>“The consumer has turned the definition [of healthy] upside down,” she says. “If it is non-GMO, natural, or organic, but high in sodium and high in sugar and fat, it’s okay.”
True and important to note when you're grocery shopping. Organic, natural, non-GMO do not mean that thing you're holding in your hand is actually good for you.
When I moved here ~12 years ago one of the things that surprised me the most was how comfortable companies were at flat out deceptive marketing. The lesson I learned very quickly was to assume any claim made on any package by any company was unsubstantiated and usually a lie.
What I took away from this is that as a consumer you have to be very engaged in evaluating your food choices. Unfortunately most people aren't, it seems. I continue to be surprised by how many otherwise intelligent people fall for claims of "low fat", "sugar free", "high calcium", "organic", "natural", "gluten free", "kale", other fads etc.
The other thing I learned is if you want to be a low-information consumer, there are far better countries in the world for you to live than the US, places where the government takes a stronger hand in enforcing population health and consumer protection. If you live in this country, you had better be smart and look out for yourself, because the companies and the government not only don't care, they are actively trying to screw you.
All marketing is deceptive. By its very nature, it presents the version of the "truth" that is most favorable to the seller of a product. No savvy consumer should rely on the claims of any packaged good.
I wish someone would start a no-added-sugar movement. I have a sweet tooth, but the amount of sugar added to even fruit products disgusts me. Dried mango without sugar costs 2x. Raisin bran does not need more sugar. That's the point of the raisins! I like creamer in my coffee, but I cut it with milk.
The problem with "no sugar added" labels is they allow the use of things that happen to contain a lot of sugar, like apple and grape juices. It's just as misleading as many of the other call-out labels.
To you and siblings, true. That speaks to a need to stop misleading consumers with marketing terms that don't mean what they mean. I'm speaking more from my personal taste than from public health - I just don't want my food to be so sweet. The industry has jacked up sugar and salt content, in all its forms, to where what the mass market demands is well outside my taste.
(Another example - my local coffeehouse has a half-sweet latte drink which is itself almost too sweet. I'm guessing the full-sweetness version makes room for more cane syrup by taking out actual coffee.)
One other problem with "no sugar added" is a workaround that allows them to add artificial sweeteners and still be able to claim "0g of sugar". To me, that is not only untrue but intentionally deceptive. I want to drink iced tea without any sweeteners, eat tart Greek yogurt, and yes, eat fruit without sugar.
Other words like "natural" and "organic" have suffered a similar bastardization fate where these words mean nothing anymore (look at this Gatorade bottle for example: "Naturally flavored with other natural flavors". http://cdn-jpg.thedailymeal.net/sites/default/files/u58340/o... What??)
Since you mentioned dried fruit twice, I thought you might find interesting that WHO recommends counting dried fruit as added sugar (also honey and natural syrups, such as maple, in addition to what we usually count as added sugar).
My favorite (== most hated) example of this was some soy milk I saw at whole foods. In big letters on the front it said "NO ADDED SUGAR!". Flip the box around and the #2 ingredient was "dehydrated cane juice."
It's no surprise even the CEO of whole foods says most of the stuff they sell is crap. I used to shop at their original two stores in Austin before they decided to expand and they sold a very different class of product.
Sure - I either eat fruit as a meal, or add it as the sweetener. The nice thing about eating actual fruit is that you know what's in it. The key is just being cognizant of what's actually going in your body, and its effect. Sugar is sugar regardless of provenance.
Triscuits solved my snack problem and they are high in fiber and whole grain with only three ingredients; get the low salt variety as they taste just fine. You can top them will all sorts of delicious fruits and vegetables to where each day is something different.
Sugar is so hard to move away from, I know many who got into juicing only to gain weight because they juiced what their tastes buds told them tasted best, fruits!
Sugar free naturally, stick to the vegetable isle. Drink lots of water and if you like it, experiment with different varieties of tea either hot or iced
It's incredibly bizarre how plain old fashioned common sense business practices (be responsive to customer needs, sell things that turn a profit) are somehow seen as innovative and unique.
It's because the headline teases you with the whisper that she was right about something, presumably controversial, but then the articles dances around for ages before revealing what it is.
Is there a term for this kind of "journalism?" I've heard it described before as being journalism for journalists or that the journalists have to fill a certain amount of space, so simple articles become wordy and tedious.
I see it all the time and hate it, but don't know how to describe it.
Yes, I believe the term is "churnalism." Stories which are primarily PR barely disguised. PR reps pitch stories to journalists and get them curated access to write a story. Lazy journalists go along needing to churn out stories regularly.
Surprise: capitalism actually works and makes companies follow consumer wishes. If consumers actually vote for these wishes with their wallets, of course.
Pardon me , but you seem have to got the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" mixed up. Free market economy and capitalism may be entwined but they mean very different things and they cannot be used as synonyms of each other.
They are synonyms. The field of economics (the only field that could legitimately claim to give exact definitions to these terms) uses them interchangeably, and tends not to care about classification or exact verbal definitions, but rather focuses on the implications of various mathematical models.
If there is ambiguity in a verbal definition, it can be clarified by writing down a mathematical model, not by endless debates about the meaning of words or classification of the economies of different nations.
My experience of economics as a social science is the opposite - that it does not relate specifically to mathematical models. For example, the distinction between a mixed economy and pure capitalism is very clear.
In my experience (Economics PhD) the term "command economy" is used to describe a theoretical extreme where the government dictates all consumption and production decisions, while "free market", unqualified, refers to the situation where the government only enforces property rights.
"Pure capitalism" would be a synonym for "free market" although it's rarely used academically, I guess because the term capitalism is a lot less descriptive that "free market".
Terms like "mixed economy" just refer to somewhere in between these two extremes.
As I said, economists are not particularly interested in giving things accurate names, or classifying them. They mighty do this occasionally, as is necessary especially when communicating with people outside the field, but the field itself relies mainly on mathematical models, not sociological categories. That is why I feel the need to correct someone who, speaking with an authoritative tone, claims to know that "free market" and "capitalism" have precise and different meanings.
Hmm... "the field itself relies mainly on mathematical models, not sociological categories" - I'll have to disagree. Especially with behavioural economics. I also disagree that free markets are the same thing as capitalism, as does Benjamin Tucker.
>I also disagree that free markets are the same thing as capitalism, as does Benjamin Tucker.
Please never phrase your opinion like this ever again. Whatever interest I had in knowing what Benjamin Tucker said about this issue, I've lost due to your smugly phrased sentence.
I would be more than happy to hear more information, if only you would provide some. I have no idea who Benjamin Tucker was and how he is relevant.
Even though I claim to speak with authority because of my PhD, I don't consider that condescending or smug, and a person is free to judge that my education is worthless if they like. But throwing out names of very obscure people in place of an actual argument is objectively smug and rude.
It's breathtaking to consider the amount of shelf-space that Pepsi products occupy. Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Doritos, Tostitos, Gatorade, Aquafina, Tropicana, Quaker Oats, not to mention Lipton, 7-Up, Mountain Dew and Naked. It's a planet with its own gravity and atmosphere.
It takes a special perspective to sell $66B worth of product while blaming consumers for their inability to discern healthy food.
On the plus side tho', their production requirements oftentimes bring state-of-the-art processing facilities to areas lacking in, or in desperate need of, clean water and filtration. Parts of India come to mind.
I wish the press would do the responsible thing and use the proper words for those things: "corporate raiders".
Giving into establishment's newspeak is not doing anyone a favor. And let questionable people do the toxic thing they do (destroying companies for his own interest) while feeling good about themselves.
For now, I chose to keep away from any media that uses those lying words (such the ones one would use to cover up for torture, bombings, etc).
Finding faults just to show the authority just like rhetorical questions. Rectification of those "insignificant infractions" need not make the company or product better
That comic is right on. I remember being shocked when I met the lead engineer on Pringles. He was understandably quite proud of the engineering problems they'd solved.
I shouldn't have been shocked. He is a food engineer. Sounded like a joke title, but the supermarket shelves have more engineering in them as the shelves of Best Buy.
I threw in the towel and pretty much buy raw food, bread from bakeries that can't afford all the soy supplements etc. The manufactured stuff I guy (bread, butter etc) costs a lot more because the labor content of the food is higher. Luckily I can afford it.
I am morally unclear on the value of the engineered food. On one hand it's true, we have calories and vitamins, fibre etc in the hands of people who in an earlier age couldn't afford it. On the other hand the nutritional value available to poorer people is still lower than the wealthy.
I tried to go from Sodas to processed <fruit> juice, but doctors explained that the sugar content was similar. I then tried to by raw oranges but couldn't find anything worth eating. Acid like a lemon, crooked, dry almost solid, skin ripping the fruit apart ... Nothing like my memories when I could peel an orange and enjoy the delicious slices one by one.
To get 'normal' oranges I had to seek for expensive packages.
Don't give up on oranges! There are many different varieties out there and you may not have found one you like yet. Also tangelos can be sweeter. While oranges are usually sold year round in grocery stores, they actually have a harvest season. In North America oranges are in season November through May. I use find the best oranges around December to February. Valencia oranges are best for juicing rather than eating and navel oranges are easiest to peel. A good orange is hard to beat!
I love orange, and almost anything edible. I suspect current production strategy to lower quality drastically in exchange for lifespan and other logistic qualities.
They said healthier, not healthy. Most "healthier alternatives" are still "sugared water" they are just lower in sugar and higher in artificial flavorants than the typical sodas (Dr. P, Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc).
Honestly I really want to see a push to lower acidity in drinks. They seriously should start putting that on the bottle and talking about it. Acid drinks are a major health crisis that nobody talks about.
In spite of that, it's still nice to not have had any dental fillings or major dental work by the time I turn 30. This will be different from both of my parents. I think I'm happy to trade a minor increase in some other risks for the ability to eat without pain.
Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste. HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance.
I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining.
Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.
> Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste.
You do ingest toothpaste, albeit only small amounts. Much like you ingest mouthwash, you just try to keep it to a minimum.
> HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance.
What else can I suggest? In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it.
> I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining.
Since humans developed agriculture and started consuming large amounts of carbohydrates, they have experienced tooth decay. Fluoride is necessary to prevent it.
> Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.
This discussion is completely off-topic and your comments are unhelpful. A downvote is justifiable.
> In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it.
Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy. There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water. Rather cabals of lobbyists persuaded municipal officials to add it under the guise of it being a good thing. Which has yet to be statistically demonstrated.
> Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy.
You don't know where I live! Though I'd agree that capitalist countries are not very democratic, at least not mine and the United States.
> There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water.
It varies by country.
"Toxic minerals" is an amusing statement given that virtually all substances are toxic in the correct dose. As someone else pointed out, sola dosis facit venenum: the dose makes the poison.
If you're interested to know how and why you've been conditioned to think that way, look up Edward Bernays and his involvement with getting fluoride into the water supply of a number of countries.
In short, he's known as the father of Public Relations. Fluoride can only legally be disposed of in expensive toxic waste dumps, and Mr. Bernays came up with a plan to dispose of it for free by passing it through the human body. His public relations skills were so amazing that he even succeeded in making people (like you) want to ingest it.
It's not science and just because you know a little bit about computer science doesn't make you qualified to speak about water fluoridation. Several countries have banned water fluoridation for the very reason that after decades and decades there is no causal link between water fluoridation and tooth decay.
You said they stopped it because there was no benefit. Do you have a source for that claim? Wikipedia (not a source) doesn't give reasons for the discontinuation of flouride.
Wikipedia does say that if you read further on, but unfortunately without primary sources. Unfortunately it's late here or I'd love to try and find some.
No, it's okay. You made claims which you then sourced to a Wikipedia article that doesn't say what you claimsd it said and doesn't contain references to what you claimed.
I love that this is the state of public discourse even on hacker news. Just accuse something of being like anti-vax and the down votes follow. No critical thought required.
Also, very classy of you to paint me as "anti-fluoride" like I would have to have some sort of agenda to question why things are being added to drinking water.
Please abstain, all of you, from acerbic swipes at one another. Both sides are to blame here.
If you must dispute water fluoridation on Hacker News, do so by making careful, factual, respectful comments.
The site guidelines specifically ask you not to call names. That includes both calling each other names as well as calling each others' arguments names (e.g. "woo").
Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations).
Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up.
It's trivial to find sources for the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing tooth decay (Google -> Wikipedia -> a citation leads you here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm). There are also studies on water fluoridation's impacts, though it's harder to test that, by nature.
The peer reviewed studies were not created by that website. That page just lists the links to studies that were published in peer reviewed journals.
I'm not sure how any of this relates to vaccines, since we are talking about fluoride. But anytime you want to know if something is true or not, the only way I know of is to dig deeper for more information.
No, you're going to have to do the legwork of going to one of the many other pro-fluoridation sites to read those studies. Then, depending on how interested you are in the truth, you'll have to weigh all of the findings, and even look into who produced the studies (follow the money). Welcome to the 21st century, where it usually takes some effort to find the truth in controversial issues.
One thing to keep in mind while digging in, we know there is a financial incentive behind pro-fluoridation studies (it is expensive for business to dispose of it). As far as I know, there isn't much financial incentive in being against fluoridation, save for some boutique toothpaste brands that would probably lack the resources to conduct peer reviewed studies.
I don't think there's much question that this company is harmful to societies and individuals around the world. Does it make sense for people other than shareholders to admire this person?
True and important to note when you're grocery shopping. Organic, natural, non-GMO do not mean that thing you're holding in your hand is actually good for you.