I love Coke. Always have. I could drink nothing but Coke and my life would be complete. I dabble occasionally in the diet drinks, but they just aren’t as satisfying. Anyway, it turns out this stuff is really bad for you... all of it. Yeah, makes me sad.
There have been numerous recent studies involving drinks that contain high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup is used in everything from Coke to cookies to tomato sauce. It’s made from corn. And according to these studies, high-fructose corn syrup activates the part of the brain which makes you hungry. In other words, there is scientific evidence gathering that drinking Coke makes you hungry. If this is true, then high-fructose corn syrup could well be a HUGE contributing factor to our nation’s obesity problem.
But is it true?
Well, I’ve done a little experiment. I track what I eat and I decided to go a few days without drinking Coke. Honestly, the difference was shocking. I found that I wasn’t nearly as hungry AND it was easier to eat less. In other words, I didn’t want to eat more than I should have and I had no interest in eating junk. I didn’t crave anything. I had more energy and I felt better. But that could be a fluke, right? So I tried this off and on for a couple months. Every single time the results were the same. Each time I skipped the cola (diet or otherwise), I ate less and felt better.
Hmm.
Now, I know that one person’s experience means nothing scientifically, but I am left to wonder when I see numerous studies all saying the same things and then I experience something this dramatic. That makes me think there is something to this and I’ve decided to cut my Coke to a bare minimum and even then to switch to the version with sugar in it (you can get that in Mexican grocery stores... at least around here).
As an aside, several studies say diet drinks are worse, i.e. they cause people to eat more, they slow the metabolism, and they are now linked to a significant risk of depression.
But here’s the catch: there is no such thing as certainty in science. Science simply doesn’t deal in absolutes. It deals in more likely than not. So you can never be 100% certain. And this is where the politics enters the picture. When a study comes out accusing some product of doing something harmful, the industry quickly runs out and attacks the study, and the preferred attack is bogus, it’s aimed at the idea that the study “isn’t conclusive”... which no study can ever be. This is a much higher standard than we even require to convict someone of murder.
Industry then calls their lobbyists who race to Capital Hill Republicans to get them to attack the study. In fact, all industry needs to do is complain that it must be “leftists attacking our jobs” and conservatives automatically knee jerk defend the product as blameless and Holy and accuse the scientists of being secret communists. This is really, really bad for America, for us, and for our ideology.
1. For one thing, there ARE dangers out there. Not everything is Alar. IF high-fructose corn syrup is causing the problem the studies claim, as it appears to be, then it’s foolish to defend that when a simple change back to sugar from corn could go a long way to fixing the public health. When did conservatism become about ignoring dangers just because we like the guy hiding the danger?
2. By dismissing everything, conservatives take themselves out of the debate. Name the issue and conservatives automatically jump to the defense of industry... nothing proven conclusively here folks, move along.
When you dismiss everything out of hand every time, people stop listening to you because they don’t think your position is fair or reasonable. They see you as an inverse chicken-little who will happily ignore real dangers for ideological reasons. And as much as some conservatives don’t want to hear this, the reality is that the public does care about pollution and consumer safety. The public simply does not want dirty air, dirty water, poisonous food or exploding cars. And the public doesn’t trust industry to police itself because they know better. They know that the incentive of industry is to get away with as much as possible because they are motivated by profit, not “the common good.” And they’ve seen industry take stupid risks to squeeze the bottom line. That means, the public trusts the government to regulate, not industry. Conservatives need to understand this and accept it as a fact.
Now, I’m not saying there aren’t bad studies. To the contrary, leftists are big on using half-assed studies and bad science to push an agenda. Look at the global ice age/warming/cooling/climate change industry. BUT if conservatives want to influence the public on regulation... if they want to be taken seriously when they point to something as a bad regulation or a false study... they need to stop knee-jerk defending industry and demanding a standard of proof that is scientific nonsense. Just because smoke doesn’t always mean fire doesn’t mean it never means fire either. Liberals are in the always camp, conservatives are in the never camp. . . the public rejects both.
Finally, let me address another aspect of this. Conservatives have been played for suckers with this idea that these studies (and regulations) are an on/off issue: either you bless the product or you ban it. That’s simply false. The reality is that there are many levels in between and those are where conservatism used to lie. For example, most conservatives will agree that a proper role of government should be the dissemination of accurate information to the public. Hence, a warning label makes sense. Yet, when the cigarette industry got their hands into conservatism, suddenly conservatives bizarrely started opposing that. Ask yourself why? Why should conservatives ever oppose people being well-informed? Ditto on genetically modified foods and ditto on meat from clones and ditto on publicly-traded company financial statements. Each time conservative objected that it would “cost too much” or “hurt the industry” to make them warn consumers. What a load of crap. The real fear was the public would reject those products and the industry paid Republicans to try to stop the government from letting the public make up its own mind.
Our entire ideology depends on having a well-informed public making rational decisions, how does it help to suppress the very information the public needs? The next time you hear conservatives scream that some study is just another “assault on industry,” ask yourself if that’s really the case.
In the meantime, I recommend cutting back the Coke.
66 comments:
P.S. Let me add again... the Coke thing makes me sad. :(
Also, as an aside, has anyone followed this bizarre story about Manti Toe'o's dying girlfriend hoax?
Here's the story from Deadspin: LINK
This thing gets weirder and weirder by the minute. Any moment, I expect it to get pulled into the Sandyhook conspiracy ass-lunacy.
Well, I don't drink Coke, I drink Dr. Pepper. WIN!
LOL! Jerk. Actually, if this is true, then it would be amazing that a simple switch back to sugar could potentially make a huge difference in the nation's health. It certain deserves investigation.
P.S. I prefer Mr. Pibb to Dr. Pepper. :D
Would You Like To Be A Pepper Too?
Isn't it funny how often we can quote lines from sci-fi movies.
I go between Dr. Pepper and Coke. I prefer vanilla in both. If only they place the option for vanilla Dr. Pepper in Freestyle machines.
You are getting hungry, because of the sugar high from the corn syrup. When you come off the high your body wants more. That's the simplest way I can put it. Yes, it will make you fat.
I don't look at these things like this through a political prism. I'm looking at it from a production/engineering perspective. The first question I ask is how much does natural sugar cost vs. corn syrup. I'm not factoring the human cost. The best example of political thinking it can mandate science. Science is just as prone to politics, but there are scientific principals set so absolutely they will outlast any stone.
But the left prefers belief to fact(or scientific principal).
Right now we again have to golden opportunity to show the libs up.
People only put up windmills and solar panels if the government gives a subsidy.
Electric cars will never ever ever ever compete with an internal combustion engine. Again needs a government subsidy.
These ideas are so costly and grossly inefficient, and try to argue with the laws of thermodynamics(only idiots and politicians would argue with mother nature). As all of the bankrupted companies have proven. But like Andrew is saying we have a lot of nonsense going on. I do disagree on the public not buying both arguments. There are way to many people putting up solar panels on their houses. Which means a very large number have bought into lib argument. Not about doomsday, but that they work.
Max, There is certainly a percentage of the population that buys the liberal idea, just like there is a percentage who will always believe the opposite. But I think the vast majority of the public is actually quite reasonable. The problem is that we have not be very reasonable in attracting them. Too often, conservatives have played a knee-jerk defense of industry and that's cost us a lot of credibility with people when we do point out that things like wind turbines don't work.
I think that we really need to step back and ask ourselves honestly in each case if there is scientific merit and how we should respond. If we do that, then I think we are more than capable of winning over the public when we tell them, "this is not true" or "this doesn't work," because it's all about credibility. But so long as we just keep dismissing everything out of hand, we just look like tools for industry.
By the way, on the drinks, there is apparently more to it than that because they are saying that sugar and fructose cause the brain to fire differently.
But again, my point isn't Chicken Littlism. I'm not saying "I saw something I want to believe, so let's ban Coke." What I'm saying is that there are now a good number of legitimate-seeming studies that back this up (plus my own experience) and that's worthy of further investigation and possibly something like a warning label. I think a conservative government should always be about discovering the truth and providing the truth to people so they can make their own decisions. Right now, we're not doing that, so that leaves the field to the left by default and their favorite solution is banning things.
Andrew: If you look hard enough, you can find imported Mexican Coke (ah, that's Coca Cola if the DEA is monitoring) which uses sugar. In fact I think you can order it on the internet.
Epidemiology RANT mode ON:
Remember when eating lots of fiber helped to prevent cancer?
Remember when eating lots of fiber didn't prevent cancer?
Remember when being overweight meant years off your life?
Remember when being overweight meant living longer?
Remember when carbs were considered 1/3 of a balanced meal and meat was bad for you?
Remember when carbs were considered something you want to minimize as much as possible?
Yeah. Funny how this kind of "science" seems to change overnight. You could add a few hundred of these types of results - things that were shown to do so and so and later found not to do same.
I've known some people who have passed away from obesity and they never ever touched a regular soda - drinking only diet drinks. Since there was a correlation between fat people drinking diet drinks (since diet drinks are a relatively painless way to avoid calories) I kept wondering for years when the epidemiology folks would exploit the correlation for grant money. They did.
There's been some studies recently showing quite a bit of corruption in these kinds of studies - where the results were unreproducible.
Frankly, I think western government financed science in general is in need of a good auditing and reform.
I have severe Crohn's Disease, twice having had re-sections of my small intestine over the past 40 years, so I have long been extremely careful what I eat. Anyway, I cut out all "soda" (a northeastern term for "pop") years ago.
Andrew......I have always felt that just about anything in moderation should be okay for our bodies. Sure, too much sugar is bad for you. Too much meat is bad for you. Too many Cokes, diet or regular, should be bad for you. Too much alcohol, including wine and beer, is bad for you.
If we practice a little self-control, as you have shown in your personal observations with Coke/soda/pop, we can control our own physiologies. Now, every other commenter on here would have a slightly similar/dissimilar reaction to your exact experiment.
One advantage of aging (gracefully in my case of course!) is we get to know our bodies and minds and what affects them and how. I personally don't drink Coke, diet or otherwise. In fact, I don't drink any sodas because I've found I don't like the effect they produce in my system for about 24 hours. Yet, I will have the occasional rum and diet with my brother-in-law, fully aware of the health risks associated with both. Yeah? So what? It is a decision I am making as a sentient adult.
That's why I like the warning labels approach. Let me decide what I put in my body. Sorta like the abortion debate. Let people choose, but DO NOT use money forcibly confiscated from taxpayers to pay for their choice.
Jed - Soda's a southeastern term, too. :-)
Andrew -
Articles like this are why I wish this blog had a much larger readership! And I'm in 100% agreement with you.
On one hand, K is correct. A couple of guys produce a study saying X is bad and it's all over the local news. The next day, a couple of guys produce a study saying X is good... and it's all over the local news. "Eggs are good, eggs are bad, milk is good, milk is bad, ad nauseum."
On the other hand, I do wish some people wouldn't knee-jerk this stuff every single time by blindly defending industry. (And I say that as a Coke fan, though I like ginger ale more!)
Andrew, it's a shame to hear what Manti Te'o did. He really seemed like a nice and humble guy. His response to this whole thing is just beyond stupid!
I'm a MEGA health freak, most of the time. I count every calorie. I haven't had soda (or in Jed's case, pop) since NYE. Being Asian, I drink a lot of Ito En iced teas, instead! So much more refreshing (and healthier too!) than soda pops and juices.
With the being said, Warning labels on sodas? Really? Nutritional facts aren't enough? I want to believe that most people know that soda and all junk foods in general are definitely bad for their overall health and well-being. I guess I'm overestimating the public, again...
Well, living in the land of Bloombergistan, EVERYONE -liberal or conservative - has developed that knee jerk reaction out of sheer survival! And it really is not WHAT Bloomberg has done, but the way he goes about it. Because honestly, some have turned out okay. No smoking in restaurants has really changed the industry for the better. But, he is so heavy handed with it all, that one can't help but bristle. Adults really do not like being told what to do in their private personal lives. That's why we decided to become adults in the first place, isn't it?? Otherwise, I would have gladly stayed at home and let my mother do my laundry with all of those phosphates and stuff...
And another thing - What ever happened to "PSA"'s (public service announcements?? I used to see them all the time when I was a kid! You know, put out that campfire (Only YOU Can prevent forest fires!" and the one about littering with the Indi...oops Native American with the tear running down his cheek.
And one last thing - The issue with soda pop (there, now everyone knows what we're talking about!).
If your goal is to be more healthful, then choose sugar over corn syrup or artificial sweetners. Aspertame, one of the leading calorie free sweetners is a derivitive of cianide, for goodness sake!!
But if your goal is to lose weight, then you have to cut calories.
It is the calories-in to calories-used that puts on the pounds. No-calorie sweetners work on that same part of the brain that makes us hungry exactly the same way sugar and all carbs do. So people feel like they can eat more because they aren't drinking full sugar drinks. How many times have you seen someone order a diet Coke with a hot fudge sundae??
And don't get me started on trans-fats versus vegetable fats...
In all seriousness, I have no intention of dropping the corn syrup. If other people want to, that's entirely up to them; and maybe I'll cut sodas out of my diet in the future. But certainly not in the near future.
Besides, the way things usually go, I really do expect that in a few months we'll hear of a new study saying drinking Coke reduces your risk of prostate cancer or something. (No, really. They just said that crystal meth can reduce your susceptibility to the flu, so how is this impossible?)
T-Rav - re: crystal meth and the flu
Though I agree with you. Ummm, yeah, that's because meth addicts are rarely around lots of people, so they are probably not exposed to the flu virus. And the "losing all your teeth" issue and the "making you look about 40 years older than you are" issue, far outweigh the "reduce your susceptibility to the flu" issue. Just sayin'...
Also, why don't we just ship cases of Coke to the starving people in Africa? Then they will gain weight and not be starving anymore or not THINK they are starving anymore...
K, That's the standard conservative response, and it's wrong.
First, the fact there are some bad studies does not mean they are all bad. That's like saying some football teams stink, hence they all must stink.
Indeed, a great many things have been proven to be harmful. Not everything is Alar. There are chemicals which have been shown to cause any number of serious conditions. And conservatives pooh poohed every single one of those studies because some industry group told them there wasn't conclusive evidence. I still recall conservatives in the 1990s claiming that the harm from cigarettes was overstated, defending particle asbestos, and claiming that lead paint isn't harmful. Name this issue and conservatives opposed it. I still recall conservatives claiming that airbags would kill people... because the Big Three paid Republicans to make that claim and conservatives ran with it.
As for knowing some people who got obese without drinking soda, so what? I can point to people who died without going to Mars, does that make it safe for humans to stand on Mars?
Secondly, the fact there are some contradictory studies does not automatically refute a study. You need to evaluate at each study on its own merit. A sloppy contradictory study does not undo a series of quality studies -- and often the contradictory studies are put together by industry and are quite sloppy, or they only address one little aspect in the hopes of triggering confusion.
Again, it's time for conservatives to get reasonable. If you dismiss everything with generic arguments or illogical argument, then you have no credibility when you point out genuine flaws.
Finally, as to your point of science needing reform, science is a lot more disciplined than conservatives give it credit for. Again, conservatives point to a handful of flakes and decide that they represent everyone. The truth is most science is done well and most scientists are doing their jobs right. The evidence is all around you in all the advances you see.
Moreover, even if that's true that science does need to be cleaned up, who's going to listen to us when we say is since our history is to pretend that science can teach us nothing?
Jed, I'm pretty sure giving up Coke is beyond my powers, but I'm cutting back dramatically. What troubles me here is that Coke is only the most visible aspect of this. I've looked at everything on my shelf and there is high fructose corn syrup in everything. IF this is true, then it's clear why there's a real problem out there.
Patriot, Absolutely. The one thing I've learned over time is that the key to life is moderation. Just keeping things in moderate proportions will do wonders for you all around.
And if the issue was just that this stuff has a lot of calories, then it wouldn't bother me. What troubles me here, is that the studies I've been reading suggest there is something else going on here. They suggest that high fructose corn syrup HFSC works differently on the brain. What they are saying is that while HFCS has the same number of calories, it's effect on the human body is different -- that it actually causes hunger, whereas sugar does not.
Add in the fact that this stuff is in everything now because it's cheaper than sugar, and you basically have people everywhere eating something that is making them hungry... if this is true.
That's the problem to me, and that would warrant a warning label in my opinion because that's not something people would reasonable expect.
Again, I'm not a fan of banning things, but I do believe that people should be warned of "hidden dangers" so they can make an informed decision.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."
I don't mind the government putting out public service announcements but they never stop at that. They must do something! They must protect the children! That's the problem. I don't buy into the studies you suggest as typically they are done on rats or overall poorly done. Sugar is sugar and too much is bad for you. Simple sugars are absorbed and used rapidly thus the sugar high (which has recently been brought into question) and the crash. I agree that there shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction immediately defending an industry but the industry has the right to be heard. I want to see all government subsides end, which would help temper some of these reactions. BTW, it isn't coke that has the congressman's ear, it is the corn industry.
Scott, Thanks! :)
I enjoy the articles like this because it's more interesting to me than talking about whatever Obama did yesterday.
And in this case, I think the issue is important. People do want a government that protects them from hidden dangers. Conservatives need to realize that and they need to stop knee-jerk defending industry. If industry does wrong, we should call them on it, just like we should call the government when it does something wrong. Conservatism should be about truth, always. It should also be working hard to create a well-informed public because that's the only way democracy and free markets can work.
And again, I'm not saying ban anything. I'm saying make consumers aware so they can make up their own minds.
Unfortunately, conservatism has become about suppressing information that donors want suppressed and defending the indefensible. And it has taken on an anti-science aspect that is makes us sound like luddites and discredits us with the public.
As for the value of these studies, again, each needs to be examined on its own. What I find compelling about the high fructose corn-syrup studies is that they are LARGE studies with striking results done over years, combined with things like brain scans. This isn't two guys studying five people for ten minutes. That warrants serious attention in my opinion. Not to mention, the industry response has been to trot out nutritionists (who aren't anything) to say, "well, it's natural and it has the same calories." That's not a valid defense.
Again, I'm not saying this is proven true, but I'm saying conservatives need to start examining these things with an honest eye.
Snape, It's really bizarre. I'm still trying to figure out why he would do this? I guess he wanted a great story for the Heisman? It's just really strange.
If this is true, then the warning labels would be justified because this is beyond a nutrition issue. This would be about brain chemistry and the corn syrup having a different effect on the brain than sugar.
I agree that Republicans shouldn't be knee-jerk defending industry on any issue, and that's the real bottom line. But I also have a problem when the science is crap like it is in the way high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is presented to the public.
Now, there seems to be a link between the increase in HFCS and obesity, I'm not saying otherwise. But all this stuff about it making a person hungrier, slowing metabolism, and tricking the brain--that's mostly borrowed from studies on artificial sweeteners, which HFCS is not. Even without asking for 100% certainty, the studies aren't scientifically conclusive as to the effects of HFCS on hunger, metabolism, or the brain. That's a way of saying that Republicans would have a leg to stand on if it weren't jerking out from under them.
The issue with HFCS isn't as esoteric as all that. The issue is that it is essentially pre-digested. Everything the body does burns calories, including eating and digesting. Regular sugar (sucrose), as found in Mexican Coke (MexiCoke?), needs to be broken down by the digestive system into fructose and glucose before it can be absorbed. In other words, your body has to do a little work to get it. HFCS, on the other hand, is pretty much just a 1:1 blend of fructose and glucose ready to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. So HFCS is basically a direct calorie injection.
With appologies to Koshcat, sugar is not sugar. That said, regular table sugar is only marginally better, as that too is refined. The thing to remember is that refined food equals pre-digested food.
As it relates to politics, liberals come out ahead b/c even though they are forcing things on people, which doesn't tend to go over well, they at least have something to point to in the way of reason. Conservatives look like the irresponsible ones b/c they appear to advocate wanton sugar consumption based on nothing more than "if it feels good, do it." Conservatives fancy themselves the "information" people, and in general, conservatives are pretty well informed. Where they fall down is in informing.
Letting people make up their own minds only works when people feel informed. Right now, most people beleive they are being misled or kept in the dark at every turn. Calling people "low-information" doesn't fix any of that. We all know that liberals prefer indoctrination to education. Conservatives need to become the educators if the political discourse is to improve.
all one needs to do to know there is a problem is look around when you go out in public. I suppose aging, a more sedentary life-style has something to do with it, but diet is the main culprit.
I have also read that big pharma adds ingredients to their drugs that will cause other symptoms that they can "treat" with yet another prescription. Can't prove it, but it sounds like it could be true.
Koshcat,
I know it's the corn industry and not Coke, Coke just makes for a more compelling article -- plus the studies that got me interested in this actually dealt with Coke and Diet Drinks.
As for these studies, the ones in question were done on people, not rats. But I'm also talking about bigger issues than just this single issue. There isn't a single issue where conservatives haven't knee-jerk jumped to the defense of industry and defended things well past the point that the dangers were clear. There are still conservatives who tell you that the dangers from asbestos are a myth.
None of that helps our ideology when we refuse to accept that anything is dangerous. And as long as we take that approach, then we are basically abandoning the field to the other side, who generally like to ban things. In effect, we're making ourselves irrelevant.
As for industry having a right to be heard, absolutely.... but our ideology doesn't need to be their mouthpiece. When need to be more honest in the things we defend.
Totally agree on the subsidies.
Bev, You've said a mouthful. :)
On Bloomberg, that's the problem... with our side abandoning this entire field, just as we abandoned education long ago, we leave it up to liberals to handle the issue on their own, and their preferred method is to ban things. If conservatives didn't just knee-jerk defend everything, we would have a lot more credibility when it came time to offering alternative solutions.
Some examples: warning labels, banning from public schools/food stamps, ending subsidies that support, allowing legal liability for the harm, etc.
But we can't offer any of that because no one listens to us anymore because our response is always "scientists are communists, this study is garbage, and people get what they deserve." That just makes us not-credible on any scientific issues.
You're right about the diet drinks, by the way. Other studies have shown that people who drink diet drinks eat more and burn fewer calories under testing conditions. They've also been linked to depression now. And I found the same thing. It didn't matter if I drank Coke or Diet Coke, the effect on my diet was the same -- I did much better drinking tea with sugar than either.
As to that football player, it was reported that he may have been punked. Which is really sad. Apparently, he developed an "online" relationship with a woman that he never met, Then she "died" and he was broken-hearted that he lost someone that he really cared about. Someone did a search to try and find the woman and found out that she never existed.
We do all still miss LawHawk very much, so I think we can all understand how someone can develop a meaningful relationship with someone that they've never met in person.
T-Rav, That's your choice, but it's also not my point. My point is not that we need to ban the stuff or stop people from using it. My point is that if this stuff does what they claim, then it's a "hidden danger" consumers would not expect and it is something about which the public should be warned so they can make up their own minds.
That's the point here. The point is that conservatives need to get back into the science game by treating these issues fairly rather than just dismissing them all, and then offering solutions that give people choice and the knowledge they need to make that choice.
We lose our ability to influence the public when they no longer trust us. And on one trust us on science issues anymore.
Bev, LOL! Yeah, the negative effects of meth pretty much outweigh it's flu-fighting prowess.
Coke is already sold in Africa. It's sold the world over. And believe it or not, they get money from Uncle Sam through USAID to pimp Coke overseas, because corporations like Coke apparently aren't capable of advertising themselves.
tryanmax, While I do think there is something to these studies about HFCS, I agree with your overall point. That's the real problem here. Conservative criticism of these studies, no matter how valid, falls on deaf ears because conservatism has become unreliable when it comes to science.
We knee-jerk defend everything industry wants, no matter how scientifically wrong. Even after something is "proven" harmful (or as conclusively as possible) we still poo poo it. Think about the conservative reaction every time someone mentions asbestosis? First, they dismiss it as something lawyers invented. Then they claim the people who claim to have it are fakers. Then they nonsensically claim that people knew the risk (of something they still claim isn't risky). Finally, they claim that the product was safe until liberals declared it unsafe and demanded that it be removed. Those are nonsense defenses to a genuine health issue that actually does kill people.
Who is going to listen to us or to our solutions when this is all we have to offer? We are abandoning this entire field of consumer safety (and environmentalism) to liberals because our attitude is to put our heads in the sand and sneer.
And like I say above, this isn't just about HFCS, I've seen conservative do this on issue after issue.
Even on things like financial statements. Conservatives actually take the position that companies shouldn't be required to certify that their financial filings are true. What possible basis could there be to defend that right to lie to the public in the stock market? "Well, it would be too much pressure on CEOs to need to swear that something is true." Huh? When did we become the party of the coverup?
Our ideology is about letting people make their own decisions. We can't convince people that will work if at the same time we are working hard to keep hidden dangers hidden.
Jed, This is pure conjecture, and I must stress that obesity is the result of many factors, but it's interesting that obesity really took off as FHCS became more widespread. I think that is worth study.
But again, let me stress that we are talking about an issue with many facets. People have become more sedentary, particularly with the advent of computers and the internet, restaurant portions are much larger, advertising is much more focuses on immediate gratification than it was in the past, we eat more processed foods, even at home, and God knows what kinds of chemicals we have been pumping into our bodies over the past fifty years, etc.
It could be any number of things. But it's still worth trying to find all the contributing factors and seeing if those can be fixed. And if something like HFCS is a problem, then people need to know, so they can demand a return to sugar or simply avoid it entirely.
On the Big Pharma stuff, I have no idea. I actually hadn't heard that. But I do know that they are very shady in many of their practices (particularly when it comes to patents), and they often "create" diseases to generate demand.
Bev, That was my first thought too, but he's also claimed he met her and he spoke with her on the phone every night, and a lot of what he's saying isn't adding up. So I'm leaning toward him being in on this. Either way though, this is a strange and sad affair. And if he has been punked, then it's truly sick.
That said, you're absolutely right about on-line relationship. I've become very close with lots of people I've never met in person, like many of you. It's a new world and it's very possible to really come to care for people you've never met in person.
Andrew: K, That's the standard conservative response, and it's wrong.
It's wrong to say you shouldn't take one or two papers - and not a large body of work - as gospel truth - when those studies make a splash in the media?
I've published in the scientific literature and I've seen the sausage being made from the inside. The first thing a research head at another university says when some other researcher's paper is spectacular enough to make the papers is "How close to tenure was he?"
Yes, the vast majority of scientific papers are honest and well done - you just won't find many of them being feted in the left wing press or being released at press conferences.
You say conservatives have a knee jerk reaction? Well the knee jerk reaction of the left is that commerce is trying to poison consumers for profit. That makes any study which fits their narrative resonate and become likely to make the papers. That in turn makes the career of the head of the scientific group secure in terms of department politics and government grants.
I haven't done this for a while, but I would suggest going through the popular science magazines like Discovery and PopSci from 10 years ago and check which articles on which scientific breakthroughs were actually real and which were BS. The last time I did that the ratio was something like 50 50.
I think this comes under conservatism going from pro-business (markets, minimal regs, etc) to pro-corporatism (protect industry from govt regardless, big business = goodness and light).
At the same time, liberals went from pro-protection (regs, accountability) to pro-nannyism (we know better than the consumer and we will tell them what they may eat, drink, breathe; what about the ecology/ environment; you should live simply - how dare you question where/how we live).
Somehow they both missed the pro-consumer perspective which would be a blend of the 2 original perspectives - informing while not limiting, sensible but not onerous regs (unless demonstrably dangerous), educating without preaching.
On the face of it, I have no objection to labels / education. However, I do not like the "real sugar" version of Mtn Dew. I had five left from a six pack for a year before I tossed them. But I know others who will work to get "retro" versions of sodas. (I hate Coke - therefore I refuse to call Dr Pepper or Mtn Dew "coke" like the rest of Texans.) (I also hate Pepsi. I do not like "cola".)
It's like the organic movement - go organic, fine and dandy. Just don't penalize me if we all don't. If everyone but me wants organic, then I can pay more in response, but don't force the regulated market to penalize producers that don't.
I think that's a long way of saying I mostly agree with Andrew.
K, No, it's not wrong to say that we shouldn't take one or two papers as gospel, it's wrong to dismiss every study out of hand. That's the problem with our side today. Name the issue and we dismiss it.
As you say, "the vast majority of scientific papers are honest and well done", yet conservatives take the position that it's ALL crap done to attack industry. Again, that's the problem. When you criticize everything, you have no credibility to criticize anything.
As for our knee-jerk reaction being a response to the leftist knee-jerk reaction, that may or may not be true, but how does that help? Just because their side is wrong doesn't make us justified in being wrong in the other direction.
Moreover, ideologically speaking the problem is that our reaction is the worse of the two because it leaves the left to run the show. Like it or not, the public is concerned about health and safety and if the choice is between someone who says there's a danger, here's a study backing me up, let's act, versus someone who says "there's never any danger," the public will always side with the people saying there is a danger for the simple reason that people know some of these dangers will be true and they don't want to die for ideological reasons. They know it's better to be prepared even if they are wrong 9 out of 10 times about the danger than it is to laugh it off and get killed 1 out of 10 times.
That's the problem. We really are our own worst enemies on this because our-knee jerk reaction defaults on the debate and leaves the left in charge.
also - scientific studies:
You generally cannot get published for NOT finding something. If there have been 49 bazillion studies that do not find a link between X and Y, maybe - MAYBE - a couple will be published. Those other 49 bazillion may be very strong, well-done studies, but finding anothing is rarely a "good" result. So, there may be good science that shows that the popular beliefs are unsubstantiated, but if they simply show a non-significant result instead of finding another correlation (+ or -), they sit in the researchers office filing cabinet until oblivion. And this knowledge means that researchers do not follow up on things that will get this result. So if a big study has a correlation, there will be some follow up, but when the results aren't exactly the same or if there is some non-significant results, they stop doing that. So the original study sits there and becomes accepted. Sometimes there are exceptions - but the ones I have read (limited population) are by already famous researchers or in response to highly unexpected results.
rlaWTX, Exactly!
I think this comes under conservatism going from pro-business (markets, minimal regs, etc) to pro-corporatism (protect industry from govt regardless, big business = goodness and light)..
This is very true. We have gone from love of free markets and capitalism itself to knee-jerk defense of whatever big industry the left currently attacks. Even in my lifetime, I've seen this shift, where we drifted away from things like open markets and lower regulation to protectionism for insiders.
I also agree entirely with this statement:
Somehow they both missed the pro-consumer perspective which would be a blend of the 2 original perspectives - informing while not limiting, sensible but not onerous regs (unless demonstrably dangerous), educating without preaching.
That's exactly right and that is what conservatives should be aiming for -- educated consumers and transparent producers interacting in a market that is only regulated to protect people from things they cannot reasonably protect themselves from.
Right now, neither side is offering that. The left is in nanny land and wants to protect everyone from themselves and conservatives want to help big business hide their dark side from consumers and promote regulations that protect cronies while killing regulations that help consumers. That needs to change.
And I totally agree about the organic stuff. Again, let me point out an irony here. Conservatives claim to love free markets and love it when people make their own choices. YET, we scoff at the idea of health itself. We should be thrilled that people want to go organic because it means there is a thriving market for people with different opinions seeking different options. That's capitalism in motion -- just like Kim Kardasian's butt. But we aren't thrilled. We sneer at anyone who makes these "wrong" choices. If we really believe in freedom, we should be encouraging greater choice and great options.
rlaWTX, That's definitely a problem and I think it would be useful if there were a better way to disseminate that kind of information. Perhaps with the internet, it would make sense to start creating more repositories for all kinds of studies.
I also think it would help if the scientific community created better guidelines for study sizes and factors that need to be addressed.
That said, my point isn't about the validity of any particular studies, it's about the conservative stance that nothing science tells us is true. When you criticize everything, you have no credibility to criticize anything. And that leaves the whole area to the left to handle because the public doesn't believe there are no dangers -- we've seen too many.
If conservatives want to win this debate, they need to change the attitude that every study is just a dishonest attack on industry. They need to recognize that sometimes there are hidden dangers and those need to be addressed.
If we don't do this, the left will continue to make advances and people like Bloomberg will continue to ban more and more things because we aren't even fighting back.
"...they get money from Uncle Sam through USAID to pimp Coke overseas, because corporations like Coke apparently aren't capable of advertising themselves..."
Yeah, I can understand why they can't just put a big sign that has a picture of a red/white swirl with "Sold Here" and an arrow might not work worldwide and they'd need aid from the government. Yeah, it must be hard to be such an obscure product. Poor obscure red/swirl logo company...;-(
But then again -
"I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company..." No, I still can see the obscurity problem...
Bev, I haven't kept up with USAID in a few years, but last I knew they were spending billions to sell the products of America's biggest companies overseas. That's the classic example of corporate welfare.
Excellent article Andrew. I concur. I don't know about Coke, as I don't drink it, but I think conservatism should always be about finding the truth and getting that to the public, no matter who gets hurt. I think having that kind of credibility is the only way to have people trust you when you tell them the sky isn't falling.
Also, if we want free markets to work, then we need to make sure that people can make informed decisions. Again, we should be pushing for more information, not less.
Andrew and Bev, I have no idea what happened with the football player, but if it's a prank from either side, then it's really twisted.
Andrew.......Methinks you are lumping ALL conservatives together with those that follow your points. I think that thinking occurs across all of political humanity. I don't think ALL conservatives act as you depict. I don't even know if MOST conservatives do. Now, political conservative critters in Congress surely do. Money never sleeps pal and pols need as much as they can get their grubby little hands on, thus the blind agreement with this or that interest group. Libs do the same thing.
To get back to your original argument, HFCS can be harmful in large doses. So, do we take the lib pov and start regulating/banning anything that could be harmful? The old "If it saves one child" canard. Or do we follow the bought politicos pov and say "You'll take away my HFCS over from my cold, dead hands?"
My philosophy is, warn people of the potential dangers of abuse of a product, but if they then want to kill themselves by overdoing it....well, Darwinism in action I guess.
I agree with Tyranmax except what I meant about sugar is sugar was exactly what you said. Basically, glucose is glucose, fructose is fructose.
Conservatives do a poor job but often it they are trying to respond to a hyper-emotional group with quick soundbites. "High-Fructose Corn Syrup is killing our children!!!" When you say there is no proof that HFCS is any worse than regular sugar. You quickly get back "It is imperative that the industry satisfactorially prove that!!!!" When you say that they did provide proof that their product was safe to the FDA, you get another hyper emotional response about how you are covering up for the company, you're a tool of the industry, you refuse to look at the SCIENCE!!!
Maybe coke wasn't the best example because it can be argued any coke sweetened with sugar or HFCS is not good for you. The area that is getting a ton of attention is fracking. Let me just say, the anti-frackers are completely insane and out of control. When you are so nuts you get asked to leave by the Boulder (as in Boulder, CO) County Hearing as being too disruptive...
Patriot, more important than our Republican CongressCritters is the self-appointed conservative punditry. The general attitude among them is that if liberals are suspicious of something, do more of it. You see it all the time. When the push was on to ban smoking in public, radio hosts encouraged people to light up every time the went out. On fuel efficiency, they mock hybrids and tell everyone to buy SUVs. And now with soda, they're telling everyone to run out and grab a Big Gulp.
Yes, all of these things may be within our rights, but being obnoxious about them is certainly no way to ensure their security and is completely juvenile.
If you want a model of how it should be done, look to the NRA and gun owners in general. The left throws around all kinds of studies to gin up support for gun restrictions and the NRA (normally) calmly refutes them with more and better information.
As far as gun owners go, aside from running to the ammo store every time Washington gets riled up, gun owners are not obnoxious about it. The few who are generally are regarded as nuts by gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
The NRA gets it right, the GOP and the guys on the radio get it wrong.
Thanks Ellen. That's exactly my point. We need to rethink our responses as conservatives and that means learning to trust science and trust the consumer again.
Patriot, First, let me be clear -- I don't think 100% of anyone does anything. Conservatives, like liberals, like everyone else, act in a variety of ways... some good, some bad. What I'm addressing is a threefold problem.
First, our image is rotten precisely because we let the people "who speak for us" take these kinds of positions. And my point there is that we need to let these people know we don't agree with them anymore. We need to stop letting them knee-jerk us into untenable positions that discredit our beliefs. Conservatives need to stop drinking the KoolAid. Just people pundit X or host Y or candidate Z says something is communists trying to take out jobs, doesn't mean it's true. We need to start thinking for ourselves again... too many aren't.
There is too much at stake to keep losing elections just because our opinion-leaders have cozied up to the tobacco industry or the asbestos industry or whatever.
Secondly, I'm pointing this out because we need to return the brain to conservatism. Right now, conservatism is on autopilot and it's headed straight into the ground. Conservatism is no longer about ideas, it's about knee-jerk defenses of the status quo. Well, the status quo ain't so grand and it ain't so conservative. I'm trying to get people to see where we are making mistakes because we've been (for lack of a better words) brainwashed into doing the bidding of donors rather than following our ideology.
Third, if conservatism ever wants to win again, it will need to re-capture the people it lost. My point in articles like this is to point out where we lost people and how to win them back. Again, I'm not saying "become leftists" and start banning things. I'm saying, let's use our brains, let's spot genuine points of concern that let the public know that we do care about them, and let's offer our own solutions to make life better for everyone.
Finally, I agree with your last point, and let me state again, we do not live in a YES/NO world. The choices aren't ban it or bless it. That's the trap conservatism has fallen into. There are many option in between. And warning people and then letting them make up their own minds is indeed the true conservative position.
Bloombergistan, Bev? That just sounds scary! I guess I'll be using that epithet when referring to NYC, from now on. Like how leftist refer the places between the coasts as "Dumbf*ckistan".
Patriot, you're right. Each time, Andrew makes articles like these. I just scratch my head to which Conservatives, he's referring to. He seems like he's buying into these strawman arguments from the Left. Most Conservatives aren't against ALL regulation, just the nonsensical ones. I guess he's referring to the uber-Libertarians, but that's a different story.
Has anybody here saw the documentary, Fathead? It challenges the notion that the US is having an "obesity epidemic".
Koshcat, I think bringing up fracking helps to illustrate the point. It looks at present as though public opinion of fracking leans slightly positive and is improving. Why? Because the opposition is completely hyperbolic while the supporters have good, positive facts on their side. Barring something unforeseen, I expect fracking to win the day.
You have the exact same scenario with HFCS, only the teams are switched. And while I don't think the anti-HFCS people have enough facts on their side to justify an all-out ban (which, to my knowledge, no one with clout is seeking) I do expect some new labeling regulation to come of it and possibly a push to remove it from things not generally regarded as sweets, like canned pasta.
Neither side is always right, despite that all you have to do to be right is follow the facts. But that's not really the point, either. Nobody cares who was "right all along" and in fact, people tend to resent those folks and side with those who came around later--like themselves.
If conservatives want to take the lead in America they need to escape their anti-liberal rut and lead the discovery process. Whatever debate comes up, they need to be the loud voice that says, "let's find out" rather than skeptically demanding someone else prove everything to them.
NO, not spagettios! Please don't tell me it has HFCS.
Koshcat, I used Coke because I did my own personal test on it. But the studies in question involved any use of HFCS.
Your point is well taken that conservatives are fighting against chicken littles. BUT that's all the more reason to be rational. The more honest we are in our assessments, the greater the trust the public will have in us when we say that something simply isn't proven. But if we knee-jerk everything, then we're just reverse chicken littles and the public will ignore us. Politics is about credibility and credibility requires showing people that you take their concerns seriously.
On fracking, from what I've read, it seems to be safe, so I don't have a problem with it. And it strikes me that the anti-fracking crowd is doing themselves a lot of harm by bringing in the usual chicken littles to lead the charge. I just don't trust Matt Damon, for example, and I doubt anything he claims is true.
But again, this is a good example where we would be better off if we were considered an honest broker -- but we're not. Our side keeps making stupid arguments that make it sound like we favor pollution. I still remember conservatives complaining about requiring double-hulled tankers after the Exxon Valdez. Ditto on airbags. Ditto on masks for workers in various chemical plants. It was always the same story. Our side said, "this is going to cost us jobs!" and then we came up with stupid ideas like airbags actually killing people or double-hulled tankers possibly exploding. All those things are now recognized as valuable safety innovations that our side tried to ridicule. With a record like that, it's hard to trust us when we say "hey, fracking is safe."
Again, I'm not saying run with the chickens, I'm saying don't always defend the fox.
'fraid so
tryanmax, I agree with that. The NRA by and large is rather savvy. They know that being obnoxious or ridiculing people's concern will only piss them off and get them to use whatever power they have against you. That is the lesson conservatives generally need to learn from a PR perspective.
I agree with you entire on your comment actually. How many times have you heard conservatives just mocking anyone who wants to make their home more energy efficient or who recycles, and how often have you heard them setting up things like smoking protests. Those are the kinds of signals that tell people, "we are laughing at your concerns."
Add in the selective presentation of information, the heavy spin, and the 100% consistency and it makes a lot of sense for people outside the bubble to see conservatism as hating consumers and hating the environment.
Snape, I'm not buying into anything. I'm using my eyes and my ears and my brain. And if you aren't hearing the conservatives who say these things, then you're not listening.
Severus - You are more than welcome to use "Bloombergistan" at will. But for only the next 245 days though. Come Jan 1, 2014, it will become some other "stan", though I doubt much will change. I am sure NYC will be feeling the effects of Bloomberg et al. for years to come.
tryanmax, I think that's right. The anti-fracking crowd is really hyperbolic, whereas the pro-fracking crowd has done a good job of putting together studies to show that there is no harm, and they've done it without hyperbole. That's the smart way to do it. Even the EPA couldn't refute the studies. So in the end, I think the pro-fracking people will win the debate, unless there's some major new discovery.
Koshcat, When I read the article that first mentioned the new study (the brain scan study) they pointed out that HFCS is in everything now. Anything that used to use sugar now uses HFCS.
I think I can conclude from Andrew's article(s) that his point about the Conservative brand as being irrevocably damaged is spot on. So, maybe it's time we begin separating terms here.... I have always leaned towards libertarianism (not libertine) when it comes to my approach to government. Basically, leave me the hell alone and let me make my own decisions regarding me and mine. As long as it doesn't harm anyone or anyone's interest, legally, then shut up and go away. If that's conservatism then I'm a conservative. I personally think it's more libertarian.
So, somehow, we need to distinguish between the corrupt brand of conservatism and the more popular mode of libertarianism-lite.
Patriot, I don't know if the "conservative" brand is irrevocably damaged, but it's beat itself up really badly. Right now, conservatism is weighed down by a lot of mistakes, by an ideology that has shrunken to "defend the status quo", and by a punditry that thinks "more of the same only angrier" is the answer.
I am convinced that simply cannot win over the public. And the end result will be generations of liberal rule. I am also convinced that's not conservatism. So even if we do win an election here and there, we won't get conservative policies.
I would very much like to see conservatism return to its roots of being a broad-based, common sense ideology that favors the free market plus a small, limited government which doesn't play favorites between segments of society.
But to get there, we need to refocus on all the things we've ignored and we need to challenge all of the sacred cows we've taken on that have locked us into bad ideas that actually run directly counter to our ideology -- like our current love affair with Big Business.
Libertarianism-lite is a good way to describe it.
tryanmax -
Patriot, more important than our Republican CongressCritters is the self-appointed conservative punditry. The general attitude among them is that if liberals are suspicious of something, do more of it.
^This in a nutshell! And it turns off otherwise open-minded folks like myself. I remember when they did one of those "Turn Off the Lights" events for a day and some pundits on the right were like, "I'm gonna leave all of my lights on!" F--- you. If someone wants to walk around in the dark for a cause, that's their business.
Andrew -
On the Big Pharma stuff, I have no idea. I actually hadn't heard that. But I do know that they are very shady in many of their practices (particularly when it comes to patents), and they often "create" diseases to generate demand.
So all of those left-leaning movies about Big Pharma were right after all? :-)
On this idea of Andrew falling for leftist strawmen, I know Andrew doesn't need anyone to defend him, but I will.
250,000,000 Americans did not vote for Romney. There is a reason they didn't. They aren't all brainwashed.
All the polls confirm that the image Andrew is presenting of conservatism is widely accepted in the US.
The Republicans are meeting this week and all they are talking about is trying to turn this image around.
Andrew is not alone in saying this.
Further, every time I turn on the radio, I hear the things Andrew is talking about. This past week, talk radio was foaming at the mouth about impeachment for imagined gun seizures. Last week, it was secession because the US has become tyranical. There were repeated referenced to Nazi Germany as if a 3% tax hike it the same thing as rounding up and murdering Jews. The same garbage is being said by sitting Congressmen.
The web is crawling with conservative bloggers and commenters who make the same laughable claims. They whine about everything. Everything is a conspiracy and the end of the world.
These same people knee-jerk defend anything the Democrats attack. They call all environmentalist "enviro-weenies" even though a great many conservatives are environmentalists. Does that not strike you as being opposed to environmental regulation? They call feminist "feminazis" even though a great many feminists are conservatives.
Our candidiates in the election tried to top each other on the issues of deportation and shutting down the EPA. Mike Savage wants a Nationalist Party to get rid of illegal aliens and to "protect our culture and our language." Our candidates screamed about Obama taking the banks out of the student loand program and about Obama setting up a consumer protection agency. These same talking points where spread by talk radio, by other politicians, and by bloggers. Some people even advocated those things here.
None of this came from the mouths of leftists. This is coming from conservatives. And if you don't see that, then you are trying not to see it.
Scott, I think you're right on that. As I said in my survey of single women, they were all pretty open minded, but they didn't like our side precisely because we are not very likable at the moment.
Take the issue you raise. Just because the idea behind the lights out thing is stupid (on many levels) doesn't mean that the idea of conserving energy is a bad thing. If it makes economic sense, then you do it. There's no reason to ridicule the whole idea of energy conservation just because some idiots latch onto it. Yet, that is what conservatives did.
This is a problem tryanmax pointed out a while back and I think it's a valid observation: once liberals decide they like something, no matter how good the idea is, conservatives turn against it. That really is cutting off our noses to spite the other guy's face.
On the Pharma stuff... uh, no. Big Pharma does a lot of crappy stuff, but the left is, as usual, off in insanity land. The left is simply nuts. They see conspiracies under every rock and they have no clue how the world works. They are truly fools in the worst sense of the word.
The problem with the Pharma industry are things like the misuse of patents. For example, they are able to stretch out patents by pretending to suddenly discover "new uses" for the drug, like giving it to children instead of adults. They also have discovered that they can make a mint by taking old drugs that have worked for years and combining them into a single pill and then issuing the new pill. The problem is, that often leads to side-effects.
I also think letting them advertise was a mistake. They are using advertising to try to create demand for medication so that people push their doctors rather than the doctor making the decision. It's the same issue with lawyer advertising... "have you been hurt by X."
Thanks Ellen. I see the same things. I don't listen to the left and I don't believe anything they say. Everything I'm talking about is coming from the mouths of conservatives.
ellen, A huge chunk of those 250,000,000, don't even vote period... I get they're are fringes on our side, but they're all over the political spectrum. I see the ones from the Left, all the time in my area, but I digress. Not every Conservative has a radio show or even a blog. You kinda have a point on radio, but blogs are different, there are many in the net! How do guys suppose to defeat the crazies? All i'm saying it's like beating a dead horse. Plus having a culture that is against everything we believe in, doesn't help, either... There are millions Conservatives out there, talk radio and the countless blogs are part of it, but they don't represent all Conservatives. The we should focus on instead are calling out all the fallacies coming from the Left and on our elected officials who claim to be Conservatives -- they do the most damage if they are stupid -- they must be articulate and be able to resonate Conservative values to the public. People like Jindal, Rubio, Walker, Ryan and Rand Paul are giving me some hope.
Snape, As I said, I'm not saying "all". I never say all. BUT the people I'm talking about are the people who are driving conservative opinion out there. I'm trying to get across that we can't just stick our heads in the sand. We need to change direction. That's the same message people like Jindal and Rubio and Ryan are offering right now.
And what I'm trying to do is to discuss the new agenda we need to adopt if we're going to succeed. That necessarily means describing areas where we have failed and then proposing a change.
We can attack the left all we want, but if we don't fix our own house, tearing theirs down won't change a thing.
...the public is concerned about health and safety and if the choice is between someone who says there's a danger, here's a study backing me up, let's act, versus someone who says "there's never any danger," the public will always side with the people saying there is a danger
Well, the answer, of course, is to specifically address the flaws of the individual studies themselves.
There are numerous conservative oriented books which go into great detail about specific studies and what's wrong with them. My favorite
is LINK
It's a bit technical from a statistics POV but the reasoning is backed up explicitly. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find at the moment.
K, Thanks for the link, I'll check that out.
Right, the answer is to address the flaws of the individual studies. But you need to do so reasonably as well. One of the problems I have on this issue is that conservatives keep repeating the idea that we need to achieve an impossible standard "conclusively proven" before they are willing to accept that there is any reason for concern. That's an impossible standard in science.
Moreover, as we discussed above, this issue then becomes one of mockery for failing to meet that standard. Those things need to stop.
Post a Comment