Current Events > Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong

(+) Yeah! (+)

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

As I get older, all I hear in "systemic problems" is someone crying the right choice isn't the easy one. It's not that I don't get it. I still have to keep snacks out of the house because I know I will eat them out of stress or boredom, not out of real hunger. I'd still rather eat a pizza than a vegetarian dinner from the frozen section. I'd still rather be inert watching TV instead of what I try to do now, which is use commercials to do some light exercise (usually just climbing the stairs.) Now it isn't easy of even fun, but they are choices all people can make regardless of income level. If anything, realizing how much you eat out of boredom, stress, or just the endless wanting flavor in your mouth, and trying to stop it, would be a boon to the pocketbook. As is realizing the frozen section is full of low cal dinners cheaper than the average fast food combo meal.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

As I get older, all I hear in "systemic problems" is someone crying the right choice isn't the easy one. It's not that I don't get it. I still have to keep snacks out of the house because I know I will eat them out of stress or boredom, not out of real hunger. I'd still rather eat a pizza than a vegetarian dinner from the frozen section. I'd still rather be inert watching TV instead of what I try to do now, which is use commercials to do some light exercise (usually just climbing the stairs.) Now it isn't easy of even fun, but they are choices all people can make regardless of income level. If anything, realizing how much you eat out of boredom, stress, or just the endless wanting flavor in your mouth, and trying to stop it, would be a boon to the pocketbook.

That actually doesn't work. Chips, and pop and other junk food are cheap. Healthly food is expensive.
---

this is the article they panned about the bioethicist advocating for fat shaming btw.

http://www.dishlab.org/pubs/Callahan%20(2012)%20Obesity.pdf
---

Health at Every Size ranks up there with the anti-vax movement and HIV denialism in terms of reckless disregard for science and logic.
---

Trademark victim blaming.

- Food everywhere poisoned with excess sugar and non-nutrition.
- Doctors and a medical system that dont know how to address the complexity of nutrition.
- An abusive and ignorant society.
- Genetic disposition.

- Just go to the gym lol!

Yeah that sound much more productive than addressing and understanding the underlying issues.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

HIV denialism

That's a thing, that exists?

LightHawKnight posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

As I get older, all I hear in "systemic problems" is someone crying the right choice isn't the easy one. It's not that I don't get it. I still have to keep snacks out of the house because I know I will eat them out of stress or boredom, not out of real hunger. I'd still rather eat a pizza than a vegetarian dinner from the frozen section. I'd still rather be inert watching TV instead of what I try to do now, which is use commercials to do some light exercise (usually just climbing the stairs.) Now it isn't easy of even fun, but they are choices all people can make regardless of income level. If anything, realizing how much you eat out of boredom, stress, or just the endless wanting flavor in your mouth, and trying to stop it, would be a boon to the pocketbook.

That actually doesn't work. Chips, and pop and other junk food are cheap. Healthly food is expensive.

Last I checked, pop is not cheaper than water, and the point with chips was I wasn't eating out of hunger, but boredom and the taste of salt, so it's still more expensive than the alternative of not eating just because food was there.
---

Esrac posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

dontIoseyourway posted...

"I ate too much food so someone called me fat so I'm going to eat more food and become more fat"

It's always someone else's fault

Didnt someone post an article a few weeks ago about how food companies use psychology to get more people to eat their foods and insinuate that, therefore, they are to blame for obesity?

I mean, it does seem like a trend is to diminish the concept of personal responsibility for the fat people here. They just can't help themselves, apparently.

I believe you're referring to an article I posted. How much you want to blame whom for obesity is of course an open question, but there's not really any doubt that the food industry is quite predatory and will go to any lengths it can to make money.

The line of reasoning is extended in this article, as well, though. See for example this passage:

You see this in so much of the research: The most effective health interventions aren't actually health interventionsthey are policies that ease the hardship of poverty and free up time for movement and play and parenting. Developing countries with higher wages for women have lower obesity rates, and lives are transformed when healthy food is made cheaper.

It echoes what the article I posted some week ago said - that obesity is a class issue. IIRC that one cited some research indicating that there was a connection between being poor and an unhealthy diet. Here we have studies suggesting that healthy food is becoming increasingly more expensive per calorie, as well as a pilot program showing that making healthy food cheaper increased vegetable and fruit consumption. The above quote doesn't have any links to studies, though, sadly (other than the pilot program).
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

HIV denialism

That's a thing, that exists?

Yes, and one of its chief proponents simply let her daughter die:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

Maggiore's promotion of AIDS denialism had long been controversial, particularly since her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, which is an AIDS-defining illness. Consistent with her belief that HIV was harmless, Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, and she did not have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime.

The post-mortem examination of Eliza Jane's brain showed changes consistent with HIV encephalitis; protein components of HIV itself were identified in Eliza Jane's brain tissue via immunohistochemistry.[12] The coroner concluded that Eliza Jane had died of Pneumocystis pneumonia in the setting of advanced AIDS.[2][12]

Maggiore rejected the coroner's conclusion, ascribing it to political bias and attacking the personal credibility of the senior coroner.[14] Maggiore had the autopsy reviewed by Mohammed Al-Bayati, a veterinary pathologist who holds a Ph.D. in animal disease pathology but is not a medical doctor nor board-certified in human pathology.

During this controversy, Maggiore had held fast to her views on HIV/AIDS and to Al-Bayati's conclusion.[4] She received support from others in the AIDS-denialist community; journalist Celia Farber wrote an article in June 2006 in the independent paper Los Angeles CityBeat arguing Maggiore's case and alleging incompetence, conspiracy, and coverups on the part of the coroner, the mainstream AIDS community, the mainstream media, and the medical community. In particular, Farber claimed that the coroner's office had not disclosed the records of Eliza Jane's HIV serology test, and quoted another denialist who claimed Eliza Jane's total lymphocyte count was elevated at the time of her death.[18]
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

How old are you and where do you live? Poverty is the worst diet someone can be on. It's more expensive to buy a carton of juice than a 2L bottle of soda, heck, for a single carton of 100% orange juice, you can buy 3 cartons of the high fructose corn syrup juice variant. It's more expensive to buy fruits than to go to Mickey D's and buy a couple meals. For whatever healthy option you have available, you can get something as filling for a fraction of the cost while being immensely less nutritious for you and that's the biggest reason for why people living in poverty levels have high obesity rates.
---

Bok_Choi posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

scar the 1 posted...

tl;dr:

Science shows that diets rarely work and that fat shaming makes things worse.

CE: *proceeds to fat shame*

Read the first 100 posts and this pretty much sums up the topic.

Because the article is bullshit and the idea that diets don't work is misleading at best.

We get it, you like bullying fat people.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Health at Every Size ranks up there with the anti-vax movement and HIV denialism in terms of reckless disregard for science and logic.

This is not the first time you've mentioned Health at Every Size in this topic, yet there's still not a single mention of them in the article. You seem a little obsessed.
---

Its not that diets dont work, its that diets dont work long term. The vast majority of diet fads are not suitable for long term lifestyle changes, in addition to the fact that the majority of people who diet are attempting heavy dietary changes without any changes in exercise. I read about 3/4 of the article in OP (which was painful to read tbh) and i dont think they mentioned exercise more than once
---

Considering healthcare is the largest drain on government finances, and considering obesity related comorbidities are among the most costly chronic conditions to treat, I'd say that it's not entirely unfair to address the issue.
---

Sad_Face posted...

For whatever healthy option you have available, you can get something as filling for a fraction of the cost while being immensely less nutritious for you and that's the biggest reason for why people living in poverty levels have high obesity rates.

Meanwhile...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBIHZRkI7T0" data-time="

NeuralLaxative posted...

Its not that diets dont work, its that diets dont work long term. The vast majority of diet fads are not suitable for long term lifestyle changes, in addition to the fact that the majority of people who diet are attempting heavy dietary changes without any changes in exercise. I read about 3/4 of the article in OP (which was painful to read tbh) and i dont think they mentioned exercise more than once

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

Coffeebeanz posted...

Considering healthcare is the largest drain on government finances, and considering obesity related comorbidities are among the most costly chronic conditions to treat, I'd say that it's not entirely unfair to address the issue.

I think social security is a bigger outlay than medicaid and medicare combined, so actually old people are our biggest expense

I do agree though
---

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

30 min of aerobic activity daily baby
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

As I get older, all I hear in "systemic problems" is someone crying the right choice isn't the easy one. It's not that I don't get it. I still have to keep snacks out of the house because I know I will eat them out of stress or boredom, not out of real hunger. I'd still rather eat a pizza than a vegetarian dinner from the frozen section. I'd still rather be inert watching TV instead of what I try to do now, which is use commercials to do some light exercise (usually just climbing the stairs.) Now it isn't easy of even fun, but they are choices all people can make regardless of income level. If anything, realizing how much you eat out of boredom, stress, or just the endless wanting flavor in your mouth, and trying to stop it, would be a boon to the pocketbook.

That actually doesn't work. Chips, and pop and other junk food are cheap. Healthly food is expensive.

Last I checked, pop is not cheaper than water, and the point with chips was I wasn't eating out of hunger, but boredom and the taste of salt, so it's still more expensive than the alternative of not eating just because food was there.

Water isn't the only healthy thing you can drink. Chips are not the only junk food. Most heavily processed food that is bad for you are dirt cheap.
---

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

The article actually does mention exercise, since it's a very healthy thing to do, regardless of its effect on weight loss.
---

NeuralLaxative posted...

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

30 min of aerobic activity daily baby

yeah and if you eat 1000 cals a day you'll lose a ton of weight, yet dieting has a pretty poor track record for long term weight loss unless its part of a structured program that includes guidance and regular follow up with experts

Im not stupid, obviously if you keep everything else equal and exercise you'll lose weight v.s. what you would without exercise but the whole point of this article and topic is that the actual process of losing weight as a human being is more complex than that
---

Diet is not a one night game changer. Get your butt on it and stick to it enough to control cravings. Exercise is to burn off excess calories and will shed off weight. Eating right constantly shaves off so much but adding exercise helps too. No, you are trying to be a body builder or a model. You are there to help your body overall. Keep telling me that diets don't work. I myself proved it wrong already. You just keep using excuses to hide your gluttony.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

The article actually does mention exercise, since it's a very healthy thing to do, regardless of its effect on weight loss.

right, but they specifically dont talk about it as a method to lose weight is what I meant

sorry that wasnt clear, I can see why
---

If you eat right and exercise, you will not stay morbidly obese.
---

VIIVincent posted...

Keep telling me that diets don't work. I am proof of it already. You just keep using excuses to hide your gluttony.

Looks like you didn't read the article huh
---

Godnorgosh posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

As I get older, all I hear in "systemic problems" is someone crying the right choice isn't the easy one.

On the flip side, we could interpret "personal responsibility" as not wanting to acknowledge legitimate systemic factors, but that wouldn't be very fair, would it

Tell us how its all capitalisms fault that you cant stop stuffing your face
---

Balrog0 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

The article actually does mention exercise, since it's a very healthy thing to do, regardless of its effect on weight loss.

right, but they specifically dont talk about it as a method to lose weight is what I meant

sorry that wasnt clear, I can see why

Sorry, I meant that more as a response to the person you were also responding to
---

VIIVincent posted...

Keep telling me that diets don't work. I am proof of it already. You just keep using excuses to hide your gluttony.

I mean, I'm not in the best shape I've ever been but I am at 78% of my initial weight before I started trying to lose weight and I've managed to keep that weight off for almost a decade. doesn't mean that my narrative is going to work for everyone in that situation.

just like I am financially successful even though I grew up homeless but don't feel like any homeless person can just go and through sheer personal effort turn their situation around
---

Balrog0 posted...

NeuralLaxative posted...

Balrog0 posted...

exercise is even less meaningful for weight loss in the long term is probably why

30 min of aerobic activity daily baby

yeah and if you eat 1000 cals a day you'll lose a ton of weight, yet dieting has a pretty poor track record for long term weight loss unless its part of a structured program that includes guidance and regular follow up with experts

Im not stupid, obviously if you keep everything else equal and exercise you'll lose weight v.s. what you would without exercise but the whole point of this article and topic is that the actual process of losing weight as a human being is more complex than that

Im really not sure what youre trying to argue with me about here
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

If you eat right and exercise, you will not stay morbidly obese.

this is 100% like those right wingers who talk about how you only need to do 'three simple things' to be successful in life (finish high school, don't have kids until youre married, and be a full time worker)

and then ignore all the issues that disadvantaged groups have in achieving those three things
---

NeuralLaxative posted...

Im really not sure what youre trying to argue with me about here

I'm not really sure where your confusion is coming in unless you haven't read the article or followed the conversation in which case just ignore me because I will just ignore you too

:)
---

The fat acceptance movement is bad for health.

Bok_Choi posted...

scar the 1 posted...

When they say that science shows diets rarely work, what they mean is that studies show most people don't manage to complete them (iirc the number cited was absurdly high, 95-98%). And even when people do lose weight, they're more likely to gain it all back. So going on a diet, like Atkins or something, is likely to fail.

It's a lifestyle issue
Committing to it would be easier if society enabled fitness instead of gluttony

That and making fresh food cheaper in major cities.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

If you eat right and exercise, you will not stay morbidly obese.

this is 100% like those right wingers who talk about how you only need to do 'three simple things' to be successful in life (finish high school, don't have kids until youre married, and be a full time worker)

and then ignore all the issues that disadvantaged groups have in achieving those three things

It's technically correct, though - just not as easy for all people to do.

Also... how is fornication intrinsic to disadvantaged groups?

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's technically correct, though - just not as easy for all people to do.

thats my point

Questionmarktarius posted...

Also... how is fornication intrinsic to disadvantaged groups?

it isnt, but the availability and knowledge of contraceptives and abortion services is highly segmented by income and geographical location
---

Sad_Face posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Speaking from my own youthful experience, poverty was the best diet I could be on. Chips and pop were luxuries we couldn't afford much, so it was a 2L of pop and one bag of chips per month. Fatter friends ate take out pizza and burgers and fries all the time, while I had sandwiches (usually just bread with one piece of luncheon meat). I was a fat kid entering junior high, and left high school a slim adult with a smaller waistline than I had 6 years ago before puberty hit.

How old are you and where do you live? Poverty is the worst diet someone can be on. It's more expensive to buy a carton of juice than a 2L bottle of soda, heck, for a single carton of 100% orange juice, you can buy 3 cartons of the high fructose corn syrup juice variant. It's more expensive to buy fruits than to go to Mickey D's and buy a couple meals. For whatever healthy option you have available, you can get something as filling for a fraction of the cost while being immensely less nutritious for you and that's the biggest reason for why people living in poverty levels have high obesity rates.

Just looking at some stuff online:

a 6pack of soda costs as much as I pay for a 12 pack of water (or even a 24 bottle flat if I get a good sale)

As I said later, the frozen section sells lean cuisine dinners at most around $4 per dish. Last time I ate take out it was 10 bucks and I didn't get the soda. For that matter I can get a 20 lb box of rice for that.

I can get a container of popcorn (needs air popping) that's lower cal for the same cost as one bag of Doritos (and that jar goes a lot further). Same with rice cakes.

Canned fruit is half the price as that same bag of chips. So is a lot of sugar free jello if I'm willing to make it myself. See also a head of lettuce, frozen peas, baby carrots, bananas.

And I'm largely just using walmart.com for pricing. Sales, coupons, bulk buying if you can (just got a side of pork worth like 20 chops for $20) can cut costs further. People that think healthly needs to be expensive aren't smart shoppers or fall into that "organic only" crap.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

Just looking at some stuff online:

a 6pack of soda costs as much as I pay for a 12 pack of water (or even a 24 bottle flat if I get a good sale)

As I said later, the frozen section sells lean cuisine dinners at most around $4 per dish. Last time I ate take out it was 10 bucks and I didn't get the soda. For that matter I can get a 20 lb box of rice for that.

I can get a container of popcorn (needs air popping) that's lower cal for the same cost as one bag of Doritos (and that jar goes a lot further). Same with rice cakes.

Canned fruit is half the price as that same bag of chips. So is a lot of sugar free jello if I'm willing to make it myself. See also a head of lettuce, frozen peas, baby carrots, bananas.

And I'm largely just using walmart.com for pricing. Sales, coupons, bulk buying if you can (just got a side of pork worth like 20 chops for $20) can cut costs further. People that think healthly needs to be expensive aren't smart shoppers or fall into that "organic only" crap.

No wonder that the healthiest foods can cost up to eight times more, calorie for calorie, than the unhealthiestor that the gap gets wider every year.

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921000076X
---

CapnMuffin posted...

Trademark victim blaming.

- Food everywhere poisoned with excess sugar and non-nutrition.
- Doctors and a medical system that dont know how to address the complexity of nutrition.
- An abusive and ignorant society.
- Genetic disposition.

- Just go to the gym lol!

Yeah that sound much more productive than addressing and understanding the underlying issues.

The things you mentioned are all actually pretty valid, except for the genetic disposition part. Also worth noting the ignorant society overlaps with fat people who dont know enough and think because something is fat or sugar free means its healthier.

The quality of food in America is shit, but doesnt change the fact that it still boils down to its still youre own damn fault of youre obese.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

And I'm largely just using walmart.com for pricing. Sales, coupons, bulk buying if you can (just got a side of pork worth like 20 chops for $20) can cut costs further. People that think healthly needs to be expensive aren't smart shoppers or fall into that "organic only" crap.

This plays back into sloth vs gluttony.

It's not that healthy food is more expensive, it's that it's vastly easier to pop a frozen block of fat and salt into a microwave than it is to soak dry beans overnight and stew them for three hours.

scar the 1 posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Just looking at some stuff online:

a 6pack of soda costs as much as I pay for a 12 pack of water (or even a 24 bottle flat if I get a good sale)

As I said later, the frozen section sells lean cuisine dinners at most around $4 per dish. Last time I ate take out it was 10 bucks and I didn't get the soda. For that matter I can get a 20 lb box of rice for that.

I can get a container of popcorn (needs air popping) that's lower cal for the same cost as one bag of Doritos (and that jar goes a lot further). Same with rice cakes.

Canned fruit is half the price as that same bag of chips. So is a lot of sugar free jello if I'm willing to make it myself. See also a head of lettuce, frozen peas, baby carrots, bananas.

And I'm largely just using walmart.com for pricing. Sales, coupons, bulk buying if you can (just got a side of pork worth like 20 chops for $20) can cut costs further. People that think healthly needs to be expensive aren't smart shoppers or fall into that "organic only" crap.

No wonder that the healthiest foods can cost up to eight times more, calorie for calorie, than the unhealthiestor that the gap gets wider every year.

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921000076X

less per calorie seriously distorts the conversation imo

the whole point is that fat people consume way more calories than they need to. they need to buy less calorically dense food that is more fibrous

two pounds of apples is going to be more filling than a happy meal despite having the same amount of calories

edit -- though actually it wouldn't cost more either so maybe thats a bad example
---

Balrog0 posted...

the whole point is that fat people consume way more calories than they need to. they need to buy less calorically dense food that is more fibrous

Raw volume seems like it would be a more useful measure, as that's what satiety is based around.

If you want cheap and calorie-dense, just chug a pint of vegetable oil - or don't because that's a terrible idea.

Balrog0 posted...

less per calorie seriously distorts the conversation imo

the whole point is that fat people consume way more calories than they need to. they need to buy less calorically dense food that is more fibrous

two pounds of apples is going to be more filling than a happy meal despite having the same amount of calories

edit -- though actually it wouldn't cost more either so maybe thats a bad example

I see your point, but imo it's definitely still relevant give that it seems to be a trend that the healthy food is becoming more expensive.
...well, over those four years anyway. I can't say how it looks today obviously
---

scar the 1 posted...

I see your point, but imo it's definitely still relevant give that it seems to be a trend that the healthy food is becoming more expensive.
...well, over those four years anyway. I can't say how it looks today obviously

Rice and dry beans are still ridiculously cheap.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Pinto-Beans-8-lb/10314949
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-Rice-20-lb/10315883

Questionmarktarius posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I see your point, but imo it's definitely still relevant give that it seems to be a trend that the healthy food is becoming more expensive.
...well, over those four years anyway. I can't say how it looks today obviously

Rice and dry beans are still ridiculously cheap.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Pinto-Beans-8-lb/10314949
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-Rice-20-lb/10315883

So I guess we've solved the obesity epidemic then?
---

It's more that certain foods are really addicting. Dieting and alcoholics anonymous have about the same success rate.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I see your point, but imo it's definitely still relevant give that it seems to be a trend that the healthy food is becoming more expensive.
...well, over those four years anyway. I can't say how it looks today obviously

Rice and dry beans are still ridiculously cheap.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Pinto-Beans-8-lb/10314949
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Long-Grain-Enriched-Rice-20-lb/10315883

So I guess we've solved the obesity epidemic then?

Hell no.
You have to actually convince people to cook and eat rice & beans, instead of just getting a sack of big macs.

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, in the case of sugar, the US spends about $4 billion every year on subsidies. Ending that would go a long way toward making sugar less accessible.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JOBS
---

Bok_Choi posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Well, in the case of sugar, the US spends about $4 billion every year on subsidies. Ending that would go a long way toward making sugar less accessible.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JOBS

Legalize weed.