[ttonkytonk]

Have not read the article, but I think "Big Tobacco" is something of a scapegoat for a larger pattern, and basically they were just unlucky enough to produce one of the most harmful products (recognized as such once the health bills started coming due).

(edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.)

[darthoctopus]

read the article. literally the first few paragraphs:

> In the 1980s, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds acquired the major food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco, allowing tobacco firms to dominate America’s food supply and reap billions in sales from popular brands such as Oreo cookies, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Lunchables.

> The new research, published in the journal Addiction, focuses on the rise of “hyper-palatable” foods, which contain potent combinations of fat, sodium, sugar and other additives that can drive people to crave and overeat them. The Addiction study found that in the decades when the tobacco giants owned the world’s leading food companies, the foods that they sold were far more likely to be hyper-palatable than similar foods not owned by tobacco companies.

it is difficult to argue that they were simply unfortunate to happen to produce one class of unhealthy products when the same companies proceeded to then move on to an entirely different product class, and somehow also engineer products to also be maximally addictive and, as it turns out, unhealthy.

[ttonkytonk]

So they're exceptional in producing unhealthy, but profitable products?

[landemva]

They are good at producing products that people willingly purchase and consume. It is voluntary.

To contrast what voluntary can mean, children consuming unmetered fluoride doses via the water supply is not really voluntary.

[ttonkytonk]

The cravings are most involuntary however, I assure you.

[randomdata]

Oreo cookies and Kraft Dinner are craved?

They do very well on the convenience front, which is significant, but seem like the some of the last things you would want if you could have anything magically placed in front of you.

[MandieD]

Judging by the contents of the little “USA” shelf at my grocery store in a midsize German city, enough of us are addicted. A large packet of Oreos that I would guess is about $3-4 back in the States is 10 EUR, a box of off-brand Mac & Cheese is 3.50 EUR, and I will confess to buying the latter on an approximately monthly basis, despite being able to make real mac and cheese with cheddar and cream, which actually doesn’t take any more time and only slightly more effort.

Other things we are evidently addicted to, despite objectively superior and far cheaper local equivalents: Pop-Tarts, Swiss Miss hot cocoa, Hershey’s syrup, Cheese Wiz.

[Timon3]

> (edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.)

Even 1-4 cigarettes per day is very harmful:

> Results: Adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) in smokers of 1–4 cigarettes per day, with never smokers as reference, of dying from ischaemic heart disease was 2.74 (2.07 to 3.61) in men and 2.94 (1.75 to 4.95) in women. The corresponding figures for all cancer were 1.08 (0.78 to 1.49) and 1.14 (0.84 to 1.55), for lung cancer 2.79 (0.94 to 8.28) and 5.03 (1.81 to 13.98), and for any cause 1.57 (1.33 to 1.85) and 1.47 (1.19 to 1.82).

> Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315

Cigarettes also happen to create an addiction, which makes it harder over time to stay below 5 cigarettes per day.

[ttonkytonk]

I agree mostly with your last paragraph. I'm surely not trying to encourage a habit I'm grateful to have been able to give up, but I believe 1-4 would significantly reduce the risk of emphysema - sorry, but I don't have much patience for "abstinence-nazis".

[TheOtherHobbes]

Calling people who are against public poisoning for profit "abstinence-nazis" is a very Big Tobacco PR line.

We're talking about a product that is highly addictive, highly profitable, extremely harmful, and has served no useful purpose beyond making a small number of people extremely rich.

If an individual was responsible for this they'd be jailed, and possibly (in the US) executed.

[ttonkytonk]

There's plenty of"public poisoning" going around - sure you haven't profited from some of it yourself?

When will the sanctimonious get off of their high-horse?

[Timon3]

A lower risk in one specific disease is a far cry from "not so harmful".

Do you have any specific studies pointing towards 1-4 cigarettes significantly reducing the risk of emphysema compared to 5+?

[ttonkytonk]

I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues.

(edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)

[Timon3]

> I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues.

I guess there is also a chance that if someone smokes 20 a day they won't have any serious resultant health issues, but the study I showed earlier indicates that even 1-4 drastically increases your chance of complications.

> (edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)

It's possible, but shouldn't you try to find actual evidence for the likelihood of emphysema being much lower with 1-4 cigarettes per day, beyond "cigarette culture" and having "thought about it"?

[ttonkytonk]

No.

(edit - but let me amend my original statement and then I'm leaving it at that: "I may add that I would guess the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.")

[navigate8310]

Can you explain the larger pattern you are talking about?

[ttonkytonk]

A larger pattern of assuming the virtue of the product according to its profit value.

[verisimi]

Yes, if you are going to look upwards, why wouldn't you look right to the top at banks and finance? Those who run banking are able to exercise some coordinating control over every industry.

But if you look downwards, bad food and health are choices that people make. Many people want this stuff - individuals are getting what they want.

[0dayz]

No one is saying we shouldn't look into shady nonsense from banks.

However banks aren't directly responsible for encouraging you to consume diabetes can. heart attack crisps or cancer sticks

Hence why we push more for regulation against these industries thar are directly responsible while leaving financial watch dogs to look into banks for now.

[verisimi]

hmm - pushing for more regulation means more government, you do realise...

Do you think govt and corporations aren't working together?

You are asking for more of that.

[0dayz]

Difference is that the government can be held accountable if its democratic, since then it's run by the people for the people.

[ttonkytonk]

Yes, because they're primed for it. People make the bad choices they're constantly encouraged to make.