back
96 comments
If you read some of Michael Pollan's books, one of the key observations that he makes about the food system is that people assume organic/natural/etc. foods are expensive when in fact most of the stuff you buy at the grocery store (and fast food joint) is made artificially cheaper. The #1 culprit of this is the subsidizing of the corn industry. Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc. On the protein side of it, it's used as the primary feed for cows and other animals. So you have junk food that's cheaper than it ought to be at the grocery store and fast food that's cheaper than it ought to be at your favorite drive-through.

I'm not sure why we keep looking downstream at the problem when there is in fact an underlying SINGLE cause upstream that can address a lot of the issues. Remove the subsidies, allow food to cost a bit more, financially incentivize people to eat 1) better food and 2) smaller quantities of food, and let the downstream problems like obesity, diabetes, etc. take care of themselves.

I think you're being awfully kind to the average American by assuming that if bad foods are more expensive they will have a desire to consume less of them. As an aside, not only is corn subsidized, sugar cane has heavy import tariffs levied against it to prevent American farmers from having to wage a price war.

I believe that a person's diet is very often (not always) shaped by cultural influences. If your parents forced you to eat a healthy diet as a child you are infinitely more likely to maintain those habits when you get older. I know this is true for me, and the converse is true for a lot of people I know.

In any case, I can't agree more with this article. If you ever want to see a microcosm of American society up-close and personal, just take a trip to your local 7-Eleven. See what people are buying and moreover, what is being offered for sale. I don't believe 7-Eleven is evil. What you see on the shelves is simply a reflection of what their customer base wants. If their customers wanted salads and tofu, that's all you would see on the shelves instead of one salad in the back of a bin surrounded by donuts, candy bars, beer, rotating hot dogs, and lottery tickets.

The fact is that the Americans who get enough exercise and eat a sensible diet are a depressing rarity. I know people who alternate between McDonald's and Five Guys every day. I don't blame the businesses and I don't blame the companies pushing the products. People have more choice now than ever before which is a good thing but I wish there were a way to protect kids from parents with terrible judgment.

I might receive a lot of flak for this, but isn't HFCS sweeter than more natural sugars? As in, you can achieve the same amount of sweetness with fewer calories? Personally I think it gets a bad rap. The bigger problem is the lack of physical activity and the massive input of calories... the 'quality' of those calories just isn't, IMO, as big a deal as people make it out to be.
Corn subsidies are not the problem. Ethanol acts a a negative economic subsidy for corn in the food supply. I don't have an answer to the obesity problem, but I know blaming everything on corn completely contradicts the evidence. Mexico has a worse obesity problem than the US, but their soft drinks are made from sugar, not HFCS. The ethanol mandate pulled massive amounts of corn products off US shelfs, yet made no difference on obesity.

Michael Pollan may be on the right track with his advocacy, but let's not dumb the debate down to focusing on something there is little evidence for.

Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc

Corn syrup has permeated just about anything that doesn't come off of a vine or out of the ground. HFCS is added to bread, fruit juices, hot dogs and even soy sauce. It is quite a chore to find bread without HFCS.

Corn subsidies are tiny compared to the amount of corn produced. I don't think it would be that much cheaper if the subsidies were removed, and slight increase in price wouldn't solve obesity. Prices have risen before for other reasons and yet we still have the same problem.
A bit off track, but the one thing I found that slit the throat of over zealous marketing was to study marketing. It helped disconnect the sales message from the product and it became painfully obvious how hard a lot of the product marketers need to push.

A tub of chocolate spread is a healthy option because it has hazelnuts and dairy? A bottle of soda is diet because it substitutes one of the dozen chemicals?

Compare that with the produce aisle where there's no marketing and it becomes clear the worst the product the harder it needs to be marketed.

I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility functions, it makes perfect sense.

A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business of selling products. And so is everyone else.

It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display. It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales. The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the pharmaceutical aisles.

Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term) of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you end up with the world as is today.

This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.

I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure.

For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly. There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently, aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions."

Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense, unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in, consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.

"The market" you're talking about is not some natural process working itself out. It's a game played in an arena where a small number of players have an asymmetrical visibility of the field and an ability to influence the rules as its played. If our public policy is to simply do nothing and let "the market" figure it out, the result will be mass exploitation for the benefit of a few.

The actual market is comprised of the decisions people make, given all the man-made rules and available information. It's not something we decide to adopt; it's simply the way humans allocate resources in the face of choice and scarcity. And for many reasons, it doesn't usually optimize for anything in particular, besides short-term utility. Going laissez faire is like riding a bike with no hands. You'll be stable for a while, but when you have to react to real-world changing conditions, if you don't take action, you're inevitably going to wreck.

Basing your morality on the markets can't possibly turn out well.
Ah, those kinder eggs at the checkout aisle! I wish we could get them in the US.

Anyone know why they're not in America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...

I used to love them when I lived in Germany. I found it hilarious when I discovered the reason because its one case where "Won't someone please think of the children" results in a mental seg-fault if you stop to think about it.

It has to do with the FDA banning the import of confectionery with '...a non-nutritive object, partially or totally imbedded within it.' The FDA reasons that it may pose a potential choking hazard.
Some of my friends going south had kinder eggs for their children confiscated as a choking hazard. It was such a serious risk of choking that the kids weren't even allowed to eat them at the border.
Same reason as bucky balls. Kids might eat it. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Overview

I second your Kinder Eggs and raise you a Cherry Ripe. I do love Cherry Ripe.
They're available in Texas...or at least were a couple of years ago.
[facepalm]
I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse.

The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side.

For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for an attempt at emotional manipulation.

In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking.

Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in reason and logic.

I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care.

If I am responsible for helping you when you're sick then am responsible for helping you not get sick in the first place.

That is fine, except for the fact that our heath care system is fundamentally fucked up and since we are moving toward a socialize system (which I am not trying to take a side on for the purposes of this comment), its going to cost you and I more money cause unhealthy people cost more (they get sicker more often, they have higher percentage of cancer, heart disease, etc - they are in the hospital a lot more).

I would be completely fine with all this stuff if insurance premiums were tied to weight/health - unfortunately for everyone who does exercise and stays in shape, they are not .... yet

Come on, like you're any better.

You start off with a dismissal of the author's point based on a completely subjective value judgment, then point out some trivial rhetorical techniques to try to discredit their argument, and then you make another completely unsubstantiated value judgment by saying that we should be insulted by any argument that's not laid out in bland logical terms.

What part of what you have said is based in reason or logic? Should I be insulted by your comment as well?

You're ignoring that the article is Australian.

We have free healthcare already.

Agreed. People are too deluded and forget about the fundamental issue - choice.

I believe this is what they refer to as a "circle jerk".A bunch of people agreeing with each other on an issue that doesn't have a right or wrong.

I had to look it up: pokies

"Slang term used in Australia to refer to gambling slot machines. Pokies can be found in many hotels and pubs in Australia."

Thanks for translating. I couldn't remember what the US equivalent was.
I totally disagree with the author, I am in living an a generation that has good chances to become more than one hundred years old, living is as healthy as never.

Thought I need to agree food is not.

Anyways two or three cokes a week won't hurt.

Drinking Daily coffee won't hurt.

Eating at McDonalds or BurgerKing twice a week won't hurt.

If you do sports twice a week. (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)

Honestly I do think 2-3 cokes and Maccas twice a week probably does more damage than you'd hope. Eating those instead of water/a home cooked meal probably runs you an extra 4-5,000kJ a week in fat and sugar which, if consistent will see weight gain.

But obviously it depends on how active you are, plus I don't think it's up to the supermarket to ensure that people eat healthily.

> (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)

As a european living in the US, I am appalled at the sheer quantity of vitamins/pseudo health products that my roommates consume. Do you really need this? I don't know a single person in France who takes vitamins on regular basis.

"If you do sports twice a week."

I would argue that 6 x 30mins is the minimum and mcdonalds should be once a month, not twice a week.

And skip the vitamins.

Some numbers - half of US will be Obese by 2030.

http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-popula...

Looking through a lot of those photos of promotional stands (soft drink, chips, magazines, energy drinks, etc) I'm reminded of a broad rule that distracts me whenever I see TV advertising especially: If it's being advertised, you probably don't need it.

(The other broad rule that distracts me in these cases: If a female subject in an advertisement is a brunette, it's usually targeting women. If blonde, it's more likely to be targeting men.)

I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. Lots of people have type 1 diabetes, which is more or less congenital and whether you contract it or not is out of your control.

Reading materials for those with gluten-free diets aren't so tabboo, why is it so for food recommendations that help keep a healthy A1c level?

Ah, the wonders of Australia. Luckily we all have Medicare for when the obesity epidemic takes it's toll.

More seriously though, Australia is only marginally better than the US with this whole problem. We need to push the whole health thing a whole lot more.

I like my weekly chocolate and sarsaparilla ration, but I know it's not something I should do every day. Stopping junk food from becoming a daily thing for people is a great first step.

I also play sport at least twice a week, but again, we've become a lot more loose in that department over the past 10 years. All year round sport is meant to be compulsory for virtually all schools, but too many people sit out nowadays. If we get people playing sport at school, hopefully we can get more than 75% playing it well past the end of Uni.

But otherwise, I don't think this sort of advertising is bad or should be banned, rather we need to tighten up our education about nutrition and regular sport.

I agree that obesity and lack of exercise are terrible things - the latter is something I struggle with. I agree that it's quite ironic that diabetes magazines are sold next to junk food. I agree that many people have screwed-up priorities and self-control and that they would be better off without this stuff.

That said, I strongly disagree, to the point of revulsion, with the implicit desire of the author, which I see echoed in various forms and about various subjects, that the government take action to ban any of this. ("Imagine if 65% of the population had a gambling problem and we let the banks put pokies inside ATMs." - emphasis mine).

It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press, the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing, healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you eat. It's revolting to us that someone might decide what you should be able to say, but we are happy to make moral pronouncements from our padded office chairs on others' behalf, as long as it's something that won't affect us.

Let me be clear - I am not absolving these companies of all wrong. They commit fraud when they lie about ingredients, they are implicit in assault or even murder when they sell actively toxic (as opposed to simply unhealthy) food and advertise that it is safe, and they regularly abuse our screwed-up political system to gain unfair and immoral advantages over competitors. These things are all wrong.

Selling unhealthy food, with an honest description of what's in it, isn't.

He even mentions it in the post - consumers are voting with their feet. We can disdain the stereotypical "people of Walmart" all we want, but we have no business forcing them to live the way we think is best. We're no better than the NSA if we start going down that road. No one is coercing them to buy there. There are plenty of cheap and healthy alternatives. We just have to come to terms with the fact that they are making a poor choice, and we have no right to force them to stop.

We absolutely should encourage them not to. It's perfectly fine if you choose to boycott these places. It's fine if you don't let your children eat that food, and it's fine if you make it your life's work to making that food obsolete. But you have to draw the line there. Once you start forcing people, at the threat (ultimately) of death, to eat certain things, you are no better than the NSA forcing people at the threat of death to say or not say certain things. That's not our place.

</lengthy rant>

All that said, he's right. The world is, as he bluntly puts it, "fucking insane", and this is one of the ways that shows.

EDIT:

Holy cow, this article got flagged to death. Probably rightly so. It's on the third page right now, despite having 65 points in 2 hours.

A simple question to those afraid of regulation : why does a country agree that some substances should not belong to the market (drugs) but that not letting junk food be sold in the most cynical and manipulative way to a population dying of diabetes would harm the sacro saint wisdom/freedom of market ?

Sidenote : regulation doesn't mean banning, just tax the junk food heavily so the most vulnerable don't buy it and have clear markers it kills your brain cells just like on cigarettes & alcohol.

I am not in America, but perhaps a little education about nutrition at school would help to make people think twice about their food and drink choices?
Amazed any Australian company is still using imagery of Capper and Fenech - Jesus wept!

This is a good video on HFCS from Robert Lustig and why you should avoid it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

There's a huge opportunity for startups in the health and fitness space. Lots of room for disruption and a literally "growing" customer base.
The peculiar excess found in US supermarkets is not something I would translate to the world cross-the-board though.
Free. Market.
Buzzkill.
Just before reading, thumbs up for awesome title.
And you didn't even mention global warming or the Republican party.