This is a good idea, and the people in the comments are rightly pointing out sugar's problems. But just as problematic as sugar are vegetable oils which are in almost every packaged product you can buy at the grocery store. They cause all sorts of health problems because the vegetable oils are extremely reactive (due to being unsaturated fats and so having double bonds that can react with other molecules inside your body). These are not called out as a health risk because the American agriculture industry makes an enormous amount of money exporting them and selling them to companies that make packaged/processed foods.
Edit: just to clarify it is the poly-unsaturated fatty acids that are the problem, not fats in general. Fats like butter (saturated) or olive oil (mono-unsaturated) do not have these problems, while canola oil, soybean oil, etc. are poly-unsaturated and highly-reactive.
These are from a lipid scientist rather than from nutrition scientists, so they are focusing on internal biological processes rather than health outcomes. I have not seen good nutrition studies on poly-unsaturated fats. However, studies of fat consumption that break out fats into saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fat categories generally show worse health outcomes for people consuming high intakes of poly-unsaturated fats. I will try to find a good study.
These ingredients are not well studied, which is surprising when you consider how rapidly they've been added to the food supply (basically not at all present 100 years ago, to in every processed food today).
> (due to being unsaturated fats and so having single hydrogen bonds that can react with other molecules inside your body).
What do you mean by "single hydrogen bonds"? C-H bonds are always single bonds, and I am unfamiliar with any kind of "double" hydrogen (intermolecular) bonding. Unsaturated fats, by definition, have at least one double bond, between carbon atoms.
> studies of fat consumption that break out fats into saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fat categories generally show worse health outcomes for people consuming high intakes of poly-unsaturated fats. I will try to find a good study.
This is counter to any study that I am familiar with and flies in the face of all nutritional recommendations. Studies that support MUFAs and PUFAs over saturated fats can be found in the references section of https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/satu....
I've read that Safflower oil or Avocado oil are one of the healthiest oils to cook. Safflower oil is supposedly even good for you. As with everything, moderation is a key factor.
You are wrong, there's nothing indicating that PUFAs are as problematic as sugar or even problematic at all, on the contrary the evidence we have show they are beneficial.
It concerns me that your comment is the top voted, as it can lead to dangerous dietary extremism, say avoiding all PUFAs which are among other things implicated in helping the immune system "Paracrine interactions between adipose and lymphoid tissues are enhanced by diets rich in n-6 fatty acids and attentuated by fish oils. The latter improve immune function and body conformation in animals and people. The partitioning of adipose tissue in many depots, some specialised for local, paracrine interactions with other tissues, is a fundamental feature of mammals."https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15946832/
1. You shouldn't just throw in links to "support" your claims - to me this shows you don't understand what you're talking about, you should cite the relevant text otherwise it's just hand waiving.
The studies you cite are about radicals generated from PUFAs that are naturally a part of cell membranes, not from diet, and even goes against your claim by saying that PUFAs from diet help generate antioxidants that eliminate such radicals.
"Any change in the cell membrane structure activates lipoxygenases (LOX). LOX transform polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) to lipidhydroperoxide molecules (LOOHs)." i.e. cell membranes naturally have PUFAs."..."In order to remove LOO* radicals, plants and algae transform PUFAs to furan fatty acids, which are incorporated after consumption of vegetables into mammalian tissues where they act as excellent scavengers of LOO* and LO* radicals." - hey eating PUFAs help cells make radical scavengers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17914157/
2. Omega-3 is a polyunsaturated fats - yes they are less stable than SFAs, but that probably does not matter at all unless you're eating rancid oils. Polyunsaturated fats are not "extremely" reactive either whatever you mean by that.
Then we know that diets rich in PUFAs and MUFAs have positive effect on cholesterol ratios "We conclude that a mixed diet rich in monounsaturated fat was as effective as a diet rich in (n-6)polyunsaturated fat in lowering LDL cholesterol. "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2761578/
Is it the vegetable oil or the fact that processed foods come with vegetable oil? Sauteed vegetables with a drizzle of olive oil is a bit different than a TV dinner.
It's a great idea in in theory, in practice I'm highly skeptical it will do anything but give police a new way to extract fines (bribes) from shopkeepers.
Why anything containing psychoactive drug is actually legal to sell to kids? There's a lot of reports how bad is caffeine to underdeveloped brain. And look at any developing nation: everyone is hooked to Coca-Cola.
After 40 everything once was good/tasty needs to be reduced a lot and or cut out of our diets. Our U.S. arteries are clogged no matter if your obese or not.
The title is a little misleading, this is happening in the state of Oaxaca only. I guess that if it works the government is going to try and implement it across the whole country.
OK, we've replaced the title with the more narrowly scoped language from the first paragraph.
Another issue here is the phrase "moving to". That's not the same thing as actually doing it, and frequently the processes that articles like this are describing end up outputting to /dev/null.
Lots of US federal law started as California state law first. According to labeling, there are a few things in life that are known to cause cancer only in California.
Improving diet would be one of the simplest ways of improving population health. Unfortunately any real changes will cause large, politically powerful corporations (Cargill, ADM, Coca-Cola, etc.) to lose a large amount of money[1], so I'm bearish on the ability to actually create meaningful changes. But just looking at photos on people on beaches from 2019 vs 1970 makes it clear how unhealthy the population is.
[1]: In the US many of these companies are large exporters too, so it is very hard to do anything that hurts them since our exports are generally not very competitive.
My concern is that if we can't trust the government to create a healthy recommended diet, how can we trust them to ban the correct foods? Their incentives seem to be more in line with propping up producers of large scale cheap pseudo foods with big lobbies than finding an actual healthy diet.
it's probably safe to say that this is a global public health imperative, given the suffering/costs/economic loss around the world that these beverages and food-like products cause. would also like to see some money from things like corn driven to healthy food subsidies e.g. spinach (or pick your favorite) to offset any increase in costs from taxation
Coca Cola is very aware of the health issues and has been diversifying for a long time.
Around 2015 IIRC they got into the diary game with Fairlife milk, they own core power. They do lots of business in tea (gold peak and others) as well as coffee.
You can recognize the bottles for a lot of the products because they use the same one with a different wrapper - core power, illy, fairlife and others share. (Note: illy is a partnership)
I’ll also point out their zero sugar line, out since 2017, is fantastic - much better than the older diet technology in terms of taste.
So it's not controversial to suggest a poor diet leads to things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease, nor is it controversial to suggest that the novel coronavirus is much more deadly for people with preexisting conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
For some reason though, if I put those two things together and suggest people eat healthier during this pandemic, it's this incredibly controversial thing to say, at least where I live in the US.
It’s not just encourage. What we’re finding is that the government has to be authoritarian. China welded people into their homes to keep them from spreading COVID. They literally caged them like animals and threw them into trucks. Now Mexico is denying children potato chips.
Think about universal healthcare and alcohol. How much money is spent on alcohol related issues? The best answer is to ban its sale. Same for tobacco. Enough people have shown then are unable or unwilling to do the right thing. As a result junk food, booze and smokes need to go the way of freedom of speech. We need to ban them.
It's interesting how quick people are to blame US corporations when it's the US government that subsidizes cheap carbs through the farm subsidy program (and on the flip-size in the US, subsidize the purchase of junk food via food stamps).
Also, banning sales to children doesn't solve the real culprit - parents buying the junk food for their own children. At least in America, watch any parent fill up their carts and pay attention to what they buy.
> Also, banning sales to children doesn't solve the real culprit - parents buying the junk food for their own children. At least in America, watch any parent fill up their carts and pay attention to what they buy.
I grew up in Mexico. There's definitely a culture of drinking soda with meals for example. Parent's are definitely responsible for that.
There's also definitely a lot of children buying junk food with their allowances. The individual bag of chips is very popular, and it's sold in every "corner store" on every neighborhood (I've seen less of these in the USA, but they're everywhere in Mexico).
Initiatives like this has always appeared to me as a cheap way for societies to improve the health of their population.
Perhaps better done in the form of a tax - in the sense that junk food causes an externality in the form of health problems, that does seem warranted. The underlying problem is that the incentives are not aligned.
We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic. Heart attack and stroke are the number one killers, with obesity the highest cause. I'm all for putting warning labels on food showing the potential problems of overconsumption.
Yeah, I think we'll eventually get to the point where junk food prices in the externalities and it'll go back to being a relatively rare treat (i.e. sustainable). Currently sugar is artificially cheap. The cost is just being kicked down the road, coming back in the form of health problems and hospital bills.
That sugary drinks are similarly priced or even cheaper than a bottle of water is completely backwards. Soda, juice, etc should be the expensive option (which they are in the long-term!) and water the default, smart choice both in terms of health and immediate cost at the counter.
I feel like we were always taught that taxes were significantly better at curbing usage compared to bans or limits - the classic example being the cigarette tax
I think if the goal is that you want kids to eat less of this stuff, then just don't let kids buy it.
If the goal is to raise money, then maybe some sort of tax is the better bet, but you have to keep in mind who benefits from the raised money vs how much of their money you're taking. This would be a regressive tax & poorer people tend to eat more junk food and have more health problems, too. I mean, don't discount the externality that such a tax would disproportionately punish poor people for buying certain snacks.
In addition to that, the federal government set new labeling rules for food. Processes food has to display a big-ugly sign as part of their label if the product contains more calories, sugar, salt or fat than the recommended dose:
This law is way way way overdue. American Corporations are killing Mexico's youth with junk food. I know kids who exclusively drink soda. Healthy, beautiful kids who deserve to go out and play and live their best lives.
I know it's in vogue to blame everything on America, but Mexico has a thriving domestic junk food industry too. And frankly, many of their snacks are much better than anything America makes (Takis in particular, I think I'm addicted to them...)
Anyway I support this law. Banning junk food/drinks for kids is long overdue. It's little different from banning the sale of cigarettes to kids.
You can't blame this on Americans. Walk into any tiendita in rural Mexico and you will find isles of candy and sugary beverages, much of which Americans wouldn't recognize. Mexico loves sweets.
I'm glad they're recognizing that dietary health is a serious issue and trying to make changes. But I wonder what effect this will have on paleterias? They're one of the many things I miss from Mexico.
17 years ago there was a candy or confection sold in Mexico containing lead. I know this because I briefly contracted to a California state agency charged with reducing lead poisoning among children. Apparently lead, like many metals, imparts a kind of sweet taste, which is why there was, and probably still is, a problem with children eating old flaking paint containing lead.
I have not followed this situation since. Does anyone know if this confection is still legal and available in Mexico? This was a lot more dangerous than any junk food.
You might be referring to tamarind based candy, particularly tamarind sold in clay containers. You can search for it as "tamarindo ollita". This is mostly still available as far as I know.
This kind of comment asking for it to be banned is always from an extremely uninformed person. Addictive poison, really? Wait til they see what's in fruit. Or just talk to a sports scientist about why it's in sports drinks. Of course in excess it's bad, but normal sugar consumption is not an issue.
No Coca Cola? No Jarritos? No Chaparritas? No Joya (De Naranja, Pi~a, Durazno, Uva, Mandarina, Fresa, Toronja, Ponche, Raiz, Manzana o Limon)? I drank all that crap In the 80s and I am not fat. I do have root canals and implants galore.
I think another good move here is to ban the use of cartoon characters to promote unhealthy food. It's outright targeting of the population group most vulnerable to this marketing.
In Chile they implemented regulations on the packaging of junk food and they yielded great results. They apparently saw a 25% reduction in sugary drink consumption in the first 18 months [1].
Not if you are in the USA, maybe if you are in Mexico, although in Mexico the typical breakfast for kids is more like coffee with milk and chilaquiles (tortilla with tomato sauce) which might not be that healthy.
Obesity is an external cost that just doesn't get accounted for in a free market. So far, regulation is a blunt tool, but still a lot more effective than other tools we have to deal with this.
For instance, in Indonesia, it's common for Big Tobacco to sell cheap cigarettes near schools [1]. This is insane, but from a purely free market perspective it makes perfect sense. Get your product in peoples hands as early as possible, and now you've got a customer for decades. All the social costs of higher rates of cancer etc will be borne by the taxpayer, so why should big tobacco care.
What makes you think that laws prohibiting alcohol to minors aren't useful? Those laws don't have to completely eliminate alcohol consumption by minors to be successful, they just have to make it less likely to happen. My gut feeling is that alcohol consumption among teenagers would be higher if it wasn't banned, though I don't have any data to back my claim.
so under the law, anyone selling a candy to a child could be prosecuted as a criminal activity, with Mexico broken law system this seems to be a really bad idea
The drinking and smoking age is 18. You can definitely get cigs and booze before your 18th birthday if you're crafty, but I've never seen a shop outwardly sell these and bribe cops, nor are cigs and booze trafficked by cartels— this just sounds ridiculous.
Source: I grew up in Mexico. It's definitely more lax than the USA, but it's not the Wild West.
I spent quite a bit of time in Nogales, Mexico and ate as many tacos as I could get my hands on. Across the board they were far healthier than anything I can get from a fast food restaurant in the states. The tacos in (Sonora) Mexico generally consist of: Corn tortilla, meat, cabbage, onions, cilantro. Optional hot salsa.
I'm confident you can construct an unhealthy taco, but is there anything inherently wrong with tacos? Fundamentally it's just a bit of meat, veggies and cheese. The tortilla is grain and thus arguably not great, but tortillas are pretty small compared to the average sandwich bread.
> Mexico is known for disregarding laws on alcohol sales to minors..what exactly do they expect the outcome of this to be?
I grew up in Mexico. You can definitely get booze before you're 18 if you're crafty and find the right store, but I don't see any general "outright disregard" of laws on alcohol sales to minors. I went to college in the USA— it's essentially the same.
Nutrition writers struggle to name the industry without using the word food. "Junk food," "fast food," "ultra-processed food," "frankenfood," and so on all help the industry obfuscate that they've refined out and sell the addictive parts, which resemble their sources as much as heroin resembles poppy or cocaine coca leaves.
We don't call heroin "fast poppy" or cocaine "junk coca." Doing so with the addictive refinements from other plants only confuses people that temporarily filling their bellies resembles nourishing themselves. Heroin would make us feel less hungry temporarily too, but we recognize it harms.
Michael Pollan's "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" implies non-food isn't food, but he doesn't come up with the needed name for what's not food that he recommends avoiding eating.
The word "doof" -- food backward -- is catching on among some nutritionists and food writers. The change in your world view that comes from differentiating food from doof is tremendous. You see 90% of the supermarket as a wasteland of addiction, plastic, and pollution. When people say poor people choose fast food over vegetables because they can buy more with their limited funds, you hear that they're buying doof instead of food. Companies selling doof displace farmers markets and people selling food.
Doof is generally packaged, engineered to promote a short-term rush and long-term craving, and its pleasure comes from salt, sugar, fat, and convenience.
I propose using the term doof for doof and avoiding referring to doof with any phrase including the word food.
jeffreyrogers|5 years ago
Edit: just to clarify it is the poly-unsaturated fatty acids that are the problem, not fats in general. Fats like butter (saturated) or olive oil (mono-unsaturated) do not have these problems, while canola oil, soybean oil, etc. are poly-unsaturated and highly-reactive.
Edit 2: research for these claims:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223779598_Lipid_oxi...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12013175_Peroxidati...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5931176_The_Importa...
These are from a lipid scientist rather than from nutrition scientists, so they are focusing on internal biological processes rather than health outcomes. I have not seen good nutrition studies on poly-unsaturated fats. However, studies of fat consumption that break out fats into saturated, mono-unsaturated, and poly-unsaturated fat categories generally show worse health outcomes for people consuming high intakes of poly-unsaturated fats. I will try to find a good study.
These ingredients are not well studied, which is surprising when you consider how rapidly they've been added to the food supply (basically not at all present 100 years ago, to in every processed food today).
Dylan16807|5 years ago
tomjakubowski|5 years ago
What do you mean by "single hydrogen bonds"? C-H bonds are always single bonds, and I am unfamiliar with any kind of "double" hydrogen (intermolecular) bonding. Unsaturated fats, by definition, have at least one double bond, between carbon atoms.
Rotten194|5 years ago
rsanek|5 years ago
This is counter to any study that I am familiar with and flies in the face of all nutritional recommendations. Studies that support MUFAs and PUFAs over saturated fats can be found in the references section of https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/satu....
devmunchies|5 years ago
sugar in a whole fruit aren't bad, the fibers in the fruit help your body break down and absorb the sugar over a longer period of time.
just don't eat refined food.
xtracto|5 years ago
pombrand|5 years ago
It concerns me that your comment is the top voted, as it can lead to dangerous dietary extremism, say avoiding all PUFAs which are among other things implicated in helping the immune system "Paracrine interactions between adipose and lymphoid tissues are enhanced by diets rich in n-6 fatty acids and attentuated by fish oils. The latter improve immune function and body conformation in animals and people. The partitioning of adipose tissue in many depots, some specialised for local, paracrine interactions with other tissues, is a fundamental feature of mammals."https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15946832/
1. You shouldn't just throw in links to "support" your claims - to me this shows you don't understand what you're talking about, you should cite the relevant text otherwise it's just hand waiving.
The studies you cite are about radicals generated from PUFAs that are naturally a part of cell membranes, not from diet, and even goes against your claim by saying that PUFAs from diet help generate antioxidants that eliminate such radicals.
"Any change in the cell membrane structure activates lipoxygenases (LOX). LOX transform polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) to lipidhydroperoxide molecules (LOOHs)." i.e. cell membranes naturally have PUFAs."..."In order to remove LOO* radicals, plants and algae transform PUFAs to furan fatty acids, which are incorporated after consumption of vegetables into mammalian tissues where they act as excellent scavengers of LOO* and LO* radicals." - hey eating PUFAs help cells make radical scavengers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17914157/
2. Omega-3 is a polyunsaturated fats - yes they are less stable than SFAs, but that probably does not matter at all unless you're eating rancid oils. Polyunsaturated fats are not "extremely" reactive either whatever you mean by that.
Then we know that diets rich in PUFAs and MUFAs have positive effect on cholesterol ratios "We conclude that a mixed diet rich in monounsaturated fat was as effective as a diet rich in (n-6)polyunsaturated fat in lowering LDL cholesterol. " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2761578/
2OEH8eoCRo0|5 years ago
thebean11|5 years ago
novaRom|5 years ago
mam2|5 years ago
Any other explanation is hiding the truth for some half-reasoning which mich the real point
paul7986|5 years ago
iwebdevfromhome|5 years ago
dang|5 years ago
Another issue here is the phrase "moving to". That's not the same thing as actually doing it, and frequently the processes that articles like this are describing end up outputting to /dev/null.
aylmao|5 years ago
[1] https://www.milenio.com/estados/comida-chatarra-tabasco-proh...
dylan604|5 years ago
jeffreyrogers|5 years ago
[1]: In the US many of these companies are large exporters too, so it is very hard to do anything that hurts them since our exports are generally not very competitive.
cylon13|5 years ago
maximente|5 years ago
it's probably safe to say that this is a global public health imperative, given the suffering/costs/economic loss around the world that these beverages and food-like products cause. would also like to see some money from things like corn driven to healthy food subsidies e.g. spinach (or pick your favorite) to offset any increase in costs from taxation
also: bearish for coca-cola long term?
nxc18|5 years ago
Around 2015 IIRC they got into the diary game with Fairlife milk, they own core power. They do lots of business in tea (gold peak and others) as well as coffee.
You can recognize the bottles for a lot of the products because they use the same one with a different wrapper - core power, illy, fairlife and others share. (Note: illy is a partnership)
I’ll also point out their zero sugar line, out since 2017, is fantastic - much better than the older diet technology in terms of taste.
https://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands
birdyrooster|5 years ago
navailable|5 years ago
calibas|5 years ago
For some reason though, if I put those two things together and suggest people eat healthier during this pandemic, it's this incredibly controversial thing to say, at least where I live in the US.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
controversy|5 years ago
Think about universal healthcare and alcohol. How much money is spent on alcohol related issues? The best answer is to ban its sale. Same for tobacco. Enough people have shown then are unable or unwilling to do the right thing. As a result junk food, booze and smokes need to go the way of freedom of speech. We need to ban them.
cpursley|5 years ago
Also, banning sales to children doesn't solve the real culprit - parents buying the junk food for their own children. At least in America, watch any parent fill up their carts and pay attention to what they buy.
biddit|5 years ago
aylmao|5 years ago
I grew up in Mexico. There's definitely a culture of drinking soda with meals for example. Parent's are definitely responsible for that.
There's also definitely a lot of children buying junk food with their allowances. The individual bag of chips is very popular, and it's sold in every "corner store" on every neighborhood (I've seen less of these in the USA, but they're everywhere in Mexico).
kyuudou|5 years ago
olau|5 years ago
Perhaps better done in the form of a tax - in the sense that junk food causes an externality in the form of health problems, that does seem warranted. The underlying problem is that the incentives are not aligned.
thisisnico|5 years ago
Reedx|5 years ago
That sugary drinks are similarly priced or even cheaper than a bottle of water is completely backwards. Soda, juice, etc should be the expensive option (which they are in the long-term!) and water the default, smart choice both in terms of health and immediate cost at the counter.
edgarvaldes|5 years ago
epmaybe|5 years ago
dfxm12|5 years ago
If the goal is to raise money, then maybe some sort of tax is the better bet, but you have to keep in mind who benefits from the raised money vs how much of their money you're taking. This would be a regressive tax & poorer people tend to eat more junk food and have more health problems, too. I mean, don't discount the externality that such a tax would disproportionately punish poor people for buying certain snacks.
xtracto|5 years ago
(pictures)
https://www.milenio.com/ciencia-y-salud/nuevo-etiquetado-est...
thewickedaxe|5 years ago
liability|5 years ago
Anyway I support this law. Banning junk food/drinks for kids is long overdue. It's little different from banning the sale of cigarettes to kids.
stickfigure|5 years ago
I'm glad they're recognizing that dietary health is a serious issue and trying to make changes. But I wonder what effect this will have on paleterias? They're one of the many things I miss from Mexico.
ggregoire|5 years ago
Their parents probably do too.
Also worth noting, there are places in Mexico where it's easier and cheaper to get a bottle of Coca-Cola than one of potable water. [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/world/americas/mexico-coc...
pkaye|5 years ago
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-health/mexicos-new...
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
amelius|5 years ago
Press2forEN|5 years ago
[deleted]
i_love_liberals|5 years ago
[deleted]
mytailorisrich|5 years ago
jackfoxy|5 years ago
I have not followed this situation since. Does anyone know if this confection is still legal and available in Mexico? This was a lot more dangerous than any junk food.
liability|5 years ago
reaktivo|5 years ago
sitkack|5 years ago
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
macspoofing|5 years ago
Sugar is sugar. What's the difference between a homemade pastry and store bought pastry?
Cyclone_|5 years ago
kaiju0|5 years ago
dj_mc_merlin|5 years ago
This attitude is more dangerous than sugar.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
Press2forEN|5 years ago
coolspot|5 years ago
pengaru|5 years ago
seiferteric|5 years ago
refurb|5 years ago
Is it better? Maybe. Is it still too much sugar? Yes.
smt88|5 years ago
javier10e6|5 years ago
gedy|5 years ago
bothersumman|5 years ago
neonate|5 years ago
x87678r|5 years ago
aylmao|5 years ago
In Chile they implemented regulations on the packaging of junk food and they yielded great results. They apparently saw a 25% reduction in sugary drink consumption in the first 18 months [1].
[1]: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/internacionales/Consumo-de-b...
xtracto|5 years ago
vmchale|5 years ago
tracker1|5 years ago
OCASM|5 years ago
baconandeggs|5 years ago
jachell|5 years ago
anothermoron|5 years ago
[deleted]
AnCapAndrew|5 years ago
[deleted]
hpoe|5 years ago
[deleted]
shrumm|5 years ago
For instance, in Indonesia, it's common for Big Tobacco to sell cheap cigarettes near schools [1]. This is insane, but from a purely free market perspective it makes perfect sense. Get your product in peoples hands as early as possible, and now you've got a customer for decades. All the social costs of higher rates of cancer etc will be borne by the taxpayer, so why should big tobacco care.
[1] http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.org/Density-of-cigarette-r...
bvaldivielso|5 years ago
randompwd|5 years ago
[deleted]
Vorh|5 years ago
the_70x|5 years ago
aylmao|5 years ago
Source: I grew up in Mexico. It's definitely more lax than the USA, but it's not the Wild West.
tdeck|5 years ago
im3w1l|5 years ago
chrisco255|5 years ago
aketchum|5 years ago
liability|5 years ago
throaway12461|5 years ago
minimuffins|5 years ago
_prototype_|5 years ago
blackguardx|5 years ago
thebean11|5 years ago
Just another way for the police to steal money from the poor. Great job.
aylmao|5 years ago
I grew up in Mexico. You can definitely get booze before you're 18 if you're crafty and find the right store, but I don't see any general "outright disregard" of laws on alcohol sales to minors. I went to college in the USA— it's essentially the same.
exacube|5 years ago
The problem is the law enforcement, not the laws.
spodek|5 years ago
We don't call heroin "fast poppy" or cocaine "junk coca." Doing so with the addictive refinements from other plants only confuses people that temporarily filling their bellies resembles nourishing themselves. Heroin would make us feel less hungry temporarily too, but we recognize it harms.
Michael Pollan's "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" implies non-food isn't food, but he doesn't come up with the needed name for what's not food that he recommends avoiding eating.
The word "doof" -- food backward -- is catching on among some nutritionists and food writers. The change in your world view that comes from differentiating food from doof is tremendous. You see 90% of the supermarket as a wasteland of addiction, plastic, and pollution. When people say poor people choose fast food over vegetables because they can buy more with their limited funds, you hear that they're buying doof instead of food. Companies selling doof displace farmers markets and people selling food.
Doof is generally packaged, engineered to promote a short-term rush and long-term craving, and its pleasure comes from salt, sugar, fat, and convenience.
I propose using the term doof for doof and avoiding referring to doof with any phrase including the word food.