Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are added to foods but aren't necessary and often lead to other problems. If your comfortable ingesting them go for it, that doesn't mean they're healthy. Also I've read enough negative things about these harmful substances which is why I try to stay away from them. Question to you is will you admit real food is far healthier than food like substances created in a lab?
Not all of the food additives complained about in the thread I responded to were "unhealthy" and were actually needed to preserve food for those who refuse or can't cook for themselves. Not all additives are "created in a lab" and that' why I said y'all need to learn some food science before making blanket statements.
Food coloring is one thing I do wish they'd get rid of as it is an allergen to many and only gives people a false idea of what real food looks like. Take butter for example, what color is it really?
I do agree that people would be much better off if they cooked from scratch, preferably from locally sourced fresh goods and didn't constantly buy packaged pre-made foods as they are NOT as healthy as those made from scratch.
Sadly people have either been convinced that they can't or don't have the time to cook and so it's better to just let Betty Crocker or some other food conglomerate do it for you. "Just open the box, add water and/or meat and you've got a meal" was the marketing battle cry for decades.
Take pancakes for example, is it really that hard to mix flour,eggs,milk,baking powder and a bit of salt together instead of opening a box of powered mix that only takes water to make? Is that bottle of Mrs. Butterworthless faux Maple syrup really better than REAL Maple syrup,Sourgum syrup or even Molasses?
I highly disagree with the "sugar is poison" mantra that you are pushing, complete B.S. just like Peanut Butter causes cancer scare that went around years ago. I find it hilarious how people will buy into any B.S. put out as scientific fact as long as it's wrapped in a pretty package or movie if you will just like they buy the junk food products based of commercials/packaging.
Sugar in and of itself is NOT poison to the human body, overuse of it can certainly be unhealthy that much is true.
Just as with many poisons, there is a safe dose of sugar (roughly 6 to 12 tablespoons a day) but the problem is that sugar is added to virtually all processed foods (not just obvious things like cookies, cakes, etc.) - virtually anything that comes in a package. And a lot gets added to "low-fat" foods - they basically replace the fat with sugar - so, overall, the average American consumes several times the safe dose of sugar per day, which essentially pushes our consumption level into the "poison" range. The fact that there is a safe dose does not mean it is not a poison. (BTW: The science that started the "anti-fat" fad was never very good. On the other hand, the science showing the health problems stemming from sugar is extremely strong.)
But I don't really want to fight over the terminology "poison" - if you don't want to apply that term to sugar, then don't. But, in the long run, it really does make people sick, and kills a lot of people, so I'm personally okay with using the word 'poison' in this context.
Also, I'm not trying dictate what adults eat. If they want to eat poisonous levels of sugar, then they have the right to do so, just as they have the right to use tobacco, alcohol, and porn. But we don't allow tobacco, alcohol, and porn companies to market their advertising toward children. We don't let them display their products at child's-eye level in supermarkets, convenience stores, department stores, etc. From a standpoint of marketing to children, sugar should be in the same category. Adults are free to use it, but the marketing of sugar should not be aimed at children. Why? Because if you eat any processed/packaged foods at all, you are guaranteed to overdose on sugar.
And marketing "low-fat" as if it were somehow more healthy should be considered false advertising. Low-fat is more harmful than regular, but it is marketed as healthier or as being helpful in losing weight.
It's the parents' job to teach their kids what is good and what is bad, not the government.
Got govt steps in when it starts causing health problems, just look at how quickly they acted in regards to opiate painkillers, the DEA crushed the market for these, now its just about impossible to have a doctor write a script for opiates.
So this proves they step in when the dangers of certain products are recognized, but apparently this only applies to certain industries, tobacco and alcohol companies are exempt, and it looks like soda companies are too. Not sure why they go after one industries deadly product but not another? Its not money because the opiate drugs had a large pharma industry behind them, so...?
^Then the government should step in and stop people from being obese, or stop people from drinking excessive alcohol. Or stop people from distracting driving.
^Then the government should step in and stop people from being obese, or stop people from drinking excessive alcohol. Or stop people from distracting driving.
I'm not sure where you are coming from on this, but just to be clear: I'm suggesting that we need to recognize that sugar is the primary component of a public health crisis. When it comes to the marketing of sugar, we need to think of sugar in roughly the same way that we think of tobacco. You are free to buy, sell, and use it, but corporations are not free to advertise it without some restrictions in light of public health concerns. Just as we no longer see cartoon characters promoting cigarettes (remember Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble smoking and promoting cigs in the good old days?), we should no longer see popular characters pushing junk food. Just as cigs come with a warning label, foods with high levels of added sugar should come with a warning label. Just as we don't have cigs, booze, and porn at child's-eye level in check-out lanes, we should not have junk food at child's-eye level in check-out lanes.
Just as with many poisons, there is a safe dose of sugar (roughly 6 to 12 tablespoons a day) but the problem is that sugar is added to virtually all processed foods (not just obvious things like cookies, cakes, etc.) - virtually anything that comes in a package. And a lot gets added to "low-fat" foods - they basically replace the fat with sugar - so, overall, the average American consumes several times the safe dose of sugar per day, which essentially pushes our consumption level into the "poison" range. The fact that there is a safe dose does not mean it is not a poison. (BTW: The science that started the "anti-fat" fad was never very good. On the other hand, the science showing the health problems stemming from sugar is extremely strong.)
But I don't really want to fight over the terminology "poison" - if you don't want to apply that term to sugar, then don't. But, in the long run, it really does make people sick, and kills a lot of people, so I'm personally okay with using the word 'poison' in this context.
Also, I'm not trying dictate what adults eat. If they want to eat poisonous levels of sugar, then they have the right to do so, just as they have the right to use tobacco, alcohol, and porn. But we don't allow tobacco, alcohol, and porn companies to market their advertising toward children. We don't let them display their products at child's-eye level in supermarkets, convenience stores, department stores, etc. From a standpoint of marketing to children, sugar should be in the same category. Adults are free to use it, but the marketing of sugar should not be aimed at children. Why? Because if you eat any processed/packaged foods at all, you are guaranteed to overdose on sugar.
And marketing "low-fat" as if it were somehow more healthy should be considered false advertising. Low-fat is more harmful than regular, but it is marketed as healthier or as being helpful in losing weight.
They add a lot of things to processed foods that I feel people shouldn't eat and are probably not good for them especially artificial sweeteners and all of the food colors. They also take out lots of good things in food to make them "taste better" or taste like the want you to think they should taste.
Here's an interesting/sad thing I just came across. I drink one 16 oz soda a day but do my level best to only drink one that uses cane sugar. A soda maker (Sierra Mist) that bragged it used only cane sugar. Last year they quit using that and switched over to HF corn syrup without so much as a whisper or any notice at all. The only way I found out is I thought it tasted different and happened to read the label, needless to say I was shocked and dismayed.
Yes, things that are bad for kids should not be directly marketed to them BUT and this is a BIG BUT, PARENTS are in total control of what kids do or don't eat. One cannot blame McDonalds for kids being fat because it's PARENTS that provide the money to purchase it. Same goes with food.
We didn't allow our son to drink soda when he was young although many,many of his friends parents did as young as 2-3 years old. RIDICULOUS and insane but they did it.
we need to think of sugar in roughly the same way that we think of tobacco. You are free to buy, sell, and use it, but corporations are not free to advertise it without some restrictions in light of public health concerns...we should no longer see popular characters pushing junk food...foods with high levels of added sugar should come with a warning label...we should not have junk food at child's-eye level in check-out lanes.
As with anything else, one has to actually take personal responsibility to learn and know what to feed oneself in a healthy manner. Neither so-called 'government guidelines' nor corporate advertising can be trusted. Come on, people, THINK!!!!!
Yeah its all poison , full of toxic chemicals, GMO plants,Pesticides, GMO Corn,Wheat and Soy.. Corn syrup and hydrogenated oils..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it hilarious how people will buy into any B.S. put out as scientific fact as long as it's wrapped in a pretty package or movie if you will just like they buy the junk food products based of commercials/packaging.
