Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

$61 million+ a year in taxpayer dollars is used to subsidize the sugar industry...a nutrition-less and high-calorie food.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/FY06budsum.pdf

2006. After all the fighting about the ag bill in the last year, you'd think you could do better than 2006, and maybe actually quote the relevant portions, not just link to the budget as a while.

In any event, while I am personally against agriculture subsidies, this is a sloppy way to discuss the subject that is misleading as to what is actually going on. Indeed, the subsidies have been criticized for artificially RAISING the price of sugar. See http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say for a decent discussion.

I agree with your assertion. Education is critical and lacking. But keep in mind by making this connection your also saying unhealthy high calorie foods are as addictive as cigarettes and alcohol. Why then is obesity not treated like an addiction or a disease? Why is it ok to advertise high calorie/sugary cereal to overweight children but not cigarettes? Both are promoting unhealthy "options" that are easy to "want".

I was made a couple of examples. People will spend money on things they want regardless of cost many times. Cars, clothes, video games, TV's, phones, etc.
Obesity ISN'T a disease. There's a way NOT to get it at all and that's by not over consuming. And I'll keep going back to, if sugar were to blame for obesity, the countries that consume more than the US should have worse issues with obesity........and they don't. Again, those are the facts.

How do we account for the marked difference in weight based on income level if its not due to cost? Are low income families dumber? More lazy? Who works harder (physically) a farm laborer or a radiologist? Wouldn't it stand to reason if the cost of high calorie foods was higher (no longer affordable) and low calorie foods were lower (more affordable) that they would eat less calories by default? If higher income families have more money to spend why aren't they even fatter than low income families because they can afford more calories? (As it was 200 years ago?)

Also your ignoring satiety. The high calorie/high sugar foods promote overeating (as evidenced in the studies I cited). If they can't afford the kind of foods (high fiber and unprocessed) that make them feel full, they're going to overeat by default.

I can't disagree that demographics don't affect the statistics on obesity. But then again, people have choices if they want to make them. We as people do so much out of habit, and that's where it has to be addressed first.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

It's not true. Actual sugar production is down from 20 years ago. You can do your own research by looking at the BLS and other government sites. This is nothing but a sensationalist piece with an agenda. It is a advertisement, actually.

It's mostly untrue. If even a few of the facts are misguided, let's say it was an innocent mistake...how many others can you believe? The whole thing comes into question.

So, before you blindly believe it, do your own research on some of their claims. Don't read blogs and opinions, but dig into actual research, and read it and understand what it says. You will find that the movie is total BS.

You are so right and it's called "personal responsibility". Something which has been lost in today's society.

Imagine what a different world it would be if $341 million dollars last year had been used to make healthy low calorie foods like fruit and veggies available for less than the $1 menu at McDonalds?

Sorry, but you're making the speculating that people are going to eat better because it's more available and cheaper?

Also, we do spend government money trying to make fruit and vegetables more available. Arguably not as much as we should, and there are difficulties in doing it, but we do.

In addition to the food stamp program in general, there have been efforts recently to make them usable at farmer's markets and the like. Moreover, as I live in a city where food deserts are an issue, I know there's lots of attention paid to this problem and have been significant efforts (successful ones) to bring good quality supermarkets to neighborhoods where they don't choose to go based on the market alone. To some extent this has been opposed by community groups who fear gentrification, and it's also often not successful (just because fresh fruits and veggies are available doesn't mean people buy them -- back to the market issue).

It's also true that food giveaways are focused on canned and non-perishable items for obvious reasons. And even apart from those difficulties, having volunteered at both a breakfast and dinner program for the homeless, I can tell you that the cereal gets taken and the fruit doesn't, and the popular dinner choices were always less healthy options. I don't think this is because people are confused about whether or not veggies are healthy. I think it's because people very often care about other things more. I mean, even look at plenty of posts on this forum about people not wanting to eat vegetables. They aren't misled; they have taste preferences that result from their eating habits.

I think that the problem with equating sugar/"unhealthy" foods to cigarettes and alcohol is that there is no consensus/universality on sugar's impact on people like there is with cigarettes and alcohol. Yes, some people have issues with sugar. I actually do agree with a lot of you that sugar can be/feel addicting for some people.

However, sugar doesn't effect everyone in an "addictive" manner. Lots of people can eat sugar without craving it. People can eat cupcakes and drink sodas without ever becoming overweight. With sugar, there is not a universal impact on the human body. Cigarettes and alcohol have similar effects on everyone, even if some people are more susceptible to becoming addicted to them (which can be driven my emotional/mental issues rather than just a physical predisposition).

Attacking sugar is ineffective because you're coming at the problem from the wrong angle. People like sugar, and they like to consume the foods they like. We can't tell people not to eat a cupcake because we think it's bad for them. It's up to them to decide if the cupcake is something that they want to eat.

We need to educate people/make sure that the whole message is conveyed.

You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.

However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?

Two things. One, it's hard to stop a subsidy once it starts. Even if the general public became enraged over the subsidy, it would be incredibly difficult to change things. Two, sugar alone is not the cause of obesity. It is a factor for many - probably most - overweight/obese people, but eating sugar will not necessarily make a person gain weight. Subsidizing sugar is not subsidizing the thing that's making us fat, though I would personally prefer to see the money spent on something else.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

It is inaccurate for a company to portray their product as being the answer to someone's obesity problem when it isn't. The merits of the product are being misconstrued to make a sale. It's the same as deciding that sugar is the only culprit when it is not.

I'm not saying that the government can stop this from happening, or that we don't have personal responsibility. I'm saying that there are people who genuinely believe that these foods will solve their problems. If no one attempts to counter that message, then the problem will both continue and get worse. We have people who are taking personal responsibility but doing the wrong thing. Those people will fail, and with each failure they become more and more discouraged. The problem gets worse and worse.

Between 1820 and 1930, US sugar consumption increased 10-fold. 10 fold! During that time, life expectancy at birth nearly doubled, from around 35 to over 60.

Sugar FTW!

You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.

However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?

You're confusing the issues with profit and loss vs healthy and unhealthy. The reality is that corporations are out for ONE thing...................profit. If something isn't profitable, it's not going to be marketed.
We as people MAKE THE CHOICE on whether to keep a product out there or not based on purchasing.

And again, it's not the just the food that's CAUSING the obesity. People are choosing wrong, eating huge portions, and are just less physically active than prior years.
We can find so many people on here who have successfully lost weight, kept it off or maintained while eating processed foods. How'd they do it? They got good information, tracked what they ate and kept their portions and calories in check. When the general population actually decides it's important to them, they'll do it too.

Let's look at a city like Washington, DC. According to the American College of Sports Medicine report, that city is the fittest in the US currently. Now you'd have a hard time convincing me that the amount of processed foods, sugar laden foods, etc. wasn't offered for sale to the public, just like any other city in the US. So what's the difference? Choices and physical activity.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

^agreed. When we talk about choices, there are so many different ways to go about this. What irritates me is the whole notion that, as parents, we have less control over our children than advertisers. By the time a child is ten years old, most of our influence and teachings are complete, so if, as a parent you think you're already doomed because you sit your child in front of cartoons every day when they are two years old, then you may be right. By ten, children are capable of choosing their path, how they eat, and their morals and choices etc. As parents, we have to understand that we do have so much power and influence over little people. We choose the amount of cable and internet access in the house, the foods that come in, the rules and routines.

In my family, I just rarely had the choice of packaged foods, pop, and what some people call "junk food" for my children, I didn't have cable tv when my children were little, and we sat down as a family and ate a home-cooked meal with protein, carbs and vegetables every day. My children had no rules around having to finish what was on their plate, or having snacks inbetween meals. I believe in having a few rules that are agreed upon, and not wavering. This worked very well and fits my style of parenting. Another family might have lots of packaged foods in the house and rules around consumption and more routine in the day than I had. This may work also. I don't believe that there are powerful scary external forces making our children obese. But if I tried to produce a documentary about personal responsibility and eating meals as a family at the table, it probably wouldn't be exciting enough to be syndicated.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

It is inaccurate for a company to portray their product as being the answer to someone's obesity problem when it isn't. The merits of the product are being misconstrued to make a sale. It's the same as deciding that sugar is the only culprit when it is not.

I'm not saying that the government can stop this from happening, or that we don't have personal responsibility. I'm saying that there are people who genuinely believe that these foods will solve their problems. If no one attempts to counter that message, then the problem will both continue and get worse. We have people who are taking personal responsibility but doing the wrong thing. Those people will fail, and with each failure they become more and more discouraged. The problem gets worse and worse.

I don't know of a single food that markets itself as the answer to anyone's obesity problem. Please point me to some advertisements showing this. I also don't know anybody that believes that a single food will solve all their problems, outside of these documentaries (and for the record, documentaries are usually scripted and heavily edited.)

It's not simply a single advertisement. This is the entire message portrayed by the food industry because they want to sell their product. When someone wants to sell you something, they do what they need to do to convince you to buy it.

In this case, the public is told that the answer to obesity is switching their current food choices for the lighter/leaner/low fat versions. Kellogg wants you to buy Special K (and eat three servings because most people don't measure it) instead of switching out cereal for a vegetable omelet. When you start thinking that pop tarts might be "bad" for you, they want you to switch to the low fat option and continue giving them your money (for obvious reasons).

A lot of people buy into the idea that the lighter options are the solution. We see them on the boards here at MFP, and we know them in real life. (Apparently you don't know them in real life, but that doesn't mean that no one thinks this way.)

It's not a single food, it's the whole category of "lighter" choices. These foods are not inherently evil, but the companies who make them want you to buy as many of their foods as possible, which means that people are still over-consuming while believing that they are making the right choices. These people need more education and additional messaging. We can't expect food companies to tell you both sides of the story, but someone has to do it.

I'm just going to say it. Some people are not smart. We all know this. Some people are not smart and are very gullible. These people are easily misled, and if no one even attempts to tell them that the messaging is incorrect they are basically SOL. Then we tell them it's their fault.