Hacker News Reader

Comment by bloppe | Hacker News Reader

Clearly people are choosing sugary products. The only thing that would be inappropriate for food companies to do would be to lie about the health effects of that sugar. This article seems to imply they're lying (or at least misleading) quite a bit.

View on HN

Don't forget <s>bribing</s> funding researchers to say fat was worse than sugar [0]

>Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...

> Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies

> The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.

LOL!

Careful though because all that doesn't mean fat isn't a cause of CHD. As far as I can tell the evidence for fat's relation to CHD was not fabricated by teh sugar lobby, it was only drummed up to try and hide the evidence for sugar's role.

I am admittedly not up to date on the latest literature, but my understanding was that sugar was significantly worse than fat. Not necessarily that fat was free of negative health outcomes.

It’s not much of a choice when most available food products are all sugar laced, and the healthier alternatives are typically much more expensive.

You know what's actually better and often cheaper (unless you're billing your own time for it): buying basics and making your own!

Here's a good essay on the broad topic "Fight Back with Real Tomato Sauce": https://sue.coulstock.id.au/fight-back-with-real-tomato-sauc...

I make my own tomato sauce. Super easy and freezes well. Tastes better too. There’s also plenty of non-sugary options at the supermarket if you’re pressed for time.

Where do you get good tasting tomatoes though? It’d become increasingly hard and expensive pursuit in the US for example, not sure where you get yours.

Try farmer's markets (you can find these even in urban areas if you know where to look, e.g. Boston's Haymarket) or a food co-op.

Canned work great. In fact, most Italian cookbooks recommend canned. I like Cento and it’s found in most grocery stores.

In the US, there are plenty of canned tomato products -- sauce, crushed, puree, whole -- that are pretty much just tomatoes. I find that it's hard to beat canned tomatoes, because the fresh tomatoes available at the supermarket are cardboard. The canned sauces can be canned close to where they're picked, and thus don't have to be optimized for transportation and storage. And they're convenient.

Like the article says, the glass jar stuff is loaded with sugar.

Of course I still enjoy fresh tomatoes from my garden every summer, but am not too disappointed if I don't get enough to freeze or can.

Pretty much just tomatoes, and then loads of salt. I have to hunt around to find some that don’t have 20% of my daily sodium, per serving. It’s fine to eat 20% in one serving of a meal, but tomatoes are always accompanied by other stuff, including ingredients that are always salty, like cheese.

Fortunately our supermarket has sufficient number of no-salt selections.

The tomatoes in your super market where bread for their appearance, like a rose, not their taste. Heirloom tomatoes will always taste much better.

Let's also keep in mind that the folks who are notoriously exposed to sugar also happen to be poor, and those folks may not have the time to prepare meals that they otherwise could if they weren't poor. I grew up in a relatively poor family (five boys, single mom most of the time), and my mom spent a lot of her time struggling with her own issues. She can still cook a mean lasagna, but those dinners were tempered by macaroni and hotdog slices (which I love, btw, and still make). Ketchup (edit: and single packaged cheese) on toast? Yes please!

I don’t understand this comment at all. Unless you only buy pre-packaged foods, it’s easy to avoid sugary foods at the grocery store. And even pre-packaged foods have nutrition labels.

It’s not a lack of choices; it’s either consumers are unaware or (more likely) knowingly prefer sweeter options. Unless you are of the position those in charge should dictate food choices, the only option is greater consumer education.

I don't think your comment and the parent's comment are at odds.

I agree with your assertion that consumer education is a much more effective and reasonable long term solution than government intervention (I used my own words, please correct me if I've misinterpreted). Likewise, I agree with the commenter whose comment you can't relate with: it really isn't helping that so much food is "fortified" with sugar (used my own words again).

I am totally guessing (as in I could be completely wrong) that the reason this viewpoint doesn't resonate with you is because you are one of the people who has educated themselves about nutrition, and imo even more importantly, it sounds like you may have been introduced to healthy eating (and food preparation) habits early on. I apologize if any of these assumptions are flat out incorrect regarding your upbringing, but I don't think they are too far fetched in any case (i.e. while it may not be true for you, it is reasonable that it may be true for others).

It's not just education about food that makes a difference, it also matters a lot being exposed to healthy eating and food preparation habits.

Both of you can be right in this case without any actual disagreement.

Fair enough, and I am a foodie and scientist to boot. By habit, I almost turn the container over to look at the nutrition label; others probably look at thing’s differently.

But vegetables are some of the cheapest things you can buy. Like a 5 pound bag of potatoes or onions or carrots. Or dry beans and rice. Etc

Ingredients, yes. Prepared foods, no.

> It’s not much of a choice when most available food products are all sugar laced, and the healthier alternatives are typically much more expensive.

This IS what humans in aggregate are choosing / have chosen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com