I hope they go after the right boogeyman. IMO the issue with ultra processed foods is the imbalance in composition, the lack of “filler” like fiber, that causes them to have absurdly high energy...
I hope they go after the right boogeyman. IMO the issue with ultra processed foods is the imbalance in composition, the lack of “filler” like fiber, that causes them to have absurdly high energy densities.
Quotes like
He picked up a box of Lunchables, a “lunch combination” as the box put it, which contained pepperoni pizza, a fruit punch-flavored Capri Sun and a Nestle Crunch chocolate bar. Mr. Chiu struggled to pronounce the ingredients, listed in tiny type measuring a few inches long, which included diglycerides, xanthan gum, calcium propionate and cellulose powder “added to prevent caking.”
“Modified food starch. Potassium sorbate,” Mr. Chiu continued, ticking off more ingredients on the same label. “It makes me sick that generations of kids and parents are being deceived and buying food that’s not food.”
Don’t give me much hope, though. Just having a name in Latin does not make something “not food”. This is getting into “100% of people who consume dihydrogen monoxide die” territory.
It would be nice if an expert weighs in but if I remember correctly, some of our US common food additives and colors are forbidden in the EU based on their safety standards. The University of San...
It would be nice if an expert weighs in but if I remember correctly, some of our US common food additives and colors are forbidden in the EU based on their safety standards.
Sure, but the casus belli needs to be “there is a peer reviewed double blind study that shows XYZ is causative of poor health outcomes” not “I can’t pronounce this here chemical!” There’s a lot of...
Sure, but the casus belli needs to be “there is a peer reviewed double blind study that shows XYZ is causative of poor health outcomes” not “I can’t pronounce this here chemical!”
There’s a lot of FUD thrown around in this area as well. I’ve seen on multiple occasions it mentioned that aspartame is banned in Europe… when it’s just not?
Can't do it. A double-blind study implies you're giving people the treatments (rather than just taking a survey of what they eat on their own) and no Institutional Review Board is going to sign...
there is a peer reviewed double blind study that shows XYZ is causative of poor health outcomes
Can't do it. A double-blind study implies you're giving people the treatments (rather than just taking a survey of what they eat on their own) and no Institutional Review Board is going to sign off on a study that involves intentionally giving people potentially-harmful substances.
If it’s allowed as a food additive, then the substantial is already considered safe to ingest. It had to pass review by regulatory bodies like the FDA. I can’t imagine you’d have a hard time, say,...
If it’s allowed as a food additive, then the substantial is already considered safe to ingest. It had to pass review by regulatory bodies like the FDA.
I can’t imagine you’d have a hard time, say, convincing a IRB to allow you feed people Diet Coke, a substance hundreds of millions of people drink daily.
Most of those additives and colors are allowed in Europe, they just have different names or use standardized codes instead of the "color #" method here. So they don't "allow" Red 40 because that...
Most of those additives and colors are allowed in Europe, they just have different names or use standardized codes instead of the "color #" method here. So they don't "allow" Red 40 because that same chemical compound is labeled as E129 which is not banned.
Similarly we ban some things in the US that Europe allows. Generally I believe US food safety standards are considered higher than European but I don't think it's dramatically different.
It's complicated, though. Often things are banned - or not banned - because their status was determined too long ago and hasn't (yet) been updated after retesting, or is even undergoing retesting...
It's complicated, though. Often things are banned - or not banned - because their status was determined too long ago and hasn't (yet) been updated after retesting, or is even undergoing retesting at the time. I'm seeing on wikipedia that E129 is not banned by the EU but is banned in several european countries.
I'd be interested in literature with concrete comparisons of EU and US food standards if you have any pointers.
That's the case here too, sure, acetaminophen is something I have heard people say would be a much harder approval now. But the issue of not reviewing old ones is the same on both continents, and...
That's the case here too, sure, acetaminophen is something I have heard people say would be a much harder approval now. But the issue of not reviewing old ones is the same on both continents, and not a point in the favor of either "side"
But the point is that broadly they're not banned in "Europe" as a whole even if a small number of countries have banned a few of them here and there. People bringing up this misconception are generally making a point about European food safety, in relation to food dyes and additives, that is not substantiated by their claims; the "it's complicated" part isn't really necessary to explain in that context. (And for example, California has banned dyes, eventually, in 2027 that the FDA hasn't)
Iirc there are three dyes regulated in the EU (that are allowed in the US ) to have a warning label on them because they "may" affect attention in kids. (There are another 3 the US does not allow but are allowed in the EU.)
I follow food scientists and dieticians and journalists who are good at parsing and citing the research individually but I don't have a handy pro-publica article or anything. I don't find most organizations that talk about these topics trustworthy because I can't verify their motives at least not without a ton of legwork I'm not up for. For example multiple websites, including several University sites, discussing the differences between the two claim that Red 40 is banned in Europe. And unless they mean, say, just the UK and Switzerland, that's wrong.
I'm not dying on the hill of "yay food dye" but I don't see much evidence that they're somehow a particular evil, nor will their removal do much IMO to improve our food. It's just a subset of "chemicals bad" without actual evidence. Mostly what I see is the usual "if humans ate the equivalent amount of X as a rat was fed, they might get cancer" where that equivalent amount is some quantity no human would ever eat of that thing. Same as with sugar substitutes, UPF, and the current bogeyman, "seed oils." Now that Steak N Shake serves Beef Tallow Fries™ I doubt we're any healthier.
But hell maybe I'm wrong. I was just correcting the piece of info that I know to be correct.
Agreed, they need to target the right boogeyman. A lunchable can be just as if not more evil if it contains three-ingredient pound cake (eggs, condensed milk, flour) renamed "bread", caramel...
Agreed, they need to target the right boogeyman. A lunchable can be just as if not more evil if it contains three-ingredient pound cake (eggs, condensed milk, flour) renamed "bread", caramel covered raisins ( sugar over frutose), and an "orange juice" pouch.
The problem is subsidizing industries until their logistically resilient "foodstuffs" are cheaper than perishable vegetables, and how much sugary sweetness is condensed into perfectly pronuncible "corn syrup".
Nor are those difficult to pronounce or understand and look up. There's more of an issue with the health issues from overusing plainly named cane sugar, corn, flour, butter, etc..
Nor are those difficult to pronounce or understand and look up. There's more of an issue with the health issues from overusing plainly named cane sugar, corn, flour, butter, etc..
the San Francisco city attorney’s office has had success as a groundbreaking public agency on health matters. The office previously won $539 million from tobacco companies and $21 million from lead paint manufacturers.
In 2018, the office also sued multiple opioid manufacturers, distributors and dispensers, reaching settlements with all but one company worth a combined total of $120 million. San Francisco then prevailed at trial over the holdout, Walgreens, scooping up another $230 million.
Thanks for posting this, I added the Guardian source and archive yesterday to a related discussion. Honestly this is fantastic news and I hope more states and countries follow suit. There's making...
Thanks for posting this, I added the Guardian source and archive yesterday to a related discussion.
Honestly this is fantastic news and I hope more states and countries follow suit. There's making food, making food delicious and making food cheap. But then we are clearly in territory of predatory and ethically concerning practices from supply to logistics to marketing.
We have regulations for medication so that the packaging doesn't look like candy specially marketed to kids, doesn't have ridiculous health claims, and doesn't contain built in habit forming and addicting components. Why are we allowing companies to make "food" like that?
I hope they go after the right boogeyman. IMO the issue with ultra processed foods is the imbalance in composition, the lack of “filler” like fiber, that causes them to have absurdly high energy densities.
Quotes like
Don’t give me much hope, though. Just having a name in Latin does not make something “not food”. This is getting into “100% of people who consume dihydrogen monoxide die” territory.
It would be nice if an expert weighs in but if I remember correctly, some of our US common food additives and colors are forbidden in the EU based on their safety standards.
The University of San Francisco Industrial Documents library/archive is a source of primary source documents and related research articles about industries and public health. Industries covered include tobacco/nicotine, opioids and food, among others.
Sure, but the casus belli needs to be “there is a peer reviewed double blind study that shows XYZ is causative of poor health outcomes” not “I can’t pronounce this here chemical!”
There’s a lot of FUD thrown around in this area as well. I’ve seen on multiple occasions it mentioned that aspartame is banned in Europe… when it’s just not?
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame
There is definitely FUD from health food/ supplement influencers. There are also public relations tactics from big food corporations. It's a mess.
Can't do it. A double-blind study implies you're giving people the treatments (rather than just taking a survey of what they eat on their own) and no Institutional Review Board is going to sign off on a study that involves intentionally giving people potentially-harmful substances.
If it’s allowed as a food additive, then the substantial is already considered safe to ingest. It had to pass review by regulatory bodies like the FDA.
I can’t imagine you’d have a hard time, say, convincing a IRB to allow you feed people Diet Coke, a substance hundreds of millions of people drink daily.
A cursory google indicates there are plenty of double blind aspartame studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25786106/ is an example.
Most of those additives and colors are allowed in Europe, they just have different names or use standardized codes instead of the "color #" method here. So they don't "allow" Red 40 because that same chemical compound is labeled as E129 which is not banned.
Similarly we ban some things in the US that Europe allows. Generally I believe US food safety standards are considered higher than European but I don't think it's dramatically different.
It's complicated, though. Often things are banned - or not banned - because their status was determined too long ago and hasn't (yet) been updated after retesting, or is even undergoing retesting at the time. I'm seeing on wikipedia that E129 is not banned by the EU but is banned in several european countries.
I'd be interested in literature with concrete comparisons of EU and US food standards if you have any pointers.
That's the case here too, sure, acetaminophen is something I have heard people say would be a much harder approval now. But the issue of not reviewing old ones is the same on both continents, and not a point in the favor of either "side"
But the point is that broadly they're not banned in "Europe" as a whole even if a small number of countries have banned a few of them here and there. People bringing up this misconception are generally making a point about European food safety, in relation to food dyes and additives, that is not substantiated by their claims; the "it's complicated" part isn't really necessary to explain in that context. (And for example, California has banned dyes, eventually, in 2027 that the FDA hasn't)
Iirc there are three dyes regulated in the EU (that are allowed in the US ) to have a warning label on them because they "may" affect attention in kids. (There are another 3 the US does not allow but are allowed in the EU.)
I follow food scientists and dieticians and journalists who are good at parsing and citing the research individually but I don't have a handy pro-publica article or anything. I don't find most organizations that talk about these topics trustworthy because I can't verify their motives at least not without a ton of legwork I'm not up for. For example multiple websites, including several University sites, discussing the differences between the two claim that Red 40 is banned in Europe. And unless they mean, say, just the UK and Switzerland, that's wrong.
I'm not dying on the hill of "yay food dye" but I don't see much evidence that they're somehow a particular evil, nor will their removal do much IMO to improve our food. It's just a subset of "chemicals bad" without actual evidence. Mostly what I see is the usual "if humans ate the equivalent amount of X as a rat was fed, they might get cancer" where that equivalent amount is some quantity no human would ever eat of that thing. Same as with sugar substitutes, UPF, and the current bogeyman, "seed oils." Now that Steak N Shake serves Beef Tallow Fries™ I doubt we're any healthier.
But hell maybe I'm wrong. I was just correcting the piece of info that I know to be correct.
Agreed, they need to target the right boogeyman. A lunchable can be just as if not more evil if it contains three-ingredient pound cake (eggs, condensed milk, flour) renamed "bread", caramel covered raisins ( sugar over frutose), and an "orange juice" pouch.
The problem is subsidizing industries until their logistically resilient "foodstuffs" are cheaper than perishable vegetables, and how much sugary sweetness is condensed into perfectly pronuncible "corn syrup".
Nor are those difficult to pronounce or understand and look up. There's more of an issue with the health issues from overusing plainly named cane sugar, corn, flour, butter, etc..
Thanks for posting this, I added the Guardian source and archive yesterday to a related discussion.
Honestly this is fantastic news and I hope more states and countries follow suit. There's making food, making food delicious and making food cheap. But then we are clearly in territory of predatory and ethically concerning practices from supply to logistics to marketing.
We have regulations for medication so that the packaging doesn't look like candy specially marketed to kids, doesn't have ridiculous health claims, and doesn't contain built in habit forming and addicting components. Why are we allowing companies to make "food" like that?
You're welcome. It's funny that it's so easy to miss duplicates. I added the drunk racoon story to ~offbeat, but now it's also posted as a standalone.
Mirror: https://archive.is/PA2fw