This came across my feed, thought I’d share. I think most of us here realize what’s up, but the question is how can we change it
It says that the USA has about 9000 ingredients that are allowed but banned in Europe.What did it say?
I know it always strikes me when in the US that Americans add a lot of extra sugar (or, rather HFCS) to almost every product (and insist on putting processed cheese in every sandwich). Much as they feel compelled to add heavy metal riffs to every genre of music (though that often works out fairly well).
View attachment 108540
Portion size is another thing. Getting huge portions with the intent of boxing up the leftovers is a very US thing.What did it say?
I know it always strikes me when in the US that Americans add a lot of extra sugar (or, rather HFCS) to almost every product (and insist on putting processed cheese in every sandwich). Much as they feel compelled to add heavy metal riffs to every genre of music (though that often works out fairly well).
When was the last time you were in the USA? We eat all of it now!Portion size is another thing. Getting huge portions with the intent of boxing up the leftovers is a very US thing.
You can say the FDA should be doing that. They likeliness of them following the direction of the EU is unlikely.I disagree, the fda can step up and ban additives that are known to be toxic, bad for us, etc…
It’s like, their purpose
You can say the FDA should be doing that. They likeliness of them following the direction of the EU is unlikely.
1. There is enough abiguity in evidnece to interpret whatever they way they want
2. Their interests will lead them to interpret the evidence most favorable to the companies, because the companies are more direct active participants than the masses, and provides more "benefit to the FDA".
3. Regulatory capture or coercion(antagonism leads to loss of further future drug prospects)
People make a false dichotomy between government and private actions. For the matters of "business" and commerce, there is no material difference. One may maximize profit while the other maximizes revenue inflows; the sources of said money are the same and so are the methods of keeping the business alive and well.
The other foolish assumption is believe science is a non-commercial activity. It actually was very much commercial, and in fact, chemistry was eventually borne precisely by the pursuit of gain, namely turning common metals into gold. Well, modern chemicals that can be patented serves the function of generating income very well, even if it isn't turned into the literal element of gold.
The masses of buyers have no need to worry about retaliation from a mass boycott. In fact, the companies are literally afraid of exactly that happening because they can't exercise control over the masses, and it's starting to happen. Some go keto, some go vegan, some just cut the sugar somewhat, some just avoid "processed foods", but the demand is already starting to crater.
Government is dependent on tax revenue, which comes from commerce, whether it is the government's own commerce or "private" individuals. The government's "invisible hand" is against weakening or destroying industries until it is backed into a corner because of the lost revenue. Lead-based paint wasn't addressed until the wealthier people got victimized. Then things started to snowball with advocacy and "science" actually bothering to observe and then authenticate the facts. BPA wouldn't have been addressed if scientists(aka IMPORTANT PEOPLE) were having their results on mice being screwed up by said chemical, and the substitute chemicals might not be that different or better.
Seeing the status of the likes aspartame, actually objectively proving something causes harm that is not immediately acute requires a lot of time and money, and dedication, which the food companies does not want to allocate towards anyone against them.
The regulators also wind up coming from those industries or big AG because that's how you build a resume to become qualified as a government employee. .