PleasureKevin posted:

The food industry thought they needed to lower fat in Foods. So the milk industry introduced 1% and homo milk. This is a lower calorie choice. But removed fat by-product was used to make cheese, leading to "X-tremely" cheesy food items and added cheese everywhere. Effectively the benefit of low fat milk was just totally overcome by those calories just being put into other food everyone eats. American food advertising can be divided into two categories, things that are cheesy and things that are cold. The latter being for beer and the former being for pizza, burgers, tacos, nachos, chips and other snacks. This isn't necessarily a conspiracy because it's just making use of a bi product.

The real conspiracy is that they lowered fat product in other foods, then replaced it with sugar to make up for the fat-free taste, then have tried to deny and cover up evidence that sugar is harmful. The "calories in, calories out" mantra comes straight from the food industry talking points on things and is unfortunately repeated by some GPs.

Just to give you an idea of the conspiracy and policy of "deny everything", Michelle Obama originally was impassioned about holding companies responsible. A couple meetings with food industry agents and she was literally saying "let's not blame the companies" and they made a deal to remove X amount of calories from the US food supply. It amounted to a few calories per day per person. And the calories largely did not come from removing sugar! Instead they decreased the overall size of a product, removed fibre, fat or whatever. sugar is a sacred cash cow for them and they use tobacco co. era/climate change denialism tactics to lobby against sugar regulation. In fact, sugar production is subsidized, despite its abundance. Kind of like the oil industry.

Thank you for reading