New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 25, 2006

Jacob Sullum suffers the slings and arrows of outragous food requests from his three-year-old.

Comments

|1.25.06 @ 10:17AM|#

I really think these people would be happy to make sure children never, ever get to taste candy, cookies or any other type of sweets.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Ah, Jacob Sullum has posted a classic Libertarian article. All the elements are there:

1. Self-congratulation regarding his own sense of personal responsibility
2. Labeling of anybody interested in public health concerns as a �nanny�
3. Portrayal of corporations as victims
4. Glib dismissal of legitimate health concerns
5. Denial of the need for social responsibility

|1.25.06 @ 10:27AM|#

Dan, sarcasm and parody require an exaggerated imitation of what you are making fun of, not a word-for-word repetition of it.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 10:32AM|#

Jennifer, how about this:

For his next story, Sullum will write about the travesty of government funding for cancer research. After all, he has chosen not to have cancer, why can�t everybody else? Who are these experts who claim that cancer is �bad� for you anyway? Some people may enjoy the experience, yet health nannies are out to ruin all their fun!

MP|1.25.06 @ 10:33AM|#

For his next story, Sullum will write about the travesty of government funding for cancer research.

And how does research=regulate?

|1.25.06 @ 10:36AM|#

No, Dan, that won't work either, unless you can figure out a way to use some of the health-nanny language in this ludicrous context. Maybe you could try something along the lines of "cancer research robs masochistic cancer sufferers of their freedom of choice?"

But whatever you attempt, don't try it on this thread. The moment is gone.

|1.25.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Dan T.,

Are you so desperate to pain Jacob as knee-jerk libertarian to you are willing to foolishly conflate voluntarily purchasing junk food for your kid with contracting cancer?

|1.25.06 @ 10:39AM|#

Er, "paint", that is...

|1.25.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

Yes that trusty CSPI shibboleth "unfair". I would be extremely surprised if there is a word more bereft of meaning in the English language. That would explain the modern liberal's fascination with it. By the time my children were 2 they had learned to drop the word unfair from their vocabulary when complaining that they could not have the Dora the Explorer fruit rollups, and use inequitable if it was appropriate, or suck it up and deal with the fact the answer was no if not.

|1.25.06 @ 10:44AM|#

"I really think these people would be happy to make sure children never, ever get to taste candy, cookies or any other type of sweets."

It's also the same sort of mentality that has resulted in slides being reduced in height from 6+ feet to, what, 2-1/2 feet high?

And made of plastic.

|1.25.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Dan T. is a typical statist: He's smarter than everyone else here, and he wants you to know it.

At gun point.

After all, since he's the smartest one, he should get to make the rules for all of us poor, deluded imbeciles incapable of living a life unfettered of his interference.

Now watch, I guarantee he'll get indignant at the very mention that maybe he should, as Jacob's 3 year old would put it, "M.Y.O.B."

Statists. Always right. Never potty trained.

|1.25.06 @ 10:50AM|#

It's also the same sort of mentality that has resulted in slides being reduced in height from 6+ feet to, what, 2-1/2 feet high? And made of plastic.

I think it is. Or rather, more insidiously, there's this attitude that every single thing done has to be done for A Purpose (and pleasure doesn't count). So you can't eat a cookie or piece of candy; you must only consume food products containing proper nutrition. Don't let kids play; they should be cramming for this week's standardized test. Don't watch television unless it is a documentary containing valuable knowledge which can be applied to daily living.

It's basically the non-sexual version of the fundamentalist Catholic idea that birth control is evil because sex is only for the purpose of procreation.

|1.25.06 @ 10:51AM|#

Dan T. is a typical statist: He's smarter than everyone else here, and he wants you to know it. At gun point.

Do me a favor, guys--before you get on Dan's case, run your cursor over his orange name and tell me what you see. Or read the little back-and-forth discussion the two of us had at the beginning of this post.

|1.25.06 @ 10:53AM|#

It's also the same sort of mentality that has resulted in slides being reduced in height from 6+ feet to, what, 2-1/2 feet high?

I miss those really tall swings, where you could swing standing and jump off at about twelve feet high or so.

Of course, I'd probably break a few brittle adult bones now.

|1.25.06 @ 10:59AM|#

"Do me a favor, guys--before you get on Dan's case, run your cursor over his orange name and tell me what you see. Or read the little back-and-forth discussion the two of us had at the beginning of this post."


Oops.

Guess I'm just at the level of intermediate sarcasm.

|1.25.06 @ 11:04AM|#

"I miss those really tall swings, where you could swing standing and jump off at about twelve feet high or so."

Yeah those were sweet.

I also miss the bag of broken glass they used to sell at Toys R Us too.

BTW, does anybody know where I can get a set of lawn darts?

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 11:05AM|#

Dan T,

1. Sullum's point is not that he's exceptional but just the opposite, that any parent could behave the same way. Thus, it is not self-congratulatory.

2. Maybe Sullum's persuasiveness would be better served by leaving the word, "nanny," out, but it should at least be noted that he was using it to describe an organization that was not merely "interested in public health concerns" but also participating in a lawsuit to make companies pay money to people for the experience he weathered quite easily. If you think he's wrong to take issue with them, please tell us why rather than pick on him for picking on them. Ie, at best you're committing the same foul of which Sullum is guilty.

3. Perhaps in this case a corporation is a victim? Or do you just not think that is possible?

4. I didn't notice that. I'll read the article again once I've finished posting.

5. Oh, he denied the "NEED" for social responsibility, did he? Well yeah, it's true, some of us have a problem with folks butting their noses into other people's business, especially our own. But as long as they do it without coercion, they got that right (just as we have the right to say whatever back). But that's not what's going on here. They're backing up their "social responsibility" with the force of law. I don't respect anyone's "need" to fuck with others.

All that said, thank you for having the courage to comment in an environment where your POV is in the minority. Hopefully you will take the time to be more articulate about it next time rather than just mixing ad hominen arguments with assumptions that we're wrong and you're right.

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 11:08AM|#

before you get on Dan's case, run your cursor over his orange name and tell me what you see

Goddamn. My infallibility punctured -- AGAIN!

|1.25.06 @ 11:09AM|#

I also miss the bag of broken glass they used to sell at Toys R Us too.

Never had the Toys-R-Us broken glass. My parents insisted on giving me the homemade stuff.

|1.25.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Fyodor,

Dan was attempting to make what is commonly referred to as a "joke". However, this didn't pan out like Dan expected, because:

A) It wasn't funny, and

B) The "sarcastic" charges that he leveled at Sullum are easily recognized as false to anyone who even glanced over the article.

Dan facetiously claims to be writing to us from the Center for Advanced Sarcasm---yet, he fails one of main tests for successful satire & sarcasm: there has to be at least an iota of truth to your sarcasm, and you exploit that iota by making it out to be much bigger than it really is. Sullum never denied a need for social responsibility; quite the opposite. Nor did "glibly dismiss ligitimate health concerns". Thus, very few of us actually caught on to the fact that Dan was trying to be funny.

Hey, A for effort, I suppose...

|1.25.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Lawn darts freakin' rocked.

|1.25.06 @ 11:18AM|#

To paraphrase -
CSPI and Executive Director Michael Jacobson engage in business practices that literally sicken me.

So when do I get my $25?

|1.25.06 @ 11:20AM|#

I watched tons of cartoons and commercials, but my mother never bought me those sugary cereals. As a result of spending my formative years eating corn flakes, rice crispies, wheaties, etc., I actually find the sugary cereals to be gross. They just taste wrong to me.

Nobody had to sue anybody, my mother just exercised good judgement and instilled good habits. Funny how well it worked.

|1.25.06 @ 11:23AM|#

Corn flakes? Rice crispies? Wheaties?

Lucky bastard. I got stuck with Grape-nuts.

|1.25.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Nobody had to sue anybody, my mother just exercised good judgement and instilled good habits. Funny how well it worked.

But that's the government's job, Thoreau. Not your mother's.

MP|1.25.06 @ 11:24AM|#

An old girlfriend, who was a dietician, used to get the CSPI newsletter. It was very informative and eye-opening in regards to unhealthy food items. It's a shame that Jacobson is such a statist pig, as his organization otherwise is a useful part of society.

|1.25.06 @ 11:28AM|#

"CSPI argues that children "are intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to eat unhealthy junk foods," and it's seeking an injunction to stop all such encouragement."

Even if children are "intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to eat unhealthy junk foods", and that's a pretty fuckin' big "if", then, well, okay---CSPI has to ALSO show that these dopey, helpless children make the final purchasing decisions at the grocery store. And if they can prove that, then they've also proven gross negligence on the part of the parents---so then, CSPI should sue the parents on behalf of their children.

Good luck on that one. I can see the headlines now: "Crankheads for Shite in the Public Idiosphere [CSPI] files class action lawsuit against parents on behalf of their children, for giving in to their demands for sugary snacks."

Furthermore, CSPI still lacks logical consistency in one major point: that individual foods are inherently bad. This is absolutely false, unless the foods are poisoned and represent an immediate danger. Fatty and/or surgary foods represent a brick in the wall that is one's diet and exercise lifestyle. If a kid eats broccoli and lean chicken breasts 6 days out of the week, and gets lots of playtime outside running around...then is allowed to eat some apple jacks on sunday morning, is that child "abused"?

My contempt for CSPI and their vile agenda cannot be expressed in words.

|1.25.06 @ 11:31AM|#

Thoreau,

I'm sure Jacobson would object to the Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and Wheaties, as all of them contain, wait for it...SUGAR (or, high fructose corn syrup)

Mike|1.25.06 @ 11:32AM|#

It's also the same sort of mentality that has resulted in slides being reduced in height from 6+ feet to, what, 2-1/2 feet high?

I'm fine with the anti-Nannyism around here, but I do have to object to strawmen. A block down the street from me here in lawsuit-happy Philadelphia, a bunch of new playground equipment was just installed. There's a sliding board for toddlers (yes, about 2.5 feet high) and then two for older kids, one spiral and the other straight. They're both about 7 feet high and the plastic is as fast as any aluminium you remember from childhood.

Bitch and moan about the loss of lawn darts or whatever, but playground equipment is doing just fine.

|1.25.06 @ 11:34AM|#

"Lucky bastard. I got stuck with Grape-nuts."

What?

|1.25.06 @ 11:35AM|#

Children's taste buds are different from adults--they really do like sweeter things than most adults. (My guess is that this is an evolutionary throwback to the days when sugar was still a rare and useful high-energy food source, and since growing kids need more energy than adults who are not growing, but merely maintaining what they've already got, kids will be more likely to crave high-energy foods.)

But I get the impression that CPSI really thinks that the ONLY reason kids like sweets is because of that wicked, wicked advertising.

|1.25.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Mike, glad to hear that some places are still fun.

But I have seen playground that consist of just the low-to-the-ground stuff.

MP|1.25.06 @ 11:37AM|#

Bitch and moan about the loss of lawn darts or whatever, but playground equipment is doing just fine.

I have my own anecdotal evidence that says otherwise.

|1.25.06 @ 11:38AM|#

There's a sliding board for toddlers (yes, about 2.5 feet high) and then two for older kids, one spiral and the other straight. They're both about 7 feet high

Pfft. I remember fifteen-foot slides back when I was less than four feet tall, myself. Does this new playground have any seesaws? Many minicipalities are banning them. What about a merry-go-round? Those too are being banned. Jungle-gyms? Swings? Those back-and-forth toddler rides consisting of a saddle mounted atop a sturdy spring? Tubes to crawl through?

All are being banned for safety purposes, in various places. I wish that were a strawman, but it's not.

Ed|1.25.06 @ 11:40AM|#

Mr. T ain't so hot at sports prognostication either:

Take this one to the bank: Panthers 23, Seahawks 17

Tee hee hee.

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 11:48AM|#

The weakest link to Sullum's anecdote is that some kids don't just keep going so readily without putting up a fight to get their damn candy. Not that that relieves parents of their responsibility to say no, of course, but perhaps it is a little glib to make it sound so easy.

But I also wonder if it's parent's behavior that sometimes leads to that. I'm a 48 year old non-parent, so maybe it's easy for me to talk. But the women where I work delight in giving their friggin' toddlers ice cream and candy because it's so friggin cute how it delights them so! Now, some folks here may think I'm paranoid or even a nanny to find this practice rather abhorrent, and maybe it's not a big deal, I'm not sure. But I do think sugar ain't the best thing for kids, and while one could go too far in trying to restrict it from one's own kids (and trying to restrict it from others' is a whole 'NOTHER matter!), I sure don't see the point in PUSHING it on the wee things! And I do wonder if that makes them more desirous of it and cranky when they don't get it. I dunno. Just maybe. Yeah, maybe it's not big deal. Yeah, easy for me to criticize anyway. Yeah, has nothing to do with libertarianism or the issue of this lawsuit -- well other than if I'm right then it's the parents' own damn fault for getting their kids started on the sweet stuff if they don't all behave like Jacob's kid.

Mike|1.25.06 @ 11:50AM|#

But I have seen playground that consist of just the low-to-the-ground stuff.

I don't doubt that many of the playgrounds are less exciting than this one. But I think there's an explanation other than the legal one everyone here is assuming: older kids don't go to playgrounds. In my experience, once kids are four or five, they just don't go to the playground anymore. It's toddlers, and their parents, who populate most of them.

I think it's simple supply and demand: the demand for 10-year-old-friendly equipment is low, so the supply is low. The demand for 2-year-old-friendly equipment is high, so the supply is high.

|1.25.06 @ 11:55AM|#

On the (off) topic of plastic slides: those damn things are dangerous. Do you have any idea how big a static shock you can get from those things? I'm on the phone with Ralph Nader right now.

Besides, I preferred those metal slides that burned the crap out of your legs in the summertime.

|1.25.06 @ 11:57AM|#

The thing that I don't get is, why is this a problem now? Sugar Smacks and frosted flakes have existed since 1952. Tony the Tiger, since 1958. Froot Loops and Toucan Sam, since 1963. They've always had cartoon characters to market themselves to kids. They had mechandising tie-ins going back at least to the seventies, when I was a kid.

We've only had this obesity "epidemic" for about 10 years. What is it about today's kids that's different?

|1.25.06 @ 12:01PM|#

We've only had this obesity "epidemic" for about 10 years. What is it about today's kids that's different?

Easy--things like playground safety laws mean that today's kids have less fun physical activities to do than did kids of our generation. Running hard enough to make a merry-go-round spin wasn't just fun; it was good exercise, too.

|1.25.06 @ 12:05PM|#

Running hard enough to make a merry-go-round spin wasn't just fun; it was good exercise, too.

Plus, the quickly-spinning merry-go-round usually made kids puke their guts.

|1.25.06 @ 12:20PM|#

Strangely enough, you can still buy lawn darts in England...

|1.25.06 @ 12:39PM|#

We've only had this obesity "epidemic" for about 10 years. What is it about today's kids that's different?

Here's a possibility:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL

I've got my science go-to guy looking into this possibility.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 12:54PM|#

To all:

The CFAS is just what I call my blog. It doesn�t mean that necessarily everything I write is meant to be sarcasm.

In this case, while I see Sullum�s point that it�s a little absurd that we might be able to file a lawsuit and collect on every advertisement we see that�s aimed at children, I find his out-of-hand dismissal of all concerns about children�s advertising and the health consequences of children eating high-sugar foods to be disturbing as well.

If nothing else, it is generally accepted that children are affected by advertisements more than adults, and also are not able to understand that commercial messages are not meant to be truthful, but rather to convince them of something. Sullum�s response to this is that children are not the ones who usually control what they purchase or eat, so the onus falls on the parents to counter the affects of the ads. Not a totally unreasonable position, and in our culture certainly a pragmatic one. But if children have no purchasing power, why are the ads aimed towards them?

Obviously, marketers realize that children have a certain amount of power over their parents, and these ads take advantage of that. Otherwise, they wouldn�t work, and money wouldn�t be spent on them.

I guess in a greater sense, a healthy society should consider its children as something more important than another market segment. The notion that a corporation�s right to unfettered commercial speech is more important that the health (both physical and mental) of our nation�s kids is indeed telling about our priorities.

|1.25.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Dave W., if you're reading this thread:

I skimmed through the corn syrup article. It is indeed interesting. The data is suggestive of an association between corn syrup and diabetes, but I'd be more comfortable if the P value where better. I'm a little rusty on this type of statistical analysis, since many physicists never calculate a P value (we do have ways of doing things rigorously, we just do it differently). But in studies that I read, people generally get more confident when their P value is below 0.01. Here the P value for an association between diabetes and corn syrup is a little high (P = 0.038).

So, the data is interesting, but it's also a little weak. And, I will recite the ritual phrase "Correlation is not causation. Amen. Thanks be to Gauss."

OK, I mock the people who say it as though it's all that need to be said, but they do have a point here. I wouldn't want to start making recommendations for living based on correlations, but I would recommend further research if the correlations were strong enough and suggestive enough. Specifically, I'd look to see if the work can be replicated, and look for plausible mechanisms that might explain the correlation. But, as it stands, this study is still a little weak. Suggestive, yes, but a little weaker than I'd like.

But, let's say that the study is right: The most interesting finding is that the association between less fiber and more diabetes seems to be much stronger than the association between more corn syrup and more diabetes. The beta values and P values both indicate that. Now, maybe corn syrup really does have only a weak effect on diabetes, while fiber has a strong effect. Certainly possible.

However, corn syrup intake and fiber intake seem to have a strong negative correlation. If total caloric intake doesn't change too much, then eating more fiber means less corn syrup and vice versa. Because the two variables aren't really independent, you can't draw too many conclusions from the fact that one has a stronger P value than the other.

Also, corn syrup was taken to represent refined carbohydrates. However, we need a comparison with other types of sugars.

What we need are:

1) Replication. Find me another, similar study. Larger sample.

2) More careful analysis of diet. More care in elucidating how individuals' caloric intakes were divided between fiber, protein, fat, corn syrup, and other types of sugars. Including sugar from fruit consumption.

3) Laboratory studies on whether there is a plausible mechanism by which corn syrup contributes to diabetes. And whether corn syrup is any more dangerous than other simple sugars.

Since this is your pet project, you go find me the papers and I'll evaluate them.

|1.25.06 @ 12:59PM|#

Easy--things like playground safety laws mean that today's kids have less fun physical activities to do than did kids of our generation.

I'll buy that to an extent, but having grown up in an area with no nearby park, I think it's more the mentality of parents. We spent a lot of time playing sports and games outside in the neighborhood, gasp, unsupervised. I don't see kids being allowed to do that anymore.

What I see instead is kid's in onlyplaying organized sports for exercise. I think that has several effects. Playing for a coach or screaming parent turns a game into a job, squeezing the enjoyment out of exercise. Sports are a means to an end(scholarship, contract, etc.) Kid with athlitic talent have a rigid, joyless exercise regime, at the end of which they go home. Kids with less or no talent, get pushed to the sidelines(less exercise there), or out all together.

Our disorganized neighborhood games were more inclusive by necessity, If you didn't let the talentless(i.e., me) kids play, there weren't enough for a game.

|1.25.06 @ 1:04PM|#

I find his out-of-hand dismissal of all concerns about children�s advertising and the health consequences of children eating high-sugar foods to be disturbing as well. . . . But if children have no purchasing power, why are the ads aimed towards them?

Excluding diabetics and hypoglycemics, there are no health consequences to children eating high-sugar foods; there are health consequences to children eating too many high-sugar foods. CPSI can't seem to draw any distinction between a child who has the occasional bowl of Apple Jacks versus a child who never eats anything but Apple Jacks.

And the reason ads are aimed at children is quite simple: they want the children to desire things in the hopes that their parents buy them. I'm sure even Jacob keeps his children's desires in mind when he buys things like birthday presents; I'll bet he even buys them sweets on occasion. He just doesn't feed them sweets to the exclusion of all else.

|1.25.06 @ 1:05PM|#

Oh, I should note that the P value is quite weak for total calorie consumption. However, corn syrup consumption may be correlated with total calorie consumption. If we have a variable (corn syrup) that is negative correlated with one variable (fiber) and positively correlated with another (calories), and then we try to see how each of those variables separately affect a fourth variable (diabetes) the statistical analysis becomes tricky.

I'd like to hear what a trained statistician has to say.

And by trained statistician I mean somebody who knows how to do more than just post sneering comments on how correlation is not the same as causation. Anybody can learn that fact by reading blog comments. How do you do multivariable analysis when some of the explanatory variables are known to be correlated?

FWIW, the article is:

"Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment"

Lee S Gross, Li Li, Earl S Ford, and Simin Liu

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2004), vol. 79, pages 774�779.

|1.25.06 @ 1:21PM|#

What people here seem to be missing is that comparing this to the efforts of the anti-tobacco lobby, the restriction on advertising is just the first step toward eventually restricting the sale of junk food . First, they go after advertising aimed at children, then all advertising and sponsorships, then restricting sale to minors, and finally progressively limiting the number of places where such activities are allowed.

fyodor|1.25.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Obviously, marketers realize that children have a certain amount of power over their parents

This use of the word "power" is a common and clever ploy by statists. The word has multiple meanings, such that one cannot necessarily deny the truth of what is being said, yet it carries an underlying implication that is way off the mark when examined carefully. Yes, children may or often have influence over their parents; NO, children DO NOT CONTROL their parents. Well, not unless the parents allow them to. And even if children don't know better about how to interpret commercials, since they are their parents' responsibility, and their parents DO know how to interpret commercials (or at least should!), then what difference does it make if the children are so susceptible?

Well, we know the answer to that, and I alluded to that already in a previous post. Children may whine and screan and carry on till they get their way, and parents sure hate that. Maybe at a sub-conscious level Jacob was indeed bragging about his responsibility because his kid seems to be better behaved than some others (unless she's just too young to have recognized her power; not being a parent, I don't know about these things). But the basic principle remains the same. Dan T, it's only because we don't see advertising as doing any direct harm (and therefore no harm that cannot be readily deflected) AND because we believe all have the right to do whatever they want that does not impinge on others' rights (a belief you would likely appreciate in other areas) that our priorities in the matter at hand are evidently different from yours.

|1.25.06 @ 1:25PM|#

as someone working in the advertising industry, I can only say that I wish we were as good as the CPSI thinks we are...or that our clients did anyway.

What do the dentists have to say about this?

|1.25.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Only stupid parents (or parents who are only part time) buy everything that their kids ask them to buy.

|1.25.06 @ 1:32PM|#

and I thought that the CSPI types didn't let their kids watch TV anyways, being a vast wasteland and whatnot.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Dan T, it's only because we don't see advertising as doing any direct harm (and therefore no harm that cannot be readily deflected) AND because we believe all have the right to do whatever they want that does not impinge on others' rights (a belief you would likely appreciate in other areas) that our priorities in the matter at hand are evidently different from yours.

But at the same time we do take special considerations in the cases of children, who most people agree are not considered capable of making informed decisions (at least at a young age). I suppose there are some hard-core libertarians out there who would get rid of all laws that pertain to children (i.e. forcing them to ride in car safety seats, not allowing them to purchase alcohol, not allowing them to work in dangerous jobs, etc.) but I suspect most would not.

So therefore if you believe that children can be exempt from the �do whatever you want as long as it doesn�t hurt me� rule, it�s at least worth examining whether or not children deserve protection (so to speak) from advertising.

|1.25.06 @ 1:46PM|#

"We've only had this obesity "epidemic" for about 10 years. What is it about today's kids that's different?"

David;

When I was growing up, in the 70's, I rode my bike or walked to school, as most of my friends did. The bike racks at school were full to overflowing with bicycles.

Now days, look at the bike racks at most schools. There are fewer racks and way fewer bikes in them. I would submit that parents are less likely to allow their kids to ride bikes to school for whatever reason, safety, etc. I was also a latch key kid and did not have parental supervision after school. That is a no go in today's society, why the little darlings would get into all sorts of mischief and that would be bad, mmmkay.

|1.25.06 @ 1:48PM|#

it�s at least worth examining whether or not children deserve protection (so to speak) from advertising.

Substitute anything you like for advertising and I think we see the problem with your argument...where does it end? At your opinion, of course.

|1.25.06 @ 1:55PM|#

I suppose there are some hard-core libertarians out there who would get rid of all laws that pertain to children (i.e. forcing them to ride in car safety seats, not allowing them to purchase alcohol, not allowing them to work in dangerous jobs, etc.) but I suspect most would not.

And you see no distinction between children's being exposed to advertising versus abolishing the drinking age and child-labor laws?

|1.25.06 @ 2:05PM|#

If nothing else, it is generally accepted that children are affected by advertisements more than adults

Well, if we're going to assume dubious claims because you tell us they're "generally accepted", then I guess you win, man.

|1.25.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Thoreau -

The reason why you are never going to see the study you are looking for is that the only people who keep food diaries are people who have some kind of problem. I wouldn't want to extrapolate from those people to the general population.

My own experiments have shown me that there are cases where you can't fatten a kid up even if you give him a glass of eggnog or half and half with honey at bed time. But I bet it would fatten up some kids.

|1.25.06 @ 2:12PM|#

More thoughts on the study:

As I look at it again, they didn't correct for possible correlations between variables because they only used population data, not data on individuals. I would be more interested in studies that compared individuals with different levels of fiber and corn syrup intake.

So, after a second look (I did my first look very quickly) I'm underwhelmed by this study. Severely. I'd be much more impressed if the study looked at individual consumption of corn syrup, other sugars, fiber, fat, protein, etc. And if the study looking at such data also reported correlations between fiber and corn syrup intakes (presumably negative?), total calories and corn syrup intake (I'm guessing positive?) and discussed how these correlations affect their regression analysis.

Overall, I'm underwhelmed by this study, Dave W. It's pretty weak.

|1.25.06 @ 2:16PM|#

johnl-

I read your post after my latest post showed up. I agree, food diaries will be tough to get.

A possible intermediate would be to compare schools with lunch programs. Look at the lunch content, the duration of recess, the number of hours per week in gym class, etc. Yeah, you can't control for after hours activities or food consumed at home, but it would still be interesting. Then again, diabetes takes time to develop. You'd have to go back into the past, get data on school lunches and physical activity, and then look at the people years later, after so many other experiences have affected their health.

I don't claim to have any easy answers on how to get the relevant data. But the more I think about the paper that Dave W. cited, the less impressed I am.

I'll be curious to read Dave W.'s response to my critique.

|1.25.06 @ 2:28PM|#

I just wish my 2 year old would stop bugging me to buy him a roll of Owens Corning Fiberglass insulation. That stupid pink cat is so seductive...

|1.25.06 @ 2:35PM|#

If nothing else, it is generally accepted that children are affected by advertisements more than adults, and also are not able to understand that commercial messages are not meant to be truthful, but rather to convince them of something.

But they have no money.

I guess in a greater sense, a healthy society should consider its children as something more important than another market segment.

But they have no money.

So therefore if you believe that children can be exempt from the �do whatever you want as long as it doesn�t hurt me� rule, it�s at least worth examining whether or not children deserve protection (so to speak) from advertising.

But they have no money.

So in reality these laws have little to do with protecting children since children can't buy stuff, because children have no money. All these laws would do is protect parents from having to say no. And I believe that the biggest problem children face today isn't Sugar Smacks, but a lack of familiarity with the word no.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 2:49PM|#

And you see no distinction between children's being exposed to advertising versus abolishing the drinking age and child-labor laws?

Of course I didn�t say there was no distinction (although the libertarian might say that it�s the parent�s responsibility to make sure their kids don�t drink or work in a factory), only pointing out that we do in fact have laws that protect children that don�t apply to adults.

|1.25.06 @ 2:50PM|#

My own experiments have shown me that there are cases where you can't fatten a kid up even if you give him a glass of eggnog or half and half with honey at bed time. But I bet it would fatten up some kids.

My Texas High School Football crazed bother-in-law would agree. He did everything he could to get my two skinny nephews up to playing weight. We're talking protein shakes, carton of eggs omelets, midnight ice cream sundaes, steak for breakfast lunch and dinner, all you can eat Krispy Kreme and everything else short of roids. They can still hide behind the same broomstick. Just so happens they have the metabolisms of hummingbirds. He had to learn to like basketball.

|1.25.06 @ 3:02PM|#

we do in fact have laws that protect children that don�t apply to adults.

And what are the anti-ad groups protecting children from--the desire for sweet foods? That is innate; advertising has nothing to do with it. As someone has already pointed out here, these CSPI fools are trying to protect parents from ever having to say "no" to their children.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Well, if we're going to assume dubious claims because you tell us they're "generally accepted", then I guess you win, man.

By all means, if you disagree with my assumptions then please say so, but all debates kind of require a baseline to start with. This was one statement that I assumed most people would agree with, but maybe I�m wrong. I do believe it�s true, however, that studies have shown that young children at least are unable to distinguish that a TV commercial is not part of the show and are unaware that advertisements are trying to persuade them instead of presenting something that is true. Maybe that�s wrong and small kids really are as savvy as the marketers that are trying to sell to them?

|1.25.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Fyodor:

But the women where I work delight in giving their friggin' toddlers ice cream and candy because it's so friggin cute how it delights them so!

And here's part of the problem. Can the CSPI ever actually stop this kind of behavior? Will lawsuits against advertisers stop it? Of course not (unless they finally manage to drive all sugary foods off the shelves). What they will do is make us all a little poorer and subject to more pettifogging regulations, though.

Oh, and BTW, I can eat ANYTHING I WANT AND NEVER GAIN A POUND, thank you very much. I think the secret is that I don't actually want very much, though.

Captain Holly|1.25.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Plus, the quickly-spinning merry-go-round usually made kids puke their guts.

That's not the best part. If you ran alongside and got it going fast enough, you could jump up and (briefly) go horizontal. And knock over anyone who was standing too close. Great fun.

Interestingly, the city where I used to live had several of those in one of their parks as recently as a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's because their lawyers didn't know about it, or if the parks bureaucracy was so sclerotic that they didn't even know they had them.

My kids loved playing on them, BTW.

Dan T.|1.25.06 @ 3:45PM|#

I must admit to being amused that half the time I�m told that children don�t need to be protected from the effects of advertising, then the other half of the time I�m told that parents need to take an active role in protecting their kids from the effects of advertising.

It�s an interesting paradox � we all acknowledge that advertising works in convincing people to buy things (or in this case, in convincing people to convince other people to buy things) but when the consumption of the advertised product causes problems, for some reason (no pun intended) the advertisers had nothing to do with it.

|1.25.06 @ 3:48PM|#

then the other half of the time I�m told that parents need to take an active role in protecting their kids from the effects of advertising.

Nobody has said that parents need to "protect" their kids from ads; we're saying that parents, not kids, are the ones who should decide what foods are bought, advertising or not.

Jacob isn't protecting his kid from Dora the Explorer food ads; he's just not buying the Dora the Explorer food.

|1.25.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Maybe that�s wrong and small kids really are as savvy as the marketers that are trying to sell to them?

Dan,
stop infantilizing children, man. Oh, wait a minute..
Seriously though. I would like to see the studies you refer to. I would guess that they refer more to product tie-ins (e.g. Spongebob-shaped macaroni and cheese) than the kids not being able to discern the difference between an ad and a tv show. I will give them that pretty much anything with Danny Phantom on it will be sold, but again that is ultimately the parent's fault, not the kid's.

|1.25.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Maybe that�s wrong and small kids really are as savvy as the marketers that are trying to sell to them?

Dan,
stop infantilizing children, man. Oh, wait a minute..
Seriously though. I would like to see the studies you refer to. I would guess that they refer more to product tie-ins (e.g. Spongebob-shaped macaroni and cheese) than the kids not being able to discern the difference between an ad and a tv show. I will give them that pretty much anything with Danny Phantom on it will be sold, but again that is ultimately the parent's fault, not the kids.

|1.25.06 @ 3:54PM|#

... we all acknowledge that advertising works in convincing people to buy things....

Um - no. Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things. It tries to convince you to buy things. You make the final decision. And if you have kids, you make the final decision for them. Now you may not like the fact that advertisers try to use your kids to help convince you to buy, but you have not been injured. You have been annoyed.

|1.25.06 @ 3:55PM|#

What we need is for healthy-food companies top start making spongebob-shaped foods. Why is it that only high-carb,high-fat foods have product tie-ins?
If kids are so stupid, then they will buy Danny Phantom rice cakes at the same rate that they buy Danny Phantom ice cream sandwiches, right?

Note: parents will know that I am being facetious. Kids are more consumer-savvy than we give them credit for.

|1.25.06 @ 3:55PM|#

Dan T.,
you said:
we all acknowledge that advertising works in convincing people to buy things
I say, not so. Advertising makes you aware of the different products available to buy. Without advertising, a child could still have a sweet tooth, and one day stumble upon a box of Froot Loops and discover that they are delicious.
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to claim that people say "parents need to take an active role in protecting their kids from the effects of advertising." Parents should (to the extent that a product is dangerous) protect their kids from the products advertised. Of course this is true, in the same way that if a kid asks for a Porsche for his 16th birthday, a good parent will say no.
"But how can we make sure that parents will make these good choices?" you ask. The answer there is good old-fashioned shame. If you really want to tell other people what to feed their children, then do it. But don't be surprised if someone calls you an ass.

|1.25.06 @ 3:58PM|#

Hey, I double-posted! I always thought that only happened to other people. Now I know that I am not special.

|1.25.06 @ 3:59PM|#

and now I've repeated what everyone else said in a poorly formatted block paragraph. A pox on HTML.

|1.25.06 @ 4:01PM|#

I do believe it�s true, however, that studies have shown that young children at least are unable to distinguish that a TV commercial is not part of the show and are unaware that advertisements are trying to persuade them instead of presenting something that is true.

I don't doubt this. But my 6 year old doesn't watch commercials, precisely because I don't doubt it. I've believed for a while that marketing to kids is a vile act, but I don't think restrictions on kids' commercials is the answer because it's another way of society saying, "Don't worry about raising your kids thoughtfully, we'll do it for you!"

When he does glimpse the occasional advert, I dissect it for him and explain what they want him to do. That's my job. That said, as a kid I watched every and all commercials available and I still grew up to know what crap they are. So I don't know what to think, except that it's no one's job to limit what my child experiences but my own.

|1.25.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Thanks Ralph.

T - This subject is filled with a lot of overprecision and magical thinking. You get fat and can hurt yourself in other ways if you eat to much for your lifestyle. This is well known and there is no reason to perform studies to verify it.

And there are no spells you can cast by eating prime numbers of bananas on weekdays and even numbers of M&M's on weekends that will let you sit at a desk all day and stay thin on 2000 calories. The exact composition of the diet isn't the issue. The physics is pretty simple, if you want to lose weight, eat less, exercise more, or spend time in the cold.

I had to change pediatricians when ours proposed as an explanation for our son's low weight that we were not keeping him warm at night.

|1.25.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Johnl,
Your physician's suggestion may not have been that crazy - it's been shown repeatedly that any exercise/activity done in the cold burns more calories than doing the same thing at a more normal temperature. This is a fact I wish our high school athletic trainter had been kept away from our wrestling coach.

|1.25.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Johnl,
Your physician's suggestion may not have been that crazy - it's been shown repeatedly that any exercise/activity done in the cold burns more calories than doing the same thing at a more normal temperature. This is a fact I wish our high school athletic trainter had been kept away from our wrestling coach.

|1.25.06 @ 4:16PM|#

I had to change pediatricians when ours proposed as an explanation for our son's low weight that we were not keeping him warm at night.

Well, it does take energy to generate body heat. I think you dismissed that pediatrician too quickly.

Unless, of course, you were keeping him sufficiently warm.

|1.25.06 @ 4:19PM|#

The physics is pretty simple, if you want to lose weight, eat less, exercise more, or spend time in the cold.

I completely agree. Completely.

The issue that came up is whether corn syrup poses some special risk that other sweeteners don't pose. Much like it's better to eat a food with vitamins than one without, even if both have the same number of calories. What if corn syrup has some other aspect, above and beyond calories, that leads to a greater risk of diabetes than getting the same quantity of calories from some other source?

I'm skeptical of that claim, but Dave W. seems to be convinced of it. I told him that if he showed me a study I would critique it. He posted a link to a study, I read it, and I concluded that the methodology doesn't enable us to draw many conclusions.

So again, the question is, does X calories of corn syrup pose a greater threat than X calories of something else? Dave W. says yes, but the study that he was most interested in doesn't really support that conclusion.

|1.25.06 @ 4:26PM|#

thoreau,
I guess an argument against corn syrup could be the way it's digested - it spikes blood glucose levels for a short while, then causes them to dip significantly, making the body crave more sugar. This pattern only happens with simple carbohydrates and corn syrup, as far as I know.
The same can't be said of protein or fat.

|1.25.06 @ 4:29PM|#

As someone has already pointed out here, these CSPI fools are trying to protect parents from ever having to say "no" to their children.

I thinks that's more the vehicle for their cause than the cause itself. CSPI believes that sugary cereal serves no "positive" purpose, therefore should never be consumed by anyone.

They just know that they'll never get anywhere by calling "bad parents" on people who buy sugary cereals so they frame the argument as "brainwashed toddlers imposing upon helpless, underinformed parents". It lets people nod along and agree without really thinking about what they're agreeing with.

|1.25.06 @ 4:29PM|#

Randolph-

That's a very plausible hypothesis. But, to put it in perspective, the corn syrup debate began in a thread about soda. Dave W. suggested that soda made with corn syrup might be more dangerous than soda made with cane sugar. So the question wasn't simple carbs vs. protein or fat, the question was one type of simple carb vs. another.

|1.25.06 @ 4:33PM|#

This is a fact I wish our high school athletic trainter had been kept away from our wrestling coach.

Better the cold than the rubberized heat suits, unless your coach advocated both.

|1.25.06 @ 4:37PM|#

David,
Indeed, he was a man of mixed messages.

|1.25.06 @ 4:40PM|#

maybe corn syrup is the crack (oops, I mean crystal meth) of sugar products?

|1.25.06 @ 5:23PM|#

Radolph - I understand the physics and I am sorry that your coach did as well. Cold can make you lose weight, though I doubt that any infant has been made skinny in this country in my lifetime. Starvation can also make you skinny. And when your pediatrician starts looking at that type of explanation for your child's lack of growth, you have a real problem.

|1.25.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Dan T:

This was one statement that I assumed most people would agree with, but maybe I'm wrong.

Argue it on a "most people" blog, then. :)

I do believe it's true, however, that studies have shown that young children at least are unable to distinguish that a TV commercial is not part of the show and are unaware that advertisements are trying to persuade them instead of presenting something that is true.

Depending on how you would define "young", I'd be willing to agree. It does sound like you're trying to suggest "children in general", which I would not agree with. In my experience, a child of 12 or 10 (and often even younger) is quite aware that the ads exist to entice someone to buy products.

Still, I'm not seeing your explanation of how, even in the case of young children, you get past the gatekeeper role of the parent. Even in the case of 4 to 6-year-olds (a very gullible age), the only person buying is going to be an adult.

|1.25.06 @ 5:33PM|#

I must admit to being amused that half the time I�m told that children don�t need to be protected from the effects of advertising, then the other half of the time I�m told that parents need to take an active role in protecting their kids from the effects of advertising.

Because even if you grant that children need to be "protected", that protection would be the parent's job.

And when "protected" means "kept from seeing an ad so they won't ask for something" ...well, it's just patently silly.

|1.25.06 @ 6:03PM|#

Lakeside Flying Devils.

That was the end of my innocence.

It looked so cool on the TV. Flying and dog fighting just like on "Tales of the Gold Monkey." They we're all I wanted for Christmas. They were my Red Rider BB gun with a compass in the stock and a thing you tell time with. I got them and guess what. They sucked. Sucked worse than any toy I ever got. Two lousy plastic airplanes on the end of wires that just slammed into each other and flipped the whole game over evey time. I never trusted TV again.

Sometimes the best way to teach kids about truth in advertising is to let it bite them in the ass.

Coincidentally I now work in advertising.

Just so I can make another little kid suffer like I did.

Bwahahahahahaha!

nmg|1.25.06 @ 7:27PM|#

I'm always astonished that someone shows up to actually defend this kind of nonsense. They really exist! They even show up here and PROUDLY exclaim that the government should stop food companies from advertising sugary products because kids might ask their parents to buy it. With a straight face (figuratively speaking) they claim these thing.

I'll never stop being amazed.

nmg

|1.25.06 @ 7:47PM|#

Ralphus -

My, 7 year old at the time, daughter was dying to buy something on TV and was willing to do so with her own allowance. I told her about buyer beware, but no go - she insisted. It wasn't that much money, so I let her purchase her toy which broke 3 days later.

She doesn't trust TV anymore either.

|1.25.06 @ 9:24PM|#

What we need is for healthy-food companies top start making spongebob-shaped foods. Why is it that only high-carb,high-fat foods have product tie-ins?

Actually, they make Spongebob carrot stick packages and carrot-stick-and-celery combos. I've bought them, because they are small enough to consume at one sitting. (Versus the larger packages, which you eat until you're sick of them, then throw the remainder into the fridge and forget about them until they go bad.)

By the way, I think the solution is to ban the airing of kid-oriented TV commercials until after 9 p.m., when their parents have fallen asleep and can no longer be influenced.

Jadagul|1.26.06 @ 12:02AM|#

Randolph and Thoreau: The 'simple carbs cause a sharp glucose spike' is actually the theory behind the Atkins and Sugarbusters diets, among others. I know that, at least for me, it can make a big difference; if I eat a meal that's all simple starch and sugar, I'm hungry again an hour later no matter how much I ate. But not all simple carbs are equal, either; it's entirely possible that corn syrup gets pumped into your bloodstream faster than sugar does (generally, the more refined, the worse the effect. I think brown sugar is safer than white sugar, and fructose is complex enough that it's generally not a problem).

|1.26.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Jadagul-

That's entirely plausible. I asked Dave W. to uncover evidence in support of that hypothesis.

And even if corn syrup does indeed make a can of soda more dangerous than a can of soda made with cane sugar (assuming the same number of calories in each can), we have to ask just how much more dangerous? What if the extra danger posed by replacing cane sugar with corn syrup in a can of soda could be totally compensated by walking slightly more? If a simple consumer decision could reduce the risk of diabetes, why sue over the corn syrup?

Jadagul|1.26.06 @ 12:33PM|#

Yeah, I was saying there's a plausible claim, not that it's necessarily true.

But it occurred to me that this information is online; a little googling turned up this page, which gives sucrose a glycemic index of about 68 and HFCS (on a different page of the same site) a glycemic index of about 63 (glycemic index measures how fast a food gets turned into glucose; glucose has a rating of 100, and a food that didn't turn into glucose at all would have 0). So apparently HFCS actually gets pumped into the bloodstream a little slower than table sugar does; this surprises me, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Jadagul|1.26.06 @ 12:34PM|#

Damnit. I meant this page.

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 12:44PM|#

I am not surprised by what you found about the article. Thank you for reviewing it. Some clarifications about me and my position on this:

1. I am not convinced that the diabetes explosion was caused by the switch to cornsyrup. I merely think the timing of the switch to cornsyrup and the timing of the large increase in diabetes suggest a causal relationship that should have been investigated thoroughly a long time ago.

2. I think the market should have figured whether cornsyrup imposes sharply incresed diabetes risks (relative to equivalent amounts of sugar). I think the market should have gotten this information to consumers a long time ago. I think it is that important to know.

3. Failing the market looking into this, I think the regulators should have. I think it is important to know.

4. T. thinks that we should just wait around indefinitely on this, which is exactly what we seem to be doing. T. does not think this issue is important to resolve as I do. I am not sure why this is. T. is not embarrassed that his friends in the scientific and capitalist community has not given us a definitive answer on this. He should be. That is the attitude adjustment I am trying to get him to make here.

|1.26.06 @ 12:54PM|#

Dave W., I do think it's an interesting issue to explore. The reasons for it are laid out in that article. However, many things changed about the American lifestyle during the period over which diabetes rates rose.

I was hoping you'd point me to another article that explores whether the first article is mere coincidence or something more. Find me something else. In the mean time, I have some cancer research to conduct. I'm sorry if you don't see that as a high priority, but that's too bad for you.

|1.26.06 @ 2:18PM|#

On this thread, shouldn't the corn syrup debate be focused on the fact that its pervasive use is the result of artificial price controls on sugar in the US market...

And I'm one of the nanny statists.

And kid's parents don't need protection from ads beyond that given by the off button.

But, don't lump all attempts to regulate corporate behavior together... and why would a libertarian complain so much about a group using the legal process to press their position? Isn't it the rule of law that protects the individual's rights. Isn't it the smart and reasonable way to determine when a request is without merit to subject it to a process such as is afforded individuals via the courts. What is the problem libertarians have with people exercising their rights to be heard by a court?

Businesses are activities not individuals and therefore don't have natural rights. Those activities are rightly regulated by the collective will of the people following the process set out in the established rule of law.

Just my opinion. But don't you expect people to disagree when you equate reasonable behavior (regulation of certain activities that are harmful to the society) with silly behavior (asking for the government to raise my kids for me). Dan T may be trying to get you to think about the larger issues that are brought up by a position that says the government has no role in protecting children from influence by businesses, and that this is entirely the family's job.

Community members have responsibilities not only to themselves, but also to the community in which they live. The extent to which that involves others children is a fuzzy line. A strict libertarian philosophy doesn't go far to help figure out how to draw that line... so say the nanny statists.

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 2:35PM|#

Find me something else.

If I find something good enuf I will send it along.

What I am more interested is: why do you think that science hasn't resolved this issue yet? Is it that hard to resolve? Is the correlation and timing not sufficient to spur a scientist's interest the way it has spureed suspicion in me? Just considering the article I gave you: does it cry out for followup research or not?

I don't know what the numbers are as far as diabetes related deaths compared to deaths from the kinds of cancers you work on. Which disease is claiming more lives per year now?

|1.26.06 @ 2:42PM|#

why do you think that science hasn't resolved this issue yet? Is it that hard to resolve? Is the correlation and timing not sufficient to spur a scientist's interest the way it has spureed suspicion in me?

Lots of lifestyle factors have changed in the US during that period, Dave W. Ingesting more corn syrup is only one of those many factors involving diet and exercise. Diabetes researchers are studying a wide variety of issues concerning diabetes. The fact that you don't think they've paid enough attention to one particular factor is hardly proof of willful blindness.

And in the thread where you suggested this article to me, you originally showed a whole bunch of articles from Google Scholar. So apparently a lot of people are looking into the issue. I haven't read all of those articles because it isn't my pet project. If you want me to help you with your pet project, you need to identify the articles that help you the most.

Finally, as to why it's so difficult: What you'll need to show something more convincing is to track individuals and look at their diets. Getting that data isn't easy. You could study animals, but animals and humans have been optimized for different diets by long years of evolution (or intelligent design, take your pick). There are many aspects of biology that are universal, but many other things aren't. Animal studies of corn syrup and diabetes would of course be interesting, but would hardly be convincing. The most convincing study would be one that tracks individuals and their diets, and that's very difficult to do on a large scale over a long period of time. You'd have to figure out how many calories a person got from corn syrup and how many calories that person got from cane sugar, and how many calories came from starch, protein, fat, etc.

Not easy.

And I'm not studying any particular cancer. I'm studying a phenomenon that's common to many different types of cancers. I apologize if I'm not saving enough lives to satisfy you. How many lives are you saving?

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 2:49PM|#

I mean, T., look at it this way:

If the causitive relationship I suspect existed, then it would be relatively easy to switch back to cane sugar and beat back the 'betes and perhaps some of the obesity as well. We would probably even get a reduction in those sugar tarriffs that you want so much as a matter of free trade principle! The probability that cornsyrup is the real culprit in your mind at this point is what: 1%? 5%? (I'd put it at 25%, 30%, because I am paranoid, so I tend to set these probabilities a bit to high.

Now compare this to the very small probability that you will make any serious in-roads on cancer. That is not a veiled insult -- it is just that cancer is pretty tough to cure or even treat. Many have tried. Many still are.

In other words, the probability that cornsyrup research could lead to serious health improvements seems orders of magnitude more probable than all the cancer research I've heard so much about since at least the time they put that drug (Interferon?) on the cover of Time back when I was but a boy. What am I missing here?

I have my own theory on what is going on here:

My theory is that medical research is based on what medical treatments and remedies will be most profitable for those who make them, rather than what will help the greatest number of people live the longest. Can this grim, paranoid assessment possibly be true? Is diabetes good for business?

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 2:57PM|#

Thoreau,
You are trying to shift focus here because I gave you an article. I did not give you the article to shift the burden of diabetes reseach on to our little team. The burden of diabetes research is with the scientific community and shall remain there. Do not use my investigation into the state of the art be used as an admission that we should be the ones searching the state of the art. With products like cigarettes, cornsyrup, olestra and viox, the state of the art should be made clear and accessible to consumers in a timely way. Just because I am willing to do a little Googling to establish what they DON'T know doesn't mean I should have to be doing that.

Maybe your libertarian philosophy is that each individual should research significant health risks associated with quotidian aspects of modern living on his or her own. Not only is that impossible, it is grossly inefficient. Anyway, if this diabetes causation thing ever does get establish, we will revisit this so that you can tell me, in 20-20 hindsight, who you think should have done the neccessary scientific research here and when and why. It seems like you are not going to engage this until we can attach all those amputations to the cornsyrup. So, if they do, then we will.

|1.26.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Dave W.-

I agree that if corn syrup is a culprit then it would be easy to remedy via sane agricultural policy.

I think the biggest problem with answering the question is this: We know that obesity is related to diabetes. We know that high calorie diets are related to obesity. And we know that people who eat sweets tend to eat more calories. If you analyze a population that eats lots of sweet foods, you're going to find lots of diabetes. Now, given that, it becomes rather difficult to say whether they'd be better off by eating one sweetener rather than another, especially if most of the sweet foods have the same sweetener. It becomes very difficult to get enough data from enough categories to do meaningful comparisons.

Hell, for all I know, maybe corn syrup is actually better than cane sugar. Aside from what Jadagul said, there's the fact that fruit consumption is not generally linked to diabetes, and fruit tends to have more fructose than sucrose. So it could go either way for all I know. Most important, I suspect that the effect of switching sweetener types is significantly smaller than the effect of eating less sweetener of any sort.

Eat less and exercise more. Sometimes the oldest medical advice is the best medical advice.

As to the problem I'm working on, it also has applications in understanding how healthy tissues develop, how embryos grow, how wounds heal, and maybe even nerve growth. I don't know how many lives will be saved by my simulations (probably very few in the near term) but I can help shed light on a number of different issues and hope that one of them comes to fruition down the road.

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 3:07PM|#

How many lives are you saving?

Tons. By slowly but surely getting an actual medical researcher to understand that current research efforts are not rationally allocated. By the time you are in a position of greater authority, there is a good chance you will understand what I am trying to tell you with all these responses. Then when you are in charge, you will make things be more rational at least in your realm.

Of course, it is hard to make you see these things because you are not used to making major mental shifts atr the behest of some random jerk (me) on the Internet. That is why I am trying to do something *predictive* here with the cornsyrup and the diabetes. I know that scientists do take note when a predictive model is borne out in the fullness of time. This diabetes thing may not go the way I planned. Maybe it is just the pat explanation that we are consuming more calories (which could be the nature of cornsyrup, again, btw). However, it is probably the best hope that your statusquoishness will be shaken on this kind of stuf.

|1.26.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Diabetes can make money for some businesses and lose money for others.

I don't know if anyone here reads the NY Times (I generally don't) but there was a series of articles recently on diabetes and how a hospital set up a diabetes clinic. This clinic basically supplied a lot of information about the disease to sufferers, and helped with small parts of monitoring such as supplying blood test strips, and helped with diet and exercise advice. Supposedly people were getting better but the hospital closed the center because it wasn't covering its costs.

Shocking they're not giving it away for free, right? The problem is that hospitals do give away a lot of free care, but hospitals are set up to charge for acute events, such as a surgery, and do not make money on chronic illnesses, such as diabetes. However insurance companies do make money by containing the costs of chronic diseases, which is why most insurance companies now have disease management programs for conditions like diabetes (also asthma and congestive heart failure to name a couple more) so that people do not end up in hospitals having expensive procedures.

Another change that will be coming down the pike real soon is that Medicare will be paying claims on a risk adjusted basis, not a set rate so it will be in insurance companies� best interest to enroll sick people with diseases like diabetes which can be controlled through behavioral changes.

Of course, this may increase the costs for Medicare, but that's another issue. Push for not for profit health care!!!!!

Jadagul|1.26.06 @ 3:26PM|#

Thoreau: I basically agree with you. But just as a note, the problem with HFCS is that it isn't really fructose. It's about half fructose and half glucose (pure glucose is about the worst thing you can eat, glucose-spike wise, for obvious reasons). So fructose is quite safe-it has a glycemic index of about 20, as opposed to 68 for sucrose and 100 for glucose-the mixture of fructose and glucose comes out being about the same as sucrose. On that metric; I have no clue which one is actually better. But the fact that fructose is safe doesn't make corn syrup safe, since the other half of the corn syrup is the concerning part.

|1.26.06 @ 4:12PM|#

Dave W., every researcher on the planet believes that funds should be allocated differently. But none of them agree on what that different allocation should be.

The problem isn't just that you want to call my attention to one particular disease, a disease that already gets a lot of attention. You want to persuade me that the real problem is not too many calories and too little exercise. Rather, it's corn syrup. From what Jadagul says, there are plausible arguments to make one way or the other on corn syrup. But you want me to focus my attention on this because you think there's a conspiracy afoot. And when you look at the evidence concerning it, the stuff that impresses you the most is actually quite shoddy. Now, there may be good evidence out there, but you aren't good at identifying it.

Sorry, you aren't changing my thinking at all.

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 6:43PM|#

Sorry, you aren't changing my thinking at all.

Of course your thinking isn't going to change right now, silly. However, if it is determined that cornsyrup is the real culprit and that we could have figured it out a long time ago -- that is day your thinking will change. (Conditionally) on that day the whole world will hear your palm hitting your forehead. This is a long range stratergee!