Settings

Theme

As Ozempic turns consumers off processed foods, junk food industry fights back

nytimes.com

27 points by 2four2 a year ago · 49 comments

Reader

unixpickle a year ago

> I asked Nicole Avena, a professor of neuroscience at Mount Sinai who studies sugar addiction, if she believed it could be possible for food companies to engineer, intentionally or not, compounds that would make GLP-1 drugs less effective. Avena told me it was plausible.

Never really thought about this before. The food industry is a virus and current weight loss drugs are the best vaccine we have, but it'll forever be an arms race.

  • keybored a year ago

    You give the game away with that analogy.

    We wouldn’t throw our hands up if private corporations were able to sell more and more dangerous guns to civilians (arms race). "Ah but what can we do, it's an arms race." We would make it illegal.

    • tstrimple a year ago

      Actually we are explicitly throwing our hands up over more and more dangerous guns in civilian hands. We haven't made it illegal and all attempts at even moderate regulation are met with outrage over losing "freedom".

      • keybored a year ago

        We as in Humans.

        EDIT: But not even Americans just Throw Their Hands up over guns. Many, but not all! In fact many are very concerned about the lack of gun regulation.

        Contrast with the food industry. There the status quo is to throw your hands up as long as people are making a profit. No matter how underhanded the tactics. Oh well if there is a demand then that is just their god-given right (to make a profit).

  • Teever a year ago

    It would probably be ridiculously illegal to put substances in products that are designed to counter the function of prescription medication.

    It's the kind of thing that I hope would result in not only massive fines for the corporations but jail time for the people involved in the decision making and the R&D.

    • gizmo686 a year ago

      They don't need to be designed to do that. Companies don't really understand why things sell. They have a lot of ideas about what makes a successful product that are generally accurate. But at the end of the day, they just try stuff, see what sells, then do more of that.

      If a sizeable portion of the market is on Ozempic, then this will naturally lead to there being a portion of the market that sells well to those people. At that will likely happen a decade before any human understands the mechanics by which that food sells well to people on Ozempic.

    • tonyedgecombe a year ago

      They already put substances in food to make us crave them more. It's not a huge leap from there.

      • Teever a year ago

        It is a huge leap from the status quo to intentionally disrupting the effects of prescription drugs.

        One is unscrupulous and the other is blatantly illegal.

        • bodiekane a year ago

          What law would it be breaking?

          There are tons of common foods and food additives that are known to interact with medications. Grapefruit juice for instance has a large and diverse set of drug interactions, some potentially very dangerous: https://www.drugs.com/article/grapefruit-drug-interactions.h... but that doesn't mean it's illegal to sell or consume.

          • Teever a year ago

            The key word is intentional.

            If you're intentionally researching and developing an additive that weakens the effect of a prescription medication and you're not telling people the. You're effectively poisoning them.

            That's super illegal.

        • mathgeek a year ago

          If they do find something that fits the bill, it will be referred to and marketed as “appealing to the cravings of folks on these drugs, and they personally need to be responsible about their choices”.

          It’s helpful to remember that this is the same corporate landscape where (in the US) insurance companies can decline prescriptions in order to reduce their own costs.

        • ohthatsnotright a year ago

          Not for long, given who will be running the next administrations FDA, and the general cult of "de-regulation" taking hold.

          • sabbaticaldev a year ago

            someone that voted for them would argue that those regulations are what brought us to the current predicament. It’s currently very legal to make addictive unhealthy food

    • dns_snek a year ago

      I think we can consider ourselves lucky if government(s) act quickly to prohibit things before they cause too much damage. I'd love to live in a world where these sorts of people are held accountable but unfortunately we weren't born in the right timeline to experience that.

    • whaleofatw2022 a year ago

      Idk. One challenge is that plenty of natural things can interfere with prescription medication... grapefruit juice comes to mind.

    • Vampiero a year ago

      Coca Cola has phosphoric acid in it so you don't puke from the fact that it contains unnatural amounts of sugar.

      Sugar itself, in its processed form, is quite unnatural and causes cravings and addiction.

      Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't get much sugar aside from fructose.

      Conclusion: sugar is mostly used by the industry because it's addictive.

      • pvaldes a year ago

        Processed sugar is glucose. Glucose is all except "quite unnatural" in our metabolism. Physiology in animals is based on energy provided by any stuff that can be converted into sugar. Our brains will die in a few minutes without glucose. This reminds me the lemon juice panic when used as additive.

        We can talk about if this sugar has pesticides or other substances mixed with it in the post process that are toxic, but this trend of people saying that glucose is addictive is ludicrous. Unlike real drugs, we really need it to live. Would you trust somebody saying that oxygen is a drug and people should stop consuming it?

        • inglor_cz a year ago

          Processed sugar is sucrose, also half-glucose, half-fructose.

          Even though both are found separately in nature, it doesn't necessarily follow that their combination is just fine, especially in the volumes consumed in a typical Western diet.

          If sugar isn't addictive at all, why do so many people have cravings for sweets? Cravings are a major hallmark of addiction.

          • YetAnotherNick a year ago

            What do you think processed sugar is? It's literally just natural sugar purified. Almost everything in nature which contain sugar contains both fructose and glucose combined.

            • inglor_cz a year ago

              The list of problematic substances that are "just" purified natural matter is quite long. We aren't built to consume purified products endlessly.

        • otisv a year ago

          I think the parent is pointing out that supernatural amounts of refined sugar in food products is unnatural and that it is added in such high amounts because it is addictive (even going as far as to add other substances to reduce the symptoms of such supernatural sugar doses, p.s. I'm unsure if this is true or not just regurgitating his argument) and thus companies are adding as much refined sugar as possible to increase the sales of said products.

          While you seem to be arguing against a strawman that the existence of glucose in our metabolic systems is unnatural, thus sugar is addictive? I think your counter points are a tad tangential compared to the actual points made by the parent comment.

        • sabbaticaldev a year ago

          our brain won’t die a few minutes without sugar, not even days. You should learn about ketones (which i’m sure you already know, why some ppl are addicted to spread misinformation?)

      • addicted a year ago

        Our hunter gatherer ancestors didn’t wear clothes, live in housing, use technology, or anything like we do today.

        This is literally the worst justification for anything.

        Even the “unprocessed” food we eat today, including plants or dead animal flesh is nothing like what the hunter gatherer ancestors ate.

        • SoftTalker a year ago

          The point is our internal metabolic processes are largely unchanged and were developed over many millennia of evolutionary adaptation, despite vast external changes in how we live in the past few centuries.

      • scotty79 a year ago

        I don't think there's anything sinister about using acid to make sugar taste better.

        You can put ungodly amount of sugar in your tea if you squeeze half a lemon into it and it's delicious.

        • bamboozled a year ago

          tired of it already , feel like all this food bashing is the new “wokeness”. I enjoyed coca-cola in moderation for decades, so what ?

          • sabbaticaldev a year ago

            i have a friend literally dying because he can’t stop being addicted to coke. Even with his kidneys and liver stopping working, he’ll still drink it. So what, you ask?

            • alphan0n a year ago

              So what, we asked.

              If coke stopped existing this very second, your friend would find something else to destroy their body with, because the cause of their problem isn’t coke and the prohibition of it isn’t a solution.

            • mensetmanusman a year ago

              People with survivor bias don’t understand the occasional self sacrifice required for the good of the larger set of humanity.

          • FooBarBizBazz a year ago

            Nah, wokeness was zero-sum, interested in domination/submission and Power, and it sought to control others, particularly their speech. This is positive-sum -- your health comes at no-one else's expense, and indeed your example can quietly help others (and vice versa) -- and the only person you're really worried about controlling is yourself.

      • Mumps a year ago

        The phosphoric acid - vomit thing is a factoid. Trivially, consider that you can just eat pure sugar and not vomit.

        Also, a glass of orange juice is about 1tbsp of sugar away from coke.

    • tayo42 a year ago

      The US is about enter an era of no government regulation...

      • bamboozled a year ago

        I love the excuse given for destroying the FDA, “they are corrupt and allow food coloring in front loops”, you ain’t seen nothing yet boy …

    • fazeirony a year ago

      ya! just like we did with the sackler family right? they're doing hard time for creating the opioid epidemic. oh wait, they're billionaires so i forgot they get a different set of rules.

      don't hold your breath on any jail time for food companies doing this is my point.

ciconia a year ago

https://archive.ph/l8Na1

1vuio0pswjnm7 a year ago

Works where archive.ph is blocked:

https://web.archive.org/web/20241120032300if_/https://www.ny...

adt a year ago

South Park did it six month ago...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park:_The_End_of_Obesity...

fhfjfk a year ago

As a skinny guy in the US, is there a way that I can get an GLP-1 prescription?

I want to see if it will decrease compulsions - substance use and trichotillomania.

  • sct202 a year ago

    You maybe be able to get a doctor to prescribe it off-label for those reasons. A lot of the compounding pharmacies have relationships with prescribers so you're more likely to find a prescriber who may consider doing that there.

  • SoftTalker a year ago

    Go to one of the online sellers, tell them you are fat, and one of their staff "doctors" will prescribe it.

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection