• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Why The Glucose Crisis Will Be Worse Than The Opioid Crisis

The story is not new, but I liked the way he told it. And he was good enough to identify his sponsors too. Not a Gordon Gecko financier it seems.
 
From my experience helping at a food bank, the cheapest foods are high carb. The poorer the person, the higher carb and less nourishing the diet. Poverty and lack of access to shops due to transport issues play a big part in this crisis.
 
When we were in lockdown I was offered a box of food to be delivered. I had seen what neighbour had received, so I refused it, much to the consternation of the people offering it. Large packet of pasta, rice, large white loaf (which would be mouldy before we could eat it ) and some random tins. Yes if you're trying to fill a family cheaply, but no actual nutritional content without adding fresh ingredients.
 

Because it's mass produced, relatively cheap and as far as they are concerned (ie, the govt), it fills people's bellies by acting as a filler rather than providing any nutritional benefit. Until society as a whole accepts that these foods cause more health conditions (or add to them) it will go on. It's easy to say just eat loads of veg or organic meat or 'non fillers' but what can people on a limited budget do when a green pepper costs upto 60p and feeds barely one. I have NEVER seen a two for the price of one vegetable. By saying that I am not suggesting people on a budget can't or don't wish to eat healthily but it's harder to have freedom of choice when it's the higher carb 'rubbish' that is the cheapest.
 
KK123 said:
By saying that I am not suggesting people on a budget can't or don't wish to eat healthily
Click to expand...
I am saying that they can't afford to eat healthily. If you are on universal credit, for example, it's impossible to afford a healthy diet. The money simply isn't there. There are many working people on UC. Millions are in poverty,. When I think of the willingness to prescribe medication and surgery etc for type 2 diabetes, versus spending that cost making a healthy diet possible, I could weep
 
Of course the title is wrong; the glucose crisis will not be worse than the opioid crisis, it already is. In the US people usually don't fix their own food, but eat out or use microwaves, which is at the core of the problem.

So is poverty, as Lucylocket61 already pointed out. Supposively (probably) we are in this high carb mess, because Nixon wanted cheaper food for fear of losing the elections.
 
There is one supermarket in the UK (at least) that as a policy offer a daily selection of 5 fresh items at reduced cost. The quality is ok, and the items are useable. At the same store I can get 3 thin cut steaks for less than £3, and a pack lasts me 3 meals. As a pensioner I am able to eat low carb quite cheaply, but then again I don;t have kids living with me so can avoid the snackies.
 
More likely he was afraid of losing his sponsors such as Kelloggs, Nestle, Cargill, etc.
 
and feeling lively growing children the basics, even without snacks. And teenagers need a huge amount of basic food to grow healthily. Three thin steaks would go nowhere for them, and £10 for a meal for 4 people is out of many peoples budget.
 
lucylocket61 said:
From my experience helping at a food bank, the cheapest foods are high carb. The poorer the person, the higher carb and less nourishing the diet. Poverty and lack of access to shops due to transport issues play a big part in this crisis.
Click to expand...
The agree button won't work, but you are exactly right about this. Also the whole of the media has been manipulated into rounding the green agenda on meat and fish, which are among the best sources of non-carb contaminated food. The big profits of course are in food with manufactured stages to their process i.e. the stuff poor people become addicted to.
 
Do name them - it may help someone.
 
As I recall the likes of Swiss Re are very much aware of this given their direct financial interest in not paying out for cost of disease:
https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:53d...8/Food_safety_in_a_globalised_world_final.pdf
The cost of cheap food to society is very high but then I don't think many in government have any interest in facing up to this and there's plenty of big food lobby to muddy the water when it comes to denigrating meat and dairy so remain confused about what's good for them and are vulnerable to marketing and also feel they can't afford the time or the cost of cooking from scratch.
We could choose to tax the junk but I would want the revenues to go directly (not via the incompetent government) into subsidising eggs, meat , fish and dairy plus basic starches (not everyone is vulnerable to metabolic disease ). It should be a choice to eat real food but we could do a bit more to shape the path without being coercive or 'nanny state ish'.
I am sure this is a naïve idea but I'd vote for someone who suggested it.
 
during the second world war there were cafes run which offered cheap and nutritious meals. I cant remember what they were called, but they helped many, especially the shift workers. Why cant we do the same, as the costs incurred (these cafes were not free) would save so much in medical budgets.
 
Agree plus its not everyone that can get to the supermarkets easily. Huge blocks of flats fairly nearby in very deprived area, an unreliable hourly bus, the small parade of shops has a freezer food shop, betting shop, off licence and 2 takeaways.
 

Naafis, they were called.

As a point even before Nixon, the powers that be in America, in other words the money people who get their candidate in. Have been given a major world problem after WW2! Because they were the only economy not wrecked by the war, maybe except Switzerland were beholden to these very few money people who obviously made huge profits on the war providing war materiel and food for those countries that suffered so much. In other words the world owed a lot of money for the recovery.
But the problem was regardless of the slaughter, the population was just about to expand and things had to change. The western and parts of the 'free world' would not be able to feed itself because the agriculture sector could not create enough food as it was.
This Americanisation of the world, which has dominated the free trade agreements, needed to maximise development of farming methods and produce cheap food for the masses. Industrial revolution and huge swathes of land were given over to mass produce grains and vegetables. The scientists were told to find better yield of these foodstuffs, and better production methods. This does include dairy farms.
The t.v. meal, was in its infancy, the food production industry were given orders to find a way to mass produce food.
Among other things, better transport links, better shipping, better production and an easier way to get food to the masses which were cheap.
And of course cheap labour, especially from undeveloped countries, this of course, lead to deforestation, overfishing, overuse of land, exploitation, and if you are aware of American history and how they have dealt with industrial unrest.
This was a plan developed to offset hunger and poverty by the cheapest, most profitable business model.
This was not new, we the British fought a war to protect the trade of opium from Afghanistan.
As with quite a few wars, it's either religion or resources that starts them.

What a wonderful world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…