Remember, the reason seed oils have money behind them is because even from the Crisco time it was a marketing effort. They had a waste product and their task was to sell it.
Haven't got it on hand. But I recall reading (from an actual source, not just some online schizo) about how the AHA was bankrolled and incentivized to publish bogus science about how crisco wasn't bad for you or whatever
@Eiswald@pepsi_man I don't mind finding uses for stuff that would be waste, but the problems come when their becomes a massive financial incentive that overrides health concerns.
@EvilSandmich@sickburnbro@pepsi_man i'd say many of the drugs available to keep diabetics alive or weight loss drugs for example, are contributing to people being lazier and thinking that pharma will save them, at least on a subconscious level
@sickburnbro@pepsi_man It's interesting though because: >In 1909, Procter & Gamble acquired the United States rights to the Normann patent.[12] In 1911, they began marketing the first hydrogenated shortening, Crisco, composed largely of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.
A poison is in the dose to be sure, but that's a really long time. Our food/weight issues seem much more recent.
@EvilSandmich@pepsi_man right, but between the time of starting the use and it actually dominating was long.
For example, in many places these fake oils weren't allowed to be colored like butter - they had to be sold white. Now every fake shitty oil is colored like butter so you think it's healthy.
HFC is IMMEDIATELY stored as fat in the body, and the shape of the molecule allows for more of it to be stored. Fix the sugar and the food will follow, they put it in fucking EVERYTHING! I live in corn country we have got to STOP subsidizing corn! If we want to over grow anything it should be hemp and switchgrass.
@Escoffier@sickburnbro@EvilSandmich@pepsi_man i'm more inclined to believe this shit was in the pursuit of the dollar rather than a concerted effort to tank general health through malice and conspiracy tbh.
@givenup@Escoffier@EvilSandmich@pepsi_man I would agree that it wasn't done as a conspiracy to tank health. At some point they *did* become aware of it having health problems, and that's when they started funding "proof" that it was better for your health. That is when it did become a conspiracy to harm health.
It's exactly like the tobacco companies. ( Also sugar companies did this )
@Sui@feralphilosophernc@Eiswald@pepsi_man nah, things do matter, and now we have a chance to take a step back and say "actually let's make things a bit better now that we know for sure"
@sickburnbro@givenup@EvilSandmich@pepsi_man Here's an interesting bit of logic. When artificial sweeteners were introduced in the 1920's the sugar industry flipped out and did a propaganda program that still resonates today. That being said the sugar industry has been searching desperately for anything that would allow them to claim they were a health hazard and they found absolutely nothing.