Why isn't there a fight against unhealthy food like is for drugs?

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an addendum to the above, that summary isn't uniform with regards to -all- produce.  Kale, cabbage, etc- these are largely harvested ripe and have a better shelf life without any need for additional procedures (though many are still applied) and the nutritional density of a piece of cabbage today is or would be largely the same as the nutritional density of a piece of cabbage "back in the day": - or, in some cases higher, since they've been bred to that effect or since they're grown in a more amenable environment with access to the nutrients they require in order to produce the nutrients we require.

[Homeless Nutter]

That ones actually true, but it's partially offset by the fact that we have access to more food.  The average american has greater access to nutrition, but only because the average american consumes an inordinately larger amount of food by mass.  Veggies as grown and marketed are, effectively, water balloons.  They're sold by weight, the weight is water, and the producer wants them in-space and out-of-space asap...so the hormones and cultural practices applied mostly serve the purpose of increasing the speed and uptake of held weight-in-water of any given piece of produce, necessarily diluting it's nutritional density while simultaneously increasing it's market value.  Additionally, ripe produce is not as transportable and gives the middlemen and points of sale less time to "sell it or smell it".  So what we have on the shelves, are less-than ripe water baloons.  Tomatoes, for example, are picked stone green for transport at the height of their mass before they ripen and become susceptible to disease and rot and pests, and then gassed red for sale.  They taste like watery shit because, at that point in their life, there just isn't much else to them.  

Fair enough - I can believe, that a lot of produce from modern farms contains more water per weight. I wouldn't be so quick to attribute that entirely to nefarious motivations, though - it's just that more primitive ways of cultivation tends to produce smaller fruit and veg. Also - ripening fruit, like tomatoes, bananas, avocados or mangoes, after they've been harvested is hardly a new practice. You can do it at home, without gassing them and I'm fairly certain it used to be a common practice in the days before refrigeration.

Also - I do not believe that obesity problem is caused by consuming water. So if that's all there is to it - just eat an extra tomato, or whatever and you'll get all the nutrients you want and piss out the water. It's still cheaper, than buying "organic" (which still has no guarantee of being more nutritious).

This one could be true as well, depending on what Paul is trying to say.  In addition to the above, supermarkets have massive incentives to stock their shelves with non-perishable processed goods.   Producers have massive incentives to peddle those products, since they represent the majority of produced mass on-farm.  The actual produce is only a small portion of the plant, and the produce good enough to make it to produce shelves a vanishingly small percentage of that.  The rest has to be marketable, or else the producer couldn't afford to (or shouldn't..even if they could) produce that product.  Supermarkets stock their shelves with unhealthy shit because it tastes good, sure..but also because it's cheaper for them to stock their shelves with that.  They;d rather sell you canned sauce than a ripe tomato....and they know you'll buy it, so that's what they do.

Sure - processed foods may be a problem, especially when one relies on them entirely for one's diet. Still - processing food is not a modern invention. People used to have to do it by themselves, at home, by making preserves and compotes, salting, pickling and so on, so that they had stuff to eat in the winter. All of that reduces nutritional value of food, but it's simply a necessity in a world, where we don't want half of our children to starve during winter. And since most of us don't want to spend most of our free time making pickles and jams - it's only natural, that there's an industry providing those products.

And let's not forget - supermarkets throw away massive amounts of fresh food, that goes bad and food waste in the western world is huge. If they were to stock the shelves mainly with fresh, ripe fruits and vegetables that waste would by multiplied, requiring larger percentage of land to be used for agriculture, in order to feed the growing populations. There are some sacrifices we have to make, if we insist on breeding out of control. And - ironically enough - most people insisting on outdated methods of agriculture, seem to be the same ones, that have large families...

---

I'm at work so can't reply very extensively.

It wasn't a hippy who told me about farming and veg having less nutrients in. It was in one of those weekly magazines they sell. Science weekly or whatever, I can't remember the title.
It really depends on where you live though, I live in the U.K. Nigerians I know say fruit and veg tastes much better and is more nutritious and easily grown naturally over there.

Yes, well - most people I know say, that produce in their country of origin tastes better - even if it's grown using modern, "industrial" methods. There could be a lot of reasons for that, especially, that taste is subjective and nostalgia is a powerful thing.

I'm skeptical that someone can lose weight by doing no exercise and eat as much fat as they want but from what I recall it's due to eating less carbs. I knew a woman who did that diet and it worked but she didn't go crazy with eating fat and she still excersised.

If we're bringing up anecdotal evidence, I had a boss - a restaurant owner - who lost a huge amount of weight, by going on Atkins and doing no exercise. I'm sure he gained it back, once he went back to eating carbs, but the point is - losing weight is not as simple as eating less.

And exercise is largely misrepresented, when it comes to losing weight. I used to rollerblade 10-20km a day and never lost weight. Recently I haven't been exercising at all and all I did was cutting down on sugar and I've been losing weight with no effort. Exercise is important for your health, but not really good for losing weight, because it makes you eat more.

As I said - losing/putting on weight is not as simple, as some people would like to make it seem.

[paulpablo]

I've done no scientific experiments relating to obesity or weight loss.

I am relating to anecdotal evidence in a way, I've always noticed people who have had a problem with their weight have eaten too much food, namely fast food containing lots of salt sugar and fat. And they didn't burn enough of it off.

I've never seen anyone get fat because of all the salads they've been eating and running they've been doing.

When I was speaking about farming practices I'm just going off memory, what I read in that science magazine over a year ago, and documentaries I've seen on tv about how the nutriants in our veg in developed countries isn't as high as it used to be.

But I wasn't talking specifically about obesity when I mentioned that, I was just relating that back to the main topic in general which is food regulations.

[Homeless Nutter]

I am relating to anecdotal evidence in a way, I've always noticed people who have had a problem with their weight have eaten too much food, namely fast food containing lots of salt sugar and fat. And they didn't burn enough of it off.[...]

And have you never met people, who eat fast food, don't exercise and yet remain skinny? Because I have. My brother, for example, always ate (and drank more alcohol) more than I did, never did any sports, while I did and throughout most of his life remained thinner than I was. This has changed with age, though and now - in our late 30's - he seems to be putting on weight, while I seem to be losing it, even though his line of work requires more physical activity than mine. Of course - neither of us was ever obese. But I've known number of people, who never put on weight, regardless of their life-style and some, that put on weight, due to medical conditions, like hypothyroidism, or insomnia. Which is why I keep insisting - it's not as simple as one would like.

And sure, obese people tend not to exercise much - because it's quite a lot more painful to jog while carrying extra 100+ pounds. And they tend to eat more, because what else are they supposed to do? Society tells them, they're worthless, nobody wants to f*ck them, so eating is one of the few pleasures they have left...

[...]
But I wasn't talking specifically about obesity when I mentioned that, I was just relating that back to the main topic in general which is food regulations.

Fair enough. However, if we're talking about food regulations - it's not quite so simple to fight obesity with legislation, especially if you're right and obesity (or generally weight problems) stems mainly from over-eating. Because in that case - the same substances, that we need to consume (in other words - food) cause obesity.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think in the future soda and those sugary starbucks drinks will be as looked down upon as smoking cigarettes.

[Shell B]

Yeah, losing weight really is as simple as diet and exercise, unless you have something wrong with you. People try to make it sound more complicated to make themselves feel better, but it's completely about willpower. You can eat less and not exercise. You can exercise a shit load and not eat less. Those are your options. Sure, you can switch out shit foods for healthy foods and lose weight, but you'd still have to consume foods that take fewer calories to burn than what you were eating before.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fair enough - I can believe, that a lot of produce from modern farms contains more water per weight. I wouldn't be so quick to attribute that entirely to nefarious motivations, though - it's just that more primitive ways of cultivation tends to produce smaller fruit and veg. Also - ripening fruit, like tomatoes, bananas, avocados or mangoes, after they've been harvested is hardly a new practice. You can do it at home, without gassing them and I'm fairly certain it used to be a common practice in the days before refrigeration.

Except that gassing them isn't anything like ripening them at home in a paper bag or what not.  The gas turns them red, that very instant.  Voila, done.  

OFC it's not done for any nefarious motive, it's just a market reality for the producer, who has bills to pay.  Most of the guys I know who grow tomatos in florida, for example, like to tell people they wait an extra week before they pick em.   They're trying to deliver a quality product insomuch as the market allows them to do so.  

Also - I do not believe that obesity problem is caused by consuming water. So if that's all there is to it - just eat an extra tomato, or whatever and you'll get all the nutrients you want and piss out the water. It's still cheaper, than buying "organic" (which still has no guarantee of being more nutritious).

You'll also get all of the extra "other stuff"...which, granted, isn't the sole cause of obesity...but if you have to eat more food to get the required nutrition out of that same food it is a factor in obesity.   Yes, it's cheaper...and organics are gassed too...so there's no difference there (surprise)...but like much of cheaper food..it's not quite as healthy as it could or should be. We eat more, in part, because food is both inherently and designed to be less filling (in one case because of production process, in another so we eat the whole box).

Sure - processed foods may be a problem, especially when one relies on them entirely for one's diet. Still - processing food is not a modern invention.

Processing as-practiced is a modern invention.  It has little to nothing to do with salting foods, for example.  

People used to have to do it by themselves, at home, by making preserves and compotes, salting, pickling and so on, so that they had stuff to eat in the winter. All of that reduces nutritional value of food, but it's simply a necessity in a world, where we don't want half of our children to starve during winter. And since most of us don't want to spend most of our free time making pickles and jams - it's only natural, that there's an industry providing those products.

People have -never- processed foods the way we do commercially, privately.  How could they?  It takes a lab and a factory floor and equipment beyond the ken of mere mortals.  That shit isn't exactly sitting down in the basement, in granny's canning box.

And let's not forget - supermarkets throw away massive amounts of fresh food, that goes bad and food waste in the western world is huge. If they were to stock the shelves mainly with fresh, ripe fruits and vegetables that waste would by multiplied, requiring larger percentage of land to be used for agriculture, in order to feed the growing populations. There are some sacrifices we have to make, if we insist on breeding out of control. And - ironically enough - most people insisting on outdated methods of agriculture, seem to be the same ones, that have large families...

The food required to restock the shelves is already grown.  It would cost them more, but it wouldn't take any more land.  It really is just a market thing.  No excuses, no nefarious intent, nothing.  The people who insist on outdated methods of agriculture are largely single, upper middle class (my market, bless their hearts). Poor people with tons of kids eat the shit whats on the shelves.



I tell you these things not because I think "modern ag bad" - I think it's awesome. I'm just not interested in hiding it's dirty bits. It's awesome even -including- the dirty bits. The thing we can't forget in any of the above is that before we did it this way, a hell of alot more people starved - and people still do starve. So, any issues with the nutritional density or taste quality of a tomato are decidedly first world problems. I certainly don't advocate for (and don't live off of) traditional agriculture. There's no money it it, firstly, lol.

[Jackalope]

@OP

I suspect it has a great deal to do with shitty food being extremely profitable. What with our government being a wholly owned subsidiary of Lobbyists Inc., what else would you expect?

[paulpablo]

I am relating to anecdotal evidence in a way, I've always noticed people who have had a problem with their weight have eaten too much food, namely fast food containing lots of salt sugar and fat. And they didn't burn enough of it off.[...]

And have you never met people, who eat fast food, don't exercise and yet remain skinny? Because I have. My brother, for example, always ate (and drank more alcohol) more than I did, never did any sports, while I did and throughout most of his life remained thinner than I was. This has changed with age, though and now - in our late 30's - he seems to be putting on weight, while I seem to be losing it, even though his line of work requires more physical activity than mine. Of course - neither of us was ever obese. But I've known number of people, who never put on weight, regardless of their life-style and some, that put on weight, due to medical conditions, like hypothyroidism, or insomnia. Which is why I keep insisting - it's not as simple as one would like.

And sure, obese people tend not to exercise much - because it's quite a lot more painful to jog while carrying extra 100+ pounds. And they tend to eat more, because what else are they supposed to do? Society tells them, they're worthless, nobody wants to f*ck them, so eating is one of the few pleasures they have left...

[...]
But I wasn't talking specifically about obesity when I mentioned that, I was just relating that back to the main topic in general which is food regulations.

Fair enough. However, if we're talking about food regulations - it's not quite so simple to fight obesity with legislation, especially if you're right and obesity (or generally weight problems) stems mainly from over-eating. Because in that case - the same substances, that we need to consume (in other words - food) cause obesity.

As I said, what I'm talking about isn't just obesity but it does include that.

I would never claim that regulations could prevent obesity.  Any food can really be made to be unhealthy, even if shops were forced to just provide healthy food someone can still pour sugar all over it and make it unhealthy.

I'm not a politician, nutricianist, or scientist so I'm not saying I have a definite plan of what exact regulations should be in place.

But I don't think it's crazy to possibly look into some regulations against things such as advertising extremely sugary food to children, what additives are being put into foods, salt, sweeteners, preservitives.
And again just to make it clear, this isn't all about obesity, just about health implications in general which I'm by no means an expert in.

---

@OP

I suspect it has a great deal to do with shitty food being extremely profitable.  What with our government being a wholly owned subsidiary of Lobbyists Inc., what else would you expect?

Drugs are extremely profitable too. A lot of this convo reminds me of that southpark episode where KFC is illegal and the resterants are replaced by marijuana shops.

[Minimalist]

Ask Mike Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-overreach

New York lost its bid to ban oversize sodas in a ruling by the state’s highest court, ending for now the city’s efforts to revive a regulation struck down in legal attacks by beverage industry trade groups whose members include Coca-Cola Co.

New York’s Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision today that the city’s health board lacked authority to impose the ban, proposed by Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor, saying such policymaking is reserved for legislative bodies -- in this case, the New York City Council.