(11-21-2024 09:02 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I wrote: I do not want to ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food…”. Does the proposal ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food?

Many of these additives don't even have anything to do with taste, they are dyes, preservatives and other things that have nothing to do with flavor or taste. You are just blindly throwing that stuff out there because you know virtually nothing about the topic.

And I said there are already mountains of studies and evidence out there showing these things are dangerous and harmful, both here and abroad. These are not some new unknown things we need to BEGIN to study, its things we have know for many years now. Its time we stop ignoring the well documented dangers of many of these things and there impact on children and our entire population, not to mention the astronomical impacts on healthcare and costs of such for decades to come.

You went from talking about banning foods to government issued health mandates and then get offended when I point out those things have nothing to do with the topic and illustrate you actually know nothing about the topic yet.

I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

Eric, that was sarcasm man.

(11-21-2024 09:28 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Eric, that was sarcasm man.

We need a sarcasm emoji really bad.

(11-21-2024 09:38 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:28 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Eric, that was sarcasm man.

We need a sarcasm emoji really bad.

or /sarc or /sarcasm ...

I'm in favor of getting the addictive chemicals and other unhealthy crap out of our foods because, well, I've found myself getting addicted to food in general, and junk food in particular. I used to be very, very active as a kid. Slowly, I stopped being active, or at least as active as I used to be. Not only that, but Mom for a long time had made an Herculean effort to keep me from eating foods that had artificial colors and flavors as well as MSG and excess sugar. I was healthy as hell! Now, I'm definitely overweight, maybe even obese. (A lot of that has to do with lack of proper exercise, but apparently, one of my great-grandmother on my dad's side had bad genetics in that she was overweight.) I've tried quite a few times to get active and eat better again, but even those attempts are derailed by "cheat days" that turn into eating junk again.

If RFK, Jr. can get food corporations to actually start making our food healthy again, I'm all for it. Eating habits in general also need to change. As soon as I have quite a lot of money under my belt, I'm going to start buying nothing but natural foods and buy a bicycle so I can ride around the neighborhood like I used to. (That also includes severely limiting how much pizza I eat. lol)

(11-21-2024 01:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 07:31 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  And so you think RFK should be able to tell us what we can and cannot eat?

It's not about him telling us what we can and cannot eat. That's silly. It's about telling food companies that they can't put poison in our food.

And they most certainly do that.

You are welcome to eat Fruit Loops. Knock yourself out. General Mills is just not welcome to put all the nasty crap in them that they currently do.

we have food labels you can make your choice. American should be treated like adults.

Unfortunately almost half of Americans voted for sKumala so we are not all adults. I would be willing to bet the farm most Americans don’t know the ‘poisons’ being put in our food regardless of it being on a label. Maybe a warning on the front of the packaging would be good enough. At least we could read the warning and decide from there.

Nobody has to put dye in food. It has been proven to hurt our brains... especially children.

Nobody has to put BHT or TSP in food. TSP is something I used to sterilize brewing equipment... and it is in Lucky Charms.

If we can get rid of dyes and harmful preservatives, it will go a long way.

(11-21-2024 10:33 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Nobody has to put dye in food. It has been proven to hurt our brains... especially children.

Nobody has to put BHT or TSP in food. TSP is something I used to sterilize brewing equipment... and it is in Lucky Charms.

If we can get rid of dyes and harmful preservatives, it will go a long way.

My mom was on to something, and she wasn't even a nutritionist. (Still isn't, either. lol) Just a stay-at-home mother and housewife.

Cigarettes are required to have warning labels now. They could at least do that.

"This cereal will make your testicles shrink"

Monsanto doesn’t care if glyphosate has a negative impact on humans health, especially ones microbiome, they just care that farmers buy it and they make sure that lawmakers and agencies protect them and their profit margins by making sure it’s not banned.

(11-21-2024 07:05 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It sounds like somebody who likes his Twinkies just a little too much.

Sugar-enriched flour, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, polysorbate 60, and Yellow Dye No. 5. Just everything a growing boy needs.

Being up front - food is one of those things I've struggled with as it pertains to how much regulation should be taken to protect people vs our freedoms to be able to purchase the foods we want. I have no doubts that the chemicals added to processed and ultra processed foods were carefully studied and deemed safe. I think the definition of safe in this context is that it does not kill you immediately or over a short period of time nor does it cause you to become sick after eating. What I think few people have studied - including people working in the industry - are the long term effects of the radical changes to our food supply has on our society over time. Without knowing the gory details of the science behind ultra-processed foods - there is empirical circumstantial evidence showing it has had negative effects on our country as a whole. I say its circumstantial as of now because there have been a lot of other changes - like technologies that resulted in us exerting less physical energy to complete tasks, improved indoor entertainment options (TV channels, video game consoles, internet, etc), 2 income families, etc - that contribute as well.

There's no debate that our baseline health as a society is worse today vs decades ago. I strongly believe the ultra-processed foods are a big contributor to the declining health. I don't think it's the sole problem either.

Since Thanksgiving is coming up, here is a video of life in the 1950s. The change in how we buy turkeys is pretty wild.

Food for thought for those with an open mind:

Many companies over the years have sought to shed additives to appease consumers’ desire for simpler ingredients. But U.S. shoppers have sometimes revolted when food makers switched to more natural, but less colorful and less tasty, alternatives. "

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved nine synthetic color additives for use in food, and said they are safe when used in accordance with FDA regulations. The FDA said the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children experience no adverse effects from eating foods with the added colors, though some evidence suggests certain children may be sensitive to them. Kellogg said its products and ingredients comply with all relevant laws and regulations."

"A Kellogg spokeswoman said that the company offers alternate versions because consumers’ preferences differ across markets, and that its dyes are permitted in Canada."



https://www.wsj.com/business/how-froot-l..._lead_pos8

A common theme is Americans like colorful and favorable foods and do not view dyes as a health threat. Otherwise, they would flock to alternatives.

I think the dye free advocates hurt their cause by using hyperbolic words like "poison" and "toxic". It equates dyes with items like bleach to the consumer and because that is not the case it lessens the credibility of the advocates.

(11-21-2024 01:32 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 07:31 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  And so you think RFK should be able to tell us what we can and cannot eat?

It's not about him telling us what we can and cannot eat. That's silly. It's about telling food companies that they can't put poison in our food.

And they most certainly do that.

You are welcome to eat Fruit Loops. Knock yourself out. General Mills is just not welcome to put all the nasty crap in them that they currently do.

we have food labels you can make your choice. American should be treated like adults.

That is a stunningly ignorant and blatantly false claim from you. NO ONE is advocating taking away our choices, that is NOT what is being discussed and suggested here.

Its a well known fact that our food has a lot of very unhealthy and unnecessary additives in it that are banned across most of the 1st world. And its also a FACT that we are the most obese and unhealthy nation on the globe, and that includes our children.

A broken clock is right twice a day. Sometimes even Michelle Obama was right. Below are the facts and something anybody who was around in the 60s/70s should understand about obesity.
https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archive...od-obesity

"...How Did We Get Here?
Thirty years ago, most people led lives that kept them at a healthy weight. Kids walked to and from school every day, ran around at recess, participated in gym class, and played for hours after school before dinner. Meals were home-cooked with reasonable portion sizes and there was always a vegetable on the plate. Eating fast food was rare and snacking between meals was an occasional treat.

Today, children experience a very different lifestyle. Walks to and from school have been replaced by car and bus rides. Gym class and after-school sports have been cut; afternoons are now spent with TV, video games, and the internet. Parents are busier than ever and families eat fewer home-cooked meals. Snacking between meals is now commonplace.

Thirty years ago, kids ate just one snack a day, whereas now they are trending toward three snacks, resulting in an additional 200 calories a day. And one in five school-age children has up to six snacks a day.

Portion sizes have also exploded- they are now two to five times bigger than they were in years past. Beverage portions have grown as well- in the mid-1970s, the average sugar-sweetened beverage was 13.6 ounces compared totoday, kids think nothing of drinking 20 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverages at a time.

In total, we are now eating 31 percent more calories than we were forty years ago–including 56 percent more fats and oils and 14 percent more sugars and sweeteners. The average American now eats fifteen more pounds of sugar a year than in 1970.

Eight to 18-year old adolescents spend an average of 7.5 hours a day using entertainment media, including, TV, computers, video games, cell phones and movies, and only one-third of high school students get the recommended levels of physical activity."

(11-21-2024 02:35 AM)banker Wrote:  Does bullet work in the food industry?

This is about choice. Right now you have two choices, grow all your own food, or eat food that is chock full of preservatives and chemical additives that are not optimal for human consumption.

You talk about labeling but ignore the great expense and pain the food industry has gone to obfuscate that labeling. For example, you buy a chicken breast and the label will say it’s chicken. It won’t tell you all the hormones fed to that chicken and the potential health risks those hormones pose to humans if consumed in certain quantities over a long period of time.

There is a choice. You can pay Whole Foods prices.

I'm retired as is my wife. She grew up on a farm and has a master's in food science.
She was heavily involved in regulatory matters and labeling.

Anything consumed in excess quantities is bad for you.

All of you are worried about the wrong things. You should be worried about anti-biotics used in the food industry that creates disease resistant bacteria. You should worry about plastic waste breaking down into micro-plastics which are building up in the oceans and food chains. Those may not end up being bad for you, but we have no science on that. They certainly aren't good for you.

Trace amounts of things are not important. We have decades of experience with these things. They are GRAS, Generally Recognized As Safe. Europe is more stringent, but different lobbyists have power over there. They have the small niche farms. China, Indochina and Latin America, where we get a lot of food, are much more lenient than the US. And guess what, they aren't as obese as us.

bullet, no one is saying we as a society aren't eating ourselves to death. We are. That's just not the point.

(11-21-2024 07:05 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It sounds like somebody who likes his Twinkies just a little too much.

From what I've read on this board, I probably have a healthier diet than at least 95% of you. But I'm a Texan. I don't like being told what to do.

I haven't eaten a Twinkie or Zinger in over 40 years. I read the label one time and quit after that.

(11-21-2024 07:17 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Although I am blessed with good health, generally exceed health metrics (e.,g, LDL), exercise almost everyday, and maintain a healthy weight; I like junk food and will resist anyone taking it away.

I favor better education and publicity about additives and let the marketplace decide their consumption.

I'm with you.

We need education, not dictates.