Headquarter: Chemical Industry Park, Economic Development Zone,  JiNan City,  ShanDong Province, China.

Phone +86-152 8958 7728

Angela@BlueSkytcca.com

America's FDA Wants to Update Its Definition of 'Healthy'. The Food … – Slashdot

Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system




The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut

But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut
That’s kind of the point. If it’s not healthy it shouldn’t be branded as healthy. Food has too much sugar.

The proposed rule, if finalized, they said, would violate the First Amendment rights of food companies and could harm both consumers and manufacturers. The Sugar Association has an issue with the added sugar limit

The proposed rule, if finalized, they said, would violate the First Amendment rights of food companies and could harm both consumers and manufacturers. The Sugar Association has an issue with the added sugar limit
Unhealthy food harms consumers. And of course the Sugar Association would have an issue with the sugar limit, just as tobacco companies had issues when governments started cracking down on that.
Try to be a little more optimistic, and write your congress-critters to show your support of this initiative. Maybe drop $1 in the envelope, so that you know they’ll at least open your letter and accidentally read some of it. (They can smell money, they’ll find it)
In defense of the FDA, they were able to enforce the Nutrition Facts labels, and food companies definitely did not want at the time either. It’s not completely unreasonable to think they’ll push this new label requirement through as well, despite

The proposed rule, if finalized, they said, would violate the First Amendment rights of food companies and could harm both consumers and manufacturers. The Sugar Association has an issue with the added sugar limit

Unhealthy food harms consumers. And of course the Sugar Association would have an issue with the sugar limit, just as tobacco companies had issues when governments started cracking down on that.

The proposed rule, if finalized, they said, would violate the First Amendment rights of food companies and could harm both consumers and manufacturers. The Sugar Association has an issue with the added sugar limit

The proposed rule, if finalized, they said, would violate the First Amendment rights of food companies and could harm both consumers and manufacturers. The Sugar Association has an issue with the added sugar limit
Unhealthy food harms consumers. And of course the Sugar Association would have an issue with the sugar limit, just as tobacco companies had issues when governments started cracking down on that.
I guess i’m still trying to understand the whole First Amendment “defense” of food companies. What, they’re arguing that you’re taking away their ability to lie and deceive on a food label? Since when does that Right override the obligation of Truth in Advertising?
Just because they’ve corrupted the legal system in their favor making even class-action lawsuits pointless and worthless doesn’t mean they should be allowed to peddle harm.

I guess i’m still trying to understand the whole First Amendment “defense” of food companies. What, they’re arguing that you’re taking away their ability to lie and deceive on a food label? Since when does that Right override the obligation of Truth in Advertising?

Just because they’ve corrupted the legal system in their favor making even class-action lawsuits pointless and worthless doesn’t mean they should be allowed to peddle harm.

I guess i’m still trying to understand the whole First Amendment “defense” of food companies. What, they’re arguing that you’re taking away their ability to lie and deceive on a food label? Since when does that Right override the obligation of Truth in Advertising?
Just because they’ve corrupted the legal system in their favor making even class-action lawsuits pointless and worthless doesn’t mean they should be allowed to peddle harm.
It is the same defense Fox “News” is using in the Dominion vs Fox News lawsuit. Dominion has LOTS of evidence of the hosts and Murdoch in private E-Mails and text messages clearly stating that the “stop the steal” stuff is nonsense and then on air promoting it as true because they make more money that way.
Personally I’ve been trying to cut out sugar for months and as I got serious about it and started looking at the labels more thoroughly even on things I thought I knew had no sugar (like bread) I find it is almost impossible to avoid due to being in almost everything. Even when you do find foods without sugar (or just minimized compared to others) you have to really search and make sure you buy the right products as they often aren’t labeled clearly as no sugar (added).
One of the reasons for the added sugar is when you get too much sugar your body is tricked into signalling that you are hungry even when you aren’t. Which explains why obesity is so common. Have to make sure everyone is hungry for no good reason to up your sales and to hell with peoples health.
There’s a difference between saying what you want about something not directly relevant to you (Fox News wasn’t running the election) and making false claims in the advertising of your product.
There have always been restrictions about false advertising.
Sugar and starch are more addictive than heroin. The free speech rubric is total bullshit. As mentioned elsewhere, the US Congress won’t budge so long as the campaign contributions from Carbs United continue to roll in.
No wonder there’s no motivation to pay for the results of diabetes and heart disease on the health care side, the double-edged sword.
What’s worse is that American Obesity is contagious, and the rest of the world finds the addiction irresistible, too. It’s like the opium wars, with a different
Personally I’ve been trying to cut out sugar for months and as I got serious about it and started looking at the labels more thoroughly even on things I thought I knew had no sugar (like bread) I find it is almost impossible to avoid due to being in almost everything. Even when you do find foods without sugar (or just minimized compared to others) you have to really search and make sure you buy the right products as they often aren’t labeled clearly as no sugar (added).
You are correct, sugar in some form is being snuck in to most every processed food you can imagine and like you said…places you’d not expect.
Just a hint to help you in your quest to get away from hidden sugar….when shopping, try to shop ONLY the perimeter of the grocery store..
That way you’ll hit the fruits and veggies area, the meat section, then the dairy section, etc.
In this manner of shopping you’re exposed mostly to only fresh produce, and proteins.
It’s kinda hard to sneak hidden sugars into these, and even when things like fruit has sugar in it….it is also accompanied by fiber, which helps slow it’s ingestion into your body.
Of course, this does require learning how to cook more from scratch if you don’t already know how to.
But this one simple new shopping strategy will pay off in droves if you are trying to eat healthy.
Good Luck to you!
I did this, cut added sugar, and lost 60 lbs. My insane triglyceride levels also plummeted back to a normal range.
It is very possible, but you have to put in the work and track your total intake (there are apps), as well as look for that “added sugars” line on each food and adjust your diet. It will be a major diet change. It is crazy all the added sugar that comes from places you wouldn’t expect. Sugars inherent in the food, AFAIK and have experienced, aren’t as bad for you.
One surprise for me was that fat
From what I saw, no one was arguing that they were rigged. They were arguing that voting machines without a paper trail can’t be verified in event of a software problem.
I keenly remember the hanging chads and other lame stuff they were going on about, when it mostly boiled down to Floridians not being able to fill out a fucking ballot properly. I still recall one of the news outlets “interviewing” some old person that said, I don’t really know who I voted for…Well gee maybe get your prescription checked.
Of course, here we are 20 years later and we still have black box voting machines when any first year programmer could write software for a voting machine. Zero reason th

But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut

That’s kind of the point. If it’s not healthy it shouldn’t be branded as healthy. Food has too much sugar.

But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut

But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut
That’s kind of the point. If it’s not healthy it shouldn’t be branded as healthy. Food has too much sugar.
Too much sugar, salt, and saturated fats. Unfortunately consumers are trained to expect such over-saturation and would perceive food without it as bland.
Too much sugar, salt, and saturated fats. Unfortunately consumers are trained to expect such over-saturation and would perceive food without it as bland.
And more studies are showing that saturated fats may NOT be as associated with heart disease [nih.gov] as it used to be thought.
A lot of the misconceptions we have on fats == bad came from Ancel Keys and his claims of carbs good/fat bad back in the 50’s…along with the Sugar industries publishing of misleading studies.
That led to the horrible recommended food pyramid and other recommendations of the FDA over the years and coincide with rise in obesity of the US and its spread around the world.
Here is an interesting article [scientificamerican.com] with new thinking about saturated fats and how they aren’t as bad for you as people have pushed for the past few decades.

“the proposed rule was overly restrictive and would result in a framework that would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods….”

“the proposed rule was overly restrictive and would result in a framework that would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods….”
I am under the impression that the vast majority of packaged foods are not, in fact, healthy.

“the proposed rule was overly restrictive and would result in a framework that would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods….”

I am under the impression that the vast majority of packaged foods are not, in fact, healthy.

“the proposed rule was overly restrictive and would result in a framework that would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods….”

“the proposed rule was overly restrictive and would result in a framework that would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods….”
I am under the impression that the vast majority of packaged foods are not, in fact, healthy.
Yes, but that’s clearly not good enough. They want to secure the ability to lie and deceive to maximize profit.
More motivation to do the cooking in your kitchen, not in factories:
https://theconversation.com/ul… [theconversation.com]
âoeThe effects of ultraprocessed foods are quite clear. The reasons for the effects are not yet known,â Nestle continued. âoeIt would be nice to know why, but until we find out, itâ(TM)s best to advise eating ultraprocessed foods in as small amounts as possible
Gotta mean something coming from the mouth of world’s largest ultraprocessor: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/0… [cnn.com]
Also, I foun
Write it down: “It’s the quantity, stupid.”
We have this system of highlighting the presence of unhealthy ingredients in products on our supermarket shelves. It’s sad how all the nice stuff gets lots of red marks… 😉
https://usercontent1.hubstatic… [hubstatic.com]
‘But the Washington Post reports dozens of food manufacturers are now “claiming the new standards are draconian and will result in most current food products not making the cut, or in unappealing product reformulations.”‘
That’s exactly right: most “food products” are unhealthy or downright dangerous.
On the other hand, food itself is healthy. Most of it. Meat, eggs, fish, dairy (for those of us who can digest it), and green leafy vegetables – plus root vegetables for those who need the calories. Fruit is best thought of as “Nature’s candy” – nice as a treat occasionally, but too loaded with sugar to be healthy if eaten regularly.
Anything that comes from a factory is best avoided – except perhaps for cheese and some processed meats. Of course much depends on the factory and how it is run.

Fruit is best thought of as “Nature’s candy” – nice as a treat occasionally, but too loaded with sugar to be healthy if eaten regularly.

Fruit is best thought of as “Nature’s candy” – nice as a treat occasionally, but too loaded with sugar to be healthy if eaten regularly.
Yes fruit has sugar, so if you have special dietary needs talk to you doctor. But for the general population fruit, especially whole fruit, is fine to consume regularly as advised by the FDA. https://www.myplate.gov/ [myplate.gov]. A cup of orange juice is not the same as eating the 6 oranges needed to squeeze out that cup of juice.

A cup of orange juice is not the same as eating the 6 oranges needed to squeeze out that cup of juice.

A cup of orange juice is not the same as eating the 6 oranges needed to squeeze out that cup of juice.
Let alone sans the fibre included in the unsqueezed orange.

Fruit is best thought of as “Nature’s candy” – nice as a treat occasionally, but too loaded with sugar to be healthy if eaten regularly.

Fruit is best thought of as “Nature’s candy” – nice as a treat occasionally, but too loaded with sugar to be healthy if eaten regularly.
If you’re fretting over the amount of sugar in fucking fruit you’re either not really familiar with eating fruit or there is something much more seriously wrong with your lifestyle that’s making you try to min/max your food inputs.
Like… I don’t know… being incapable of unassisted movement.
Most weight and volume of fruit is just plain water.
That is why a 100 gram apple will contain only 50-ish calories and 10-ish grams of sugar – while the same amount of sugar will contain 387 calories. And 100 grams of sugar. Or about 5 spoons.
To get the same amount of sugar you’d have to eat a kilogram of apples. That’s not a meal – that’s work.
And then you might get diarrhea from all the fiber and water.
We be smug!
Never forget, ‘t’was factory food that aided in having full-sized adults in the average person for the first in human history.
Take a breath, people. It’s too much calories, largely driven by carbs. Factory is coincidentally responsible for that because breads sit well on shelves for a long time, especially with preservatives (another boon to humanity taking it on the chin) unlike meat and fresh vegetables and fruits.

we have a lot of Italian stuff, but don’t consume it the way Italians traditionally did, so for us it’s not very healthy.

we have a lot of Italian stuff, but don’t consume it the way Italians traditionally did, so for us it’s not very healthy.
It’s not healthy for the Italians either. Centuries ago people were noting that they tended towards corpulence and heart disease in old age. It doesn’t matter how scrupulous you are, pasta isn’t good for you.
God I need to repeat it again. “It’s the quantity, stupid!”
Asians eat rice and don’t have these problems. But are starting to.
It’s the quantity!

British food is mostly terrible. Bland and unappealing,

British food is mostly terrible. Bland and unappealing,
speak for yourself.
Good or good for you? I can name several British meals that I enjoy but off the top of my head I dont think any of them are terribly healthy. Of course context matters too, a full English breakfast is actually a pretty fantastic breakfast if you plan to spend the rest of the day burning off those calories hiking or working outdoors.

What British food is good?

What British food is good?
Too many to list, but generally good British food is British food cooked as it was supposed to be with suitable fats (lard, tallow, suet, butter), suitable herbs and suitable technique. Find a pre-WW2 cook book and compare with modern ones.
Meats (beef & lamb primarily, chickens still seem to get a bad deal) are farmed to higher standards in the UK than is common in the US. Cows in a pastoral setting eating grass can be seen all over the UK. Intensive cattle packed hell holes are common in the US. The d
1954 was almost 70 years ago. I doubt ww2 food rationing has any impact on British cuisine today. The native British food I had was mostly inedible. Not fit for human consumption. The foreign food I had there was generally amazing.
There’s a pub/inn that has the farmer’s grill, a massive pile of different meats with an egg on top. They even have a cute little cart with a salad bar in it.
I’m sure the same asses complaining about carbs would complain about that. Hey, has anyone looked at the lawyers behind the curtains?
In that old SNL skit about Dan Ackroyd’s Mainway Industries, he feeds schoolkids “hot bowls of crushed insects”. That was supposed to be a joke.
Holding glucose sources in baby food to the same standards as sucrose/HFCS in adult food would be stupid. Non milk formulas need glucose sources without fructose and I don’t know any wholefoods to accomplish that.
What exactly are the “First Amendment rights of food companies”?
The freedom of speech to say whatever they like about what’s in the packet?
IMHO as an ignorant foreigner, “free speech” means that individual human beings should be free to say what they think. Other human beings, of course, are free to ignore or argue. Liberty Hall!
The whole issue of corporations needs to be revisited. They were originally given far too many privileges in the 18th and 19th centuries, and now threaten to control governments everywhere.
Free speech between people and corporations are no different. Everything should apply equally. You should be free to say what you think, but not free from the repercussions of your speech.
You can speak in generalities: “Food these days is unhealthy.” – That is free speech.
You can’t be specific: “Kellogg’s special K is unhealthy and causes cancer.” – Without evidence that is defamation and not protected speech.
You can’t lie about something you sell: “Buy Kellogg’s special K, the breakfast cereal known to mak

Free speech between people and corporations are no different. Everything should apply equally. You should be free to say what you think, but not free from the repercussions of your speech.

Free speech between people and corporations are no different. Everything should apply equally. You should be free to say what you think, but not free from the repercussions of your speech.
One could argue the same applies to murder. Legal regimes and enforcement mechanisms are effectively worthless in terms of preempting murder. They functionally serve as a deterrence and punish crimes only after they are attempted or carried out.
The whole concept of free speech is that people are able to convey their thoughts and ideas without reprisal.
Corporations need the right to enter into and enforce contracts. That’s how their personhood started. It expanded from there.
As far as “threaten to control governments everywhere.” That has already happened, economically speaking we are all fascists or socialists now. It doesn’t really matter, both systems are described by the merger of the State and the corporation.

Someone is offering you, in exchange for a payment, to provide you with something, and they’re claiming it’s “99% fat free” and “Good for your heart”.

Someone is offering you, in exchange for a payment, to provide you with something, and they’re claiming it’s “99% fat free” and “Good for your heart”.
The problem we have is that the first statement is irrelevant (and if isn’t, they’ll choose another true, irrelevant statement [xkcd.com]) and the second statement is construed as an opinion for legal purposes.
It surprises me every time I see the “Not a low calorie food” disclaimer that the manufacturer was clearly forced to add. TFA’s prospective regulations are just a furtherance of that disclaimer.
My favorite piece of food-labeling lore is that it’s supposedly illegal to mark your beef as “free of mad-cow” because

The whole “corporations are people” was something last minute added to some bill or other and had nothing to do with that bill.

The whole “corporations are people” was something last minute added to some bill or other and had nothing to do with that bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties.
The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties.
The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.

The headnote, which is “not the work of the Court, but is simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession”,[2] was written by the Reporter of Decisions, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company J.C. Bancroft Davis. He said the following:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that ‘corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’
Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of the opinion that it does.[3]

So the headnote was a reporting by the Reporter of Decisions of the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the Justices’ opinions. But the issue of applicability of “Equal Protection to any persons” to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.

The headnote, which is “not the work of the Court, but is simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession”,[2] was written by the Reporter of Decisions, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company J.C. Bancroft Davis. He said the following:
One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that ‘corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’
Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of the opinion that it does.[3]
So the headnote was a reporting by the Reporter of Decisions of the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the Justices’ opinions. But the issue of applicability of “Equal Protection to any persons” to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.
It’s basically a big lie. [wikipedia.org]
Not a law, not a referendum, not a court decision. Pure bullshit.
Oh, and BTW, the “court Reporter” in the case, “concerning taxation of railroad properties” – was the former president of Newburgh and New York Railway.
And don’t you think that it was an accident. Railroads were trying to get “personhood” for decades [thomhartmann.com] prior to simply getting one of their own to simply add that line to a SCOTUS decision.

The US allows the awarding of fake degrees from fake universities under the guise of Free Speech. They’re too far gone in the Free Speech Extremism already.

The US allows the awarding of fake degrees from fake universities under the guise of Free Speech. They’re too far gone in the Free Speech Extremism already.
Most countries allow that. Fake things from fake entities can be considered a form of satire or completely irrelevant speech. The issue comes when you have fake degrees from real universities at which point you are committing fraud.
The same applies to speech in general. You can say what you want about nothing, you can say what you want about anything in general, but you can’t say what you want about something specific. “People these days are just the worst, nothing but a bunch of sex crazed paedophiles” – o

What exactly are the “First Amendment rights of food companies”?

The freedom of speech to say whatever they like about what’s in the packet?

What exactly are the “First Amendment rights of food companies”?
The freedom of speech to say whatever they like about what’s in the packet?
More like, the freedom of speech to put the cheapest possible product into the food packet and lie through their teeth about how healthy and hygienic it is and lie about the quality of the content. One case in point is the use of ineffective chlorine washing as a substitute for adequate hygiene and suitable conditions for farm animals throughout the production process in order to boost profits. There is no substitute fro proper hygiene in food production and no amount of chlorine washing is going to change that.
I’d say on a general rule that if the food industry is against it, it means that it’s good

“would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods”

“would automatically disqualify a vast majority of packaged foods”
Keep talking, we’re listening. Can you be more specific? Which packaged foods would automatically disqualify as healthy food, i.e. food?

Which packaged foods would automatically disqualify as healthy food, i.e. food?

Which packaged foods would automatically disqualify as healthy food, i.e. food?
Anything that has been heated excessively or for too long, or treated with chemicals to make it last longer. As Adele Davis used to say, white bread lasts for weeks because even microbes and fungi won’t eat it.
Anything that contains industrial oils made from seeds, nuts or vegetables. Personally I would give coconut oil approval, and properly made and stored olive oil. (Technically, olive oil is a fruit juice – it gets worse with age, not better).
Anything that contains refined grains or sugar.
That would be a good start.

white bread lasts for weeks

white bread lasts for weeks
It lasts 2-3 days. Unless you’re talking about the stuff they make in the Supermarket Land, but that’s neither bread nor foodstuff.
Anything that contains refined grains or sugar.
Can we have an exception made for beer please?
😉
>Thank god you’re not a dietician
The last dietician I saw told me to each more grains. They seem generally clueless.
2 doughnuts costs $1.98, so if you buy that instead of a dozen, you are saving $4.02.
That is how you need to evaluate it. If they were selling 10 doughnuts for $4.02 and you didn’t want to buy doughnuts, would you buy them? Because that is essentially what is happening here.

When I see that, I automatically feel I’m getting ripped off by 50% if I don’t buy a dozen donuts, and then I’m stuck eating 9/12 donuts over 3 days and throwing away the last 3.

When I see that, I automatically feel I’m getting ripped off by 50% if I don’t buy a dozen donuts, and then I’m stuck eating 9/12 donuts over 3 days and throwing away the last 3.
I would say, “You really don’t want a dozen doughnuts. If you were deciding what you want to buy, before any considerations of price, you would NOT include ‘a dozen doughnuts’. So there is no need to think about the price of something you simply don’t want”.
Unless of course you know someone else who would be glad of some free doughnuts – maybe even a beggar – in which case, eat the ones you want and give the other person what remains, “compliments of XYZ Store”.
Buy what you need. It’s that easy. Spending more money on food you may end up throwing away, is pointless, expensive, and wasteful.
If you want to fall for the “bulk” trap, then stop playing childish games at your local big box store. Go buy a warehouse and invest in pallets of non-perishables.
It’s not hard to destroy the “bulk deal” argument, but it’s certainly easy to fall for it.

Case in point, when I go to Europe, bakeries still make pastries, just like they do over in the U.S., but portions are generally smaller.

Case in point, when I go to Europe, bakeries still make pastries, just like they do over in the U.S., but portions are generally smaller.
Pastries made in Europe are nothing like pastries made in the U.S. For one if you don’t eat the ones in Europe within a day they go off, stale/mouldy. There’s far more to healthy food than just portion control and sugar contents and there are incredible differences between what you get at the supermarket vs what you are able to make at home (both in terms of flavour and health).
To be fair there are plenty of fast chain bakeries in Europe that are producing nothing but shit, but quite often these days when y

I think rather than concentrating on what’s in the product, they should concentrate on portion sizes and price/portion.

I think rather than concentrating on what’s in the product, they should concentrate on portion sizes and price/portion.

In Chile, black warning labels shaped like stop signs are required for packaged food and drinks that exceed, per 100 grams: 275 calories, 400 milligrams of sodium, 10 grams of sugar or four grams of saturated fats.”

In Chile, black warning labels shaped like stop signs are required for packaged food and drinks that exceed, per 100 grams: 275 calories, 400 milligrams of sodium, 10 grams of sugar or four grams of saturated fats.”
Indeed, I look forward to 12oz Coke cans labeled as 4 servings (39g of sugar).
Compare the ingredients between Heinz Tomato Ketchup sold in the UK and the USA then tell me that they shouldn’t be concentrating on what is in the product.
UK version: Ingredients: Tomatoes, Spirit Vinegar, Sugar, Salt, Spice and Herb Extracts, Spice.
US version: Ingredients: Tomato Concentrate, Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spice, Onion Powder, Natural Flavoring.
So not only do you not get it made from fresh tomatoes but it also is rammed full with sugar in the form of corn syrup but because that’s not enough they use high fructose corn syrup as well.
Nothing a few campaign contributions can’t fix!

Nothing a few campaign contributions can’t fix!

Nothing a few campaign contributions can’t fix!
Campaign contributions fix political problems.
This is a regulatory problem, which is different.
The fix is regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] via golf vacations and comfortable sinecures for cooperative bureaucrats.
What gets me about US food products is the garbage labeling on the back that allows them to pretend food contains multiple “servings”. So someone buys a small pack of Cheetos and the back laughably claims it contains 3 servings to make the fat, salt, calorific value seem less.
Seems to me that food laws for snacks should require each serving be individually packaged if indeed that is a single serving. It might encourage consumers to eat less, or it might motivate manufacturers to stop packaging stuff in such a misleading way.
The service size is actually mandated by the FDA, that is why a bottle of soda is technically 1.5 servings. Because that is 12 ounces.
Also, servings are supposed to be more or less spoonfuls. A complete meal should be 6 to 7 servings.
>The service size is actually mandated by the FDA
Then the FDA done screwed up – the labeling should make intuitive sense to the consumer, because the labeling should be about guiding that consumer to the best choices.
A ‘serving’ should be what an average-height person who regularly engages in moderate exercise and has a healthy body weight would eat in one sitting. A standard soda should be 1 serving, and more than that it should be required to label the bottles not just in ounces or ml, but in serving

A ‘serving’ should be what an average-height person who regularly engages in moderate exercise and has a healthy body weight would eat in one sitting.

A ‘serving’ should be what an average-height person who regularly engages in moderate exercise and has a healthy body weight would eat in one sitting.
I disagree strongly. When you sit down for a meal, you usually have 2-5 different types of foods and beverages on your plate. Each of those will have their own serving size. If I eat chicken, potatoes, peas, a soft drink, and some dessert that is a full meal. I will have ideally had one serving of each. Those will all add up to my meal. Each serving size hopefully is about 100-150 calories on average leading to a standard 500-750 calorie dinner.
If I choose to only eat pizza for my meal, then I will probably
So a serving is a mildly heaping serving spoon load of your mom’s casserole.
I disagree that the answer is to individually pack servings. That’s very wasteful. What should be done is tell the consumer how many calories, etc., are in the entire package. I guarantee you they would hate that just as much.

14 ounces, not 16 like the imperial pint

14 ounces, not 16 like the imperial pint
Strictly speaking, the imperial pint is 20 imperial fluid ounces, where each imperial fluid ounce is 28.4131ml. In the US customary system the US fluid ounce is 29.5735ml, while the US food labeling fluid ounce is 30ml. Luckily we have the metric system to compare the US and UK pints, gallons, and fluid ounces with each other.
Reference: Fluid ounce [wikipedia.org]
Just curious…what in the fuck actually makes you assume the FDA is acting in the best interest of the consumer regardless of their declared charter?
They pretend to regulate corruption. As long as there’s still enough money to stuff in pockets.
You’re right. You’re no expert on how this actually works.
When the government did that with CDs, it ended up actually making albums with the explicit lyrics warnings more desirable. Considering that there’s actually a brand of canned water called “Liquid Death” (and presumably people are buying it), I really don’t think warning labels will have the effect the FDA is hoping for.

When the government did that with CDs, it ended up actually making albums with the explicit lyrics warnings more desirable. Considering that there’s actually a brand of canned water called “Liquid Death” (and presumably people are buying it), I really don’t think warning labels will have the effect the FDA is hoping for.

When the government did that with CDs, it ended up actually making albums with the explicit lyrics warnings more desirable. Considering that there’s actually a brand of canned water called “Liquid Death” (and presumably people are buying it), I really don’t think warning labels will have the effect the FDA is hoping for.
Depends. Given what is in the product, it would appear the actual goal is to continue to promote harmful addictive foods. Labels would serve as a marketing boost as you’ve predicted and could be what they ultimately want.
We’re a long fucking way from homemade butter and foods with a handful of natural ingredients, and regulators appear to be working harder to ensure we never go back. As we assume about their intentions of helping consumers via the food supply, take a good hard look at the reality. Shit

When the government did that with CDs, it ended up actually making albums with the explicit lyrics warnings more desirable. Considering that there’s actually a brand of canned water called “Liquid Death” (and presumably people are buying it), I really don’t think warning labels will have the effect the FDA is hoping for.

When the government did that with CDs, it ended up actually making albums with the explicit lyrics warnings more desirable. Considering that there’s actually a brand of canned water called “Liquid Death” (and presumably people are buying it), I really don’t think warning labels will have the effect the FDA is hoping for.
The point of labeling is to inform not make value judgements for individuals. If people want explicit lyrics now it is easier for them to locate content that provides it.
Liquid death is just a fun marketing gimmick for bottled water, some with light flavoring. There is nothing deadly about it. It’s no Jolt Cola which changed its labeling decades ago from boasting about sugar and caffeine to only pushing the caffeine.
Alternatively, the food industry could redesign their labels (they do it all the time, so no real hardship that I can see) and use the space gained by removing the word “healthy” to explain exactly how much sugar in total in its various forms the packaging contains. Heck, what happened to the “high energy” labeling that was employed at some time? How about a “serving” of our special High Energy Sports crisps or ketchup?
I realize I’m a bit sarcastic in the above, but really if anybody needs to eat “healthy”
A bad diet is probably the foundation for most self-inflicted health problems. Covid outcomes hit the obese disproportionately.
All other things being equal, people with a balanced diet are far less likely to need to need drugs to stay healthy.
Is the maker of Ozempic(weight-loss) lobbying for or against this legislation?
Healthy will just be replaced with the next best synonym lawyers think they can get away with.
This combination of generality and universality have a history of being ignored (e.g. CA’s everything causes cancer warnings)
Better to require labeling to highlight what specifically makes food unhealthy and in what ways.
Frontal labeling of food provides a lot more useful information to the buyer at a glance. The labels look a bit like this [paho.org]. They have a minimum size and need to be on the front of the product.
The more black labels on the front of a product, the worse is for you if consumed in large quantities.
They hijacked the word into useless and now we want it back. Suck it up.
I followed some of the comments from industry linked to in the article, and found the National Fisheries Institute response.
https://www.regulations.gov/co… [regulations.gov]
Apparently as written, Atlantic Salmon and King Salmon fail out the claim of healthy based on the saturated fat limit of 2g per reference amount. And so, they offered a possible list of modifications, one of which is to make the limit 4g for the seafood protein subgroup. That’s a reasoned, collaborative response. They took their concern and are trying to preserve the spirit of the plan while tweaking the letter.
I definitely support the stricter standards, though I wonder if they’re going to have to change again once they figure out a way to define ultra-processed foods [bmj.com].
Even with artificial sweeteners, the evidence seems to range from “they’re bad on their own” to “they’re bad anytime”. I’d really love to see some more research sort that out.
Which requires warnings of products that “contain a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer” (which includes organic peanut butter, with no preservatives added, because of how poorly worded it is).
So stores up a Prop 65 warning up at the door to CYA, and everybody completely ignores it.
This will end up the same way. Instead of “healthy,” the marking droids will just use another word, and the consumer won’t know – or care – about the difference.
> Maybe if our government schools spend more time in health class on dietary requirements at different stages of life and food choices, and less time on nonsense like Tommy maybe Tammie and all the different places he could stick his female penis, we could get a handle on this.
Yes, I also blame trans people for bad food labeling.
The meeting for asshole trolls is being held up until you arrive. They don’t want to chance having their keynote speaker skip out.
Hey whatever, the point is simply that the government is using time that should be allocated to ensuring that all citizens have a basic command of essential facts to push weird tribal propaganda.
Its indefensible and you know that. But hey we can just replace food labeling with a smile or frowny face because Timmy does not need to KNOW anything about biology, metabolism, etc as long we make sure he spout bullshit on command like ‘some boys are really girls’ like a well trained little puppy.
By they way I assu
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
The SCO Lawsuit: Looking Back 20 Years Later
New $10B High-Speed Rail Line to Las Vegas Planned in California
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can’t reuse time. — Merrick Furst

source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*