger, fear, envy, ...

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

#66

Post by s73ver_ »

test6554 wrote: post #58
losteric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.

Where I come from, if a person buys and eats junk and gets obese, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who sells junk, and certainly not the fault of taxpayers. Their additional costs should come out of their own pockets.

That's an extremely short sighted way to look at things, which gives a complete pass to a bunch of bad actors in the system.

Why is it always "personal responsibility", but never "corporate responsibility"?

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

#68

Post by DanBC »

merb wrote: post #40
DanBC wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current thinking is that the binding of the sugar to fibre in fruit and veg makes it better than raw sugar.

no that's not true. current thinking is just that if you eat fruites and vegs that you probably don't eat so much that you can get sick. however when it comes to drinks (i.e. smoothies, apple juice, orange juice) we already know that they could be as worse as cola. (from a sugar perspective). fructose is as worse as sacarose for a human beign if you eat/drink too much of it. it is just worse in another way i.e. it ca…

no, really, current thinking is that whole fruit is better than juice or smoothies because blending releases the sugar, which is otherwise somewhat bound to the fibre.

Of course, it's far easier to overconsume blended fruit, but there are studies showing an increased risk of t2 diabetes from drinking limited amounts of fruit juice, and over consumption isn't the whole story.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-may-lower-diabetes-ri...

https://www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/fruit-juice-and-type-2-diab...

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

#69

Post by nlperguiy »

jacek wrote: post #57
nlperguiy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert Lustig is a quack although. Many of the things he said in his famous online talk are outright lie. He gave an example of Japanese and their healthiness, yet they eat way more fructose than the USA citizen he cites. There's a whole other bunch of misinformation in his speech and his studies are filled with flawed design (no control group, p hacking etc.).

I have not heard about it. Could you give me a link and information on those lies please?

Article below has more than 50 references that describe the argument well.

http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-tr...

You can check the sources yourself too.

Although, I believe Lustig changed the narrative and is currently promoting diets rich in starch (which means high volume - low calories) and most of his studies produce a caloric deficit (while he denies it despite the fact that less calories are metabolized due to digestion of starch).

I believe he also likes referencing fructose extract consumption studies that have no direct mapping to a real diet. For example, consumping 100g of fructose through fruit won't do you any harm.

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

#70

Post by justboxing »

sddfd wrote: post #13

This doesn't surprise me at all. It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming. There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke…

> It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.

Yep, and the Sugar Industry used the same tactics as Big Tobacco. They cleverly paid 'Researchers' to conclude that 'There's just not enough evidence, so more evidence is needed' and kept kicking the can down the road. They also did a media blitz campaign to discredit the real scientists who proved the tobacco links / sugar links to cancer.[1]

[1] Source: http://sugarcoateddoc.com

Post reply on HN