[wbsss4412]

Absolutely.

That said, it does beg the question: why, 12 years after that video was published, has the field not come to an agreement, if it is “pretty clearly” the truth?

One could come up with various explanations, including lobbying by big sugar, but it falls flat when you consider that the sugar industry is only a small fraction of the industrialized food industry, there’s plenty of lobbying and influence to go around.

At the end of the day, there are only a few things that are clear: junk food is bad, Americans eat too many calories, and could stand to eat more fruits and vegetables.

[teawrecks]

The first person to suggest fossil fuels would leaf to global warming was in 1896. How long until the field came to an agreement?

[wbsss4412]

I don’t think I ever disputed that it can take a long time to reach consensus.

It’s quite clear that there isn’t a consensus on what the truth is, ergo the truth is out there on what causes obesity and it isn’t to be found within the current consensus.

However, do we take that to mean that sugar is the cause of obesity? I don’t see overwhelming evidence to that fact, so I personally don’t.

What we can take is that whatever the truth is, it is not “clear” nor obvious at this point.

[teawrecks]

I don't understand this statement:

> One could come up with various explanations, including lobbying by big sugar, but it falls flat when you consider that the sugar industry is only a small fraction of the industrialized food industry, there’s plenty of lobbying and influence to go around.

Are you saying that the sugar industry would be lobbying against larger industries with opposing goals? Or are you saying the sugar industry is just one of several industries who would like to use their money to push the blame around?

I am not well versed in the agricultural industry, but doesn't the majority of our mass produced sugar come from the corn industry which is absolutely massive and will obviously do anything it can to protect its sources of income (sugar, ethanol, alcohol, oil, etc.)?

[wbsss4412]

I can’t say I have any special insider knowledge of food industry lobby.

My statement was to preempt the common argument that somehow the sugar industry is so powerful that it was and is able to divert all of our collective attention from it, when it is the real culprit.

The corn industry is a large industry, but so is the meat industry, dairy industry, processed food manufacturers, soy beans, etc. many of them, possibly even including corn, benefit from diverting attention away from their products towards sugar as the main villain. Even if sugar is a revenue source for corn, it pales in comparison for its main product: animal feed.

None of that is to say that I think any of the above industries I listed is “the culprit” I only list them to illustrate my point. Big sugar has lobbying power, but it is all too common that the simplest story gets repeated, “it’s all because of powerful lobbying group X”

[gaze]

are you making the argument that BECAUSE his ideas are not widely accepted they must be true? Come on.

[admax88qqq]

No they are making the argument that people have been right in the past and it took forever for the community to find "consensus" on that position if ever.

So to doubt something is true just because "it's been 12 years and there's no consensus" is not necessarily a good rebuttal to something being true or not.

[svachalek]

How many things did one guy say in 1896 that turned out to be wrong?