The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.
My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article
And it will get reversed in a month…already heard Trumpicans calling it “woke”.
Sorry, trail mix isn’t healthy.
And saturated fats can be. The whole thing against sat fats is wrong, and was proven so by 1994.
The FDA is full of shit on this.
Saturated fats are not good actually. That’s a lie funded by dairy industry.
And trail mix (with nuts and whole grains and fruit) is in fact healthy.
The overwhelming majority of Americans eat nowhere close to the bare minimum recommended amount of fiber. Guess which one has lots of fiber? And is also full of minerals not found in many other foods
They’ve always been behind the times. If you’re old enough you’ll remember the cholesterol scare. They apparently hadn’t learned the different types of cholesterol yet. This is from my youth.
Damn librulz always tryna take my trans fats!
First, they came for frogs and made them gay, and I didn’t speak up for I’m not a frog.
Then they came for my fats and made them trans.
You know what would be way better than a symbol for “healthy” food would be requiring manufacturers to label food that fails to meet standards as “unhealthy.” Bonus points if you tax it to death so it’s no longer economically viable to sell garbage and label it “food”
Like, shit, the public perception is that I can’t afford healthy food anyway. But at least if the unhealthy food was also labelled it’d be easier to avoid
Why is a Payday candy bar 1/3rd the price of a bag of peanuts with fewer peanuts than the Payday has?
We at Payday Corporation hear your voices.
We have to give a few peanuts to the cocoa slaves, to prevent an uprising. In exchange we had to replace the peanuts with chocolate. They do not respect wealth in the dark heart of Asia.
We appreciate your lifelong commitment to Payday.
Sincerely,
The Payday Corporation
19 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey, Pennsylvania, US
deleted by creator
I don’t want more sin taxes. Sin taxes are anti choice. Subsidizing products that’s meet the healthy label I could agree with though
Edit: aka subsidizing the crops that are used to produce and possibly writing laws to ban the taxation on foods labeled healthy. Thus making such food in states like I live cost 10% less just by banning the state taxes on them before even getting to the subsidization on the crops. Shit, forcing us to move off corn to things like sugar cane would be great. Dense, the crop cycles are better, water usage is less and overall would be easier to manage. As in if we are going to kill ourselves with gas powered cars using 10% ethanol from corn… Why not use 10% from sugarcane which is easier to acquire and better for the population long term
Sin taxes are an incredibly effective way to reflect externalities of actions… sin taxes on offensive goods with no healthy malady are dumb as fuck - but we should be making sure that consumers are seeing a more accurate cost for expensive consumption habits. In an ideal world those revenues would be earmarked for programs to counter the societal harm (i.e. buying a pack of cigarettes would come with essentially a payroll style tax that’d fund smoking cessation programs) but America is currently deeply dysfunctional.
I think sin taxes are absolutely acceptable if the government is also fully paying for the healthcare of all citizens (which we should totally be doing).
The combination of the two would make America a much healthier place overall.
The government is not the arbiter of morality, only legality, and I definitely don’t want a government of whatever the fuck the GOP has become deciding what’s affordable and what’s not.
So since they aren’t…
Right… and your comment was in reply to someone merely proposing taxes that don’t exist yet either…
deleted by creator
They don’t think the US does, they think it should. You don’t need to be so aggressive about it.
So you’re supportive of Canadian sin taxes on sugar? Obviously America is broken as shit but let’s look at a less fundamentally awful example. Canada has a (granted smaller) issue with obesity and the costs of supporting long term care for it - a sin tax on sugar that helps support the Canadian healthcare system due to the outsized costs obesity causes.
It’s amazing to me how many people respond to everything with “tax it” or “ban it”. WTF happened to liberty as a national ethos?
It died with fucking Reagan. Get with it.
Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.
Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.
Then remove the fucking subsidies! What you’re proposing is that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies goes into the pockets of wealthy agricultural corporations, and then more tax payer money in the form of sin taxes goes to the government to purchase those products, which the government turns around and gives right back to the same corporations. Sheesh! Should we tip them too while we’re at it?
“Repeal farm subsidies” is one of the few things you could walk into congress and have overwhelming opposition to from both sides.
I didn’t propose anything.
But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.
So your saying the sales taxes are like tariffs, as they are being used to spread the cost to all purchasers without reguard to income making them harm lower and middle class people more, without ever having to raise taxes back to reasonable levels for the high income members of society. (3 million a year+)
I’m not saying anything about sales tax.
I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.
Yeah tax on food is strange. It’s 0% in Florida for unprepared food, 10% in Tennessee.
In Florida corn syrup isn’t taxed at 0% it’s taxed below 0% because it’s already gone through layers of subsidies.
Denmark instituted a sugar tax and that seemed to have very positive effects (manufacturers reduced the sugar content in various products, better health outcomes). It makes sense in countries with socialised health care systems that you’d make the people that end up costing more due to behaviours pay more into it.
I’d be okay with that. The key thing is we need to do more than we’re currently doing because the system is broken
Weird to write an article that links to the page it’s mostly plagiarized from: https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/use-term-healthy-food-labeling
Thanks for posting that. Honestly I would almost guess the article was compiled by AI, as it seems to assume you know information it has not previously mentioned.
If you notice it mentions the symbol multiple times but never shows it. (Not a symbol it can type) Where as a human would have written/drawn/ known it has to be shown or none of the references make sense.
Or I’m an idiot and they just are saying the term “healthy” is the symbol they are going to use?
I read in another article that the “healthy” symbol is currently under development.
Is it an actual symbol or just the word?
No, it’s gonna be some kind of logo that can be used on labels. Like I said, it’s under development currently. What it will look like, nobody is quite sure, in the article. I read mentioned that some critics believe it will oversimplify the matter of buying healthy food, and that it should be more like a label That has some kind of explanation.
Thanks I was an ass just now elsewhere in the comments so I appreciate you being sound. I am not always lol
My understanding is it will be a symbol, kind of like the USDA Organic symbol. Not necessarily similar in design, but just that the organic symbol means it’s met USDA criteria for being organic
Okay so I’m not crazy thinking they left a very important part of the message out. To me it should have said: FDA Developing a new symbol that will frame the market for they believe is New Healthy
Wondrously helpful to provide a link to the information’s source page!!!
Lower fat means more sugar. Have less of full fat products.
Fat is a necessary macro, and the public’s ignorant obsession with fat-free is crazy, especially since it almost always corresponds with more sugar, like you said. Guess what the body turns sugar into.
And research is pretty clear now that it isn’t fat that causes the problems, it’s unstable glucose
Yes it is, including saturated fat, in limited quantities.
Doesn’t that disagree with most of the mother’l sauces?
Less sauce. But I’ve cut out roux based sauces, except occasionally. And occasionally I will use half and half for coffee and tea. Moderation in all things, including moderation. Also I do much less bread, mainly because proper flour in a food
dessertdesert is not easy to get, and store bought bread in the USA is gross.
Not really.
If you cook from ingredients, you’ll usually be reasonably healthy. It’s not impossible to make healthy prepared foods, but it’s (comparatively) expensive enough that that, not awareness, is the main limitation.
Probably most people like myself will ignore the guidelines. The advice looks better than before but I don’t like half of it.
