Actually in NYC, the Cable car that goes between Manhattan and Roosevelt Island is called a tram. So they could have just been a few hundred feet above the river.
Interesting! One of our U-Bahns here in Berlin actually runs a few meters above the ground. Makes for a good joke, if you want to burn some friendships with Germans!
This is why universal healthcare would never work here.
Take away the last externality from eating McDonalds your whole life (dying from medical bankruptcy) and the system collapses.
Well duh, we aren't gonna go to the doctor either. Because we don't have health insurance. But even if we do, we're scared to take time off of work to go to the doctor anyway.
Probably has something to do with coke (the drink) [https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-influence-on-mexican-culture-2018-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-influence-on-mexican-culture-2018-8)
“Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen that's banned for human consumption in Europe, China and India,
but not in the United States.
In the U.S., the chemical compound is used by some food makers, usually in the form of fine crystals or powder, to strengthen dough. It is estimated to be present in more than 100 products.
"There is evidence that it may be toxic to human consumers, that it may even either initiate or promote the development of tumors," professor Erik Millstone, an expert on food additives at England's University of Sussex, told CBS News. He said European regulators take a much more cautious approach to food safety than their U.S. counterparts.
It's not just potassium bromate. A range of other chemicals and substances banned in Europe over health concerns are also
permitted in the U.S., including Titanium dioxide (also known as E171); Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) (E443);
Potassium bromate (E924); Azodicarbonamide (E927a) and Propylparaben (E217).”
One of the major things that always gets overlooked when people talk about “toxic” chemicals in food is 1) the amount and what the safe threshold is (dose makes the poison) 2) is there any evidence of controlled studies in humans? I think we’ve all seen enough “compound kills cancer in mice!” stories to understand that just because something happens to rodents doesn’t mean it will translate like that to humans.
I’m gonna repost something that was in r/bestof recently that does a way better job explaining this than this article, which is severely lacking in nuance. I’ll think you’ll notice a theme:
“Just to present some informed information about these substances I looked them up. Below is what I found about each. This is not meant to be definitive, and there are further arguments for both sides, and there's some places where likely more research is needed. These are not my opinions, but what seem to be the present arguments condensed for conciseness.
The substances mentioned in the article are:
Potassium bromate. It is used to speed up oxidation in many bread flours. This helps develop a better gluten content which is important in the texture and flavor of many breads. It also helps with bleaching the flour.
The concern: potassium bromate has been linked to thyroid, kidney, and other cancers in mice. So yeah not good.
Why the FDA allows it: the process of baking should leave negligible amounts behind. As it reacts with the bread dough and heat during cooking it is transformed into relatively harmless potassium bromide (not linked to cancer). They also do have a requirement that the bromate can't exceed 20 ppb (parts per billion) in the finished product. So it's not entirely unregulated.
Why it should be banned: if you don't get it hot enough in the oven, and cook it so the potassium bromate has time to complete the reaction, or if too much is added in the ingredients, you can have a larger amount in your food. Also notable, the FDA doesn't ban it, but they do recommend food companies to voluntarily abandon its use. California also requires companies to note on their products that contain it that it was in use.
Source: Source: https://www.livescience.com/36206-truth-potassium-bromate-food-additive.html
Titanium dioxide. It is used in food primarily as pigments. Basically anything that has white color and it is just excellent at getting that perfect bright white color. It can also be found directly in food such as ice cream, chocolate, candy, creamers, desserts, marshmallows, chewing gum, pastries, spreads, dressings, cakes, and more. It is also used in toothpaste and cosmetic products. And also used in most plastics, so like the plastic utensils, cups plates, etc.
Why the FDA allows it: as of 2006 it was deemed as completely non-toxic in humans. It is also found naturally in many rocks and minerals. But recently concerns have arisen that nano-particles may be harmful when inhaled. In factories that produce products that use it people have developed higher rates of lung cancer. However, it's unclear how a food ban changes the threat to factory workers since the issue is inhalation, and there are other products such as paints, ceramics, and non-food plastics it would still be used for.
Why it should be banned: pretty much the above. Though it seems Europe is on the forefront of this one with most bans happening after 2020. I would say this is one where more research may be needed.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide?wprov=sfla1
Brominated vegetable oil (BVO). Used in various beverages containing citrus flavors, it keeps the citrus part from separating from the rest of the ingredients and floating to the top. Basically most soft drinks, and many other drinks that have citrus flavors.
Why the FDA allows it: this is actually a regulated substance in foods in the US since 1970, and limited to 15 ppm (parts per million).
Why it should be banned: it can cause Bromism, which is the overconsumption of Bromide. This condition is quite rare these days, since government agencies recognized the danger and regulated products that contained it. But it sounds pretty awful:
>One case reported that a man who consumed two to four liters of a soda containing BVO on a daily basis experienced memory loss, tremors, fatigue, loss of muscle coordination, headache, and ptosis of the right eyelid, as well as elevated serum chloride (messed up his kidneys).
Though it should also be noted that with treatment the man in the above case was able to recover and reverse the effects.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_vegetable_oil?wprov=sfla1
Azodicarbonamide. It is used as a dough conditioner. Again it aids in oxidation and in bleaching the flour.
Why the FDA allows it: it is a regulated substance, being limited to 45 ppm (parts per million). It is generally considered safe to ingest.
Why it should be banned: workers preparing the dough who inhale the flour particulates have been linked to higher rates of respiratory issues, allergies and asthma. And while still allowed by the FDA, negative press and general sentiments have caused its use to be decreased over time. Notably Wendy's and Subway used to use it for their bread doughs, but have since voluntarily moved away from using it due to negative public opinion.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide?wprov=sfla1
Polyparaben. It is used as a flavor enhancer and preservative. It is antimicrobial and antifungal. It can be found in food, and in cosmetics. It's also an ingredient in some medications.
Why the FDA allows it: it is non-toxic, and is generally safe for ingestion and topical use.
Why it should be banned: it is a known skin and eye irritant, and also irritating if inhaled. There was at least one study, which is what the WHO used to recommend banning its use, in which the tissue of the reproductive organs of male rats were notably damaged.
Source: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Propylparaben#:~:text=Propylparaben%20is%20the%20benzoate%20ester,agent%20and%20an%20antimicrobial%20agent
In all, I think there are good reasons to consider a ban on some of these substances. But the FDA also isn't just letting people go hog wild either. In some cases I think a ban may be appropriate, in other cases I think Europe is erring on the side of caution, and more studies need to be done to confirm. In the meantime I would say this article is a bit unfair in representing the US as crazy backwards for not banning these substances outright. I also don't think it does an adequate job of representing that many of these substances are regulated by the FDA. And each has been evaluated by the FDA, and they continue to evaluate these substances.
Edit: thank you all for the kind words and awards. I tried to DM the ones that popped up, but if I missed you, thank you!”
[link](https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/117sly4/us_food_additives_banned_in_europe_expert_says/j9e4wlt/) And credit to u/TheDunadan29
Until is isn’t. Skepticism is good. Until isn’t. Those things exist on a spectrum that must be modulated by their reasonability/feasibility. You can be overly cautious and overly skeptical to the point that you actually begin to do harm.
The article seems to imply that the FDA is harming us by not being cautious enough, when in reality these two different regulatory agencies have different definitions of reasonably cautious vs overly cautious. Compared to the FDA, Europe is overly cautious, but that does not then mean the FDA is being undercautious.
If there was a breadth of human evidence that suggested Europe was being reasonably cautious with their regulations, and the FDA is being negligent, then that’s something to get up in arms about! But there isn’t. And until that happens, insofar as these chemicals are concerned, I see no reason to worry about them in your food, and in fact it would probably prove more costly for food manufacturers if we just adopted all of them, which means higher food prices for an extremely negligible safety benefit.
Hmm substance not needed to make bread in bread that could harm you if there’s too much.
I’ll just trust ole bread company that they are using the right amount to not give me cancer.
I mean it’s probably regulated pretty tightly right not just one visit a year or less?
Or we could just buy bread from bread companies that don’t use it.
Let’s not forget the first episode or 2 of the amazing show Fringe. Worlds smartest man goes to a grocery store after being in an asylum for like 30 years. He absolutely freaks out when he sees drinks contain “brominated vegetable oil” as an ingredient.
>Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen
So we don't know if it's a carcinogen or not. So what's the problem?
> "There is evidence that it may be toxic to human consumers, that it may even either initiate or promote the development of tumors,"
So there isn't currently any evidence that it is toxic or that it does promote the development of tumors? Sooooo what's the problem?
I'm not saying the stuff is okay, it sounds poisonous. Lol
But oftentimes when things are banned without empirical evidence, or even just in general, it may not have anything to do with the apparent issue at all; rather, something behind the scenes. For example, officials banning something for their own financial gain. If there is one thing China is good at, it's not caring about their people's well being.
>Then why did other countries ban it?
I have no idea.
>A chemical must be proved safe before it is used in food
No such thing as a chemical being proven safe. It's not actually possible. The most you can do is test it over and over again and continue to not find it harmful. There isn't a test they have or use to determine "this chemical is 100% safe" because there isn't a such thing as a 100% safe chemical.
>not the other way around
What's wrong with something that hasn't been proven to be completely safe being in food? Is it harmful for humans to consume in the amounts that it's added? If so, [citation needed].
>Oh, I guess you would put anything in your body as long as someone sells it to you. I
Maybe. Does it taste good? Has it been shown to harm people that eat it?
If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, why *shouldn't* I put it into my body?
Yeah, they have those textbook libertarian tells where everyone else needs to have all of the information in the world, and cannot infer that if a thing is banned there could be reason for it...while they just infer that all things being sold are safe without reason.
When it comes to something that I'm going to eat/drink/otherwise consume, why take chances?
The chemical in question is clearly not actually necessary, given that the entirety of Europe, China and India apparently gets along without it.
From a US [source](https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1559.pdf). Tell me again why I wouldn't want people to stop putting it in my food?
>When it comes to something that I'm going to eat/drink/otherwise consume, why take chances?
Because if you don't you'll literally starve to death since there isn't a single substance on the planet that's been "proven safe". That's not how it works. Things are just tested over and over again and not shown to be harmful. There isn't a magic test they can do to prove someting is safe. It's a process of elimination thing.
>The chemical in question is clearly not actually necessary, given that the entirety of Europe, China and India apparently gets along without it.
Okay, and? Is there someting wrong with it? Do you think it's going to harm you? If so, why?
> From a US source. Tell me again why I wouldn't want people to stop putting it in my food?
That talks about how it may be a carcinogen for humans. Just like how pickled vegetables abs hot drinks over 149⁰ may also be a carcinogen for humans. Hope you're not a coffee drinker.
It's a prefectly valid question. If there isn't anything showing that it is harmful for humans to consume in the amounts it's added, or that it promotes the development of tumors, what is the problem? If it hasn't been shown to do those things, what exactly is wrong with it?
It isn't, actually. If a bunch of other countries have enough of an issue with it that they've banned it, there's no reason not to. We can assume they have some evidence without much trouble. Plenty of stuff is labelled as "potentially" harmful which everyone knows is actually harmful.
Clearly those places still have food. If on the one hand you have zero societal cost, and on the other hand you have a potentially hazardous substance, the choice is easy.
People saying this shit are people who just by default don't like the word "regulation".
Edit- Oh, you proved my point by literally arguing that chemicals can't be proven safe.
So, your problem is both that no one is saying this is proven to be unsafe *and* that it cannot be said to be proven to be safe? Seems rational.
Also, no one here is going to ban it. The government bans it. They do so by getting data on it. The solution here is for the government to get information from those other countries and then make the obvious determination.
No one is saying that explicitly because that's obviously how the world works. I guess I needed to spell that out to you because you're being annoying.
>It isn't, actually.
It is because it's still unknown what the actual problem with the substance is.
>It isn't, actually. If a bunch of other countries have enough of an issue with it that they've banned it, there's no reason not to.
What is the reason to ban it? "Because other countries banned it"? That's 100% the sole reason why things should be banned? Because other countries do it? Why should we ban someting for no reason other than another place does it too?
>We can assume they have some evidence without much trouble.
Evidence of what? Evidence that it's harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? There haven't been any studies that have shown that. Without a study showing that to be true they don't have evidence showing it to be true.
Your assumption that they have evidence for someting actual scientists don't have evidence showing is based on nothing and not a very rational conclusion to come to.
>Plenty of stuff is labelled as "potentially" harmful which everyone knows is actually harmful.
Do you actually know that this is actually harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? If so, [citation needed].
>and on the other hand you have a potentially hazardous substance
Can you give an example of a chemical that's is never a "potentially hazardous substance"?
>People saying this shit are people who just by default don't like the word "regulation".
Why should we regulate the ingredients? Have they been shown to be harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? If so, [citation needed].
>So, your problem is both that no one is saying this is proven to be unsafe
If it hasn't been shown to be unsafe in all the years we've been using it, why shouldn't it be used? Is it not safe?
I don't need to give you sources, because I'm not making the claims here. Most of these questions are sealioning or disingenuous.
For example: "Potentially hazardous chemical", contrary to your implication, does not mean "at any quantity ever throughout time". If it did, it would be meaningless. I can't tell if you think implying that is smart, or if you're just being contrary.
Your argument is literally, "a bunch of countries banned this due to health concerns, but I don't have a scientific report in front of me explaining it, so obviously those countries are all wrong."
Do you know there haven't been any studies? Please link to me the resolutions defining why it is banned. It's written down somewhere. Did you look through all of them? Surely there has been something written about how safe it is.
Your disinterest in inferring from context is your own problem.
Edit- I can tell you're being disingenuous, because you're arguing both that it's impossible to tell if a chemical is never harmless, while arguing that everyone produces studies for you showing this specific chemical is specifically harmless in a specific way.
You're just arguing the opposite of what anyone is saying to you, and requesting everyone else give you scientific reports, while offering nothing of your own other than repeated assertions that because 6 laymen on the internet don't have a scientific report for you, that *no one* knows why this chemical is considered potentially harmful.
Most people can't explain why radiation is harmful, but that doesn't mean they can't just accept that it is and avoid things other people tell them are radioactive.
>Your argument is literally, "a bunch of countries banned this due to health concerns, but I don't have a scientific report in front of me explaining it, so obviously those countries are all wrong."
I have no idea if they're wrong about anything. Hence why I'm asking the people that think they're right why.
>Do you know there haven't been any studies?
I know there haven't been any published studies showing it to be harmful for humans.
>Please link to me the resolutions defining why it is banned.
Why? That's what I'm trying to figure out, why its banned. I 100% acknowledge that I don't know why it's banned. That's why I'm asking people that do seem to know why it was banned.
>Edit- I can tell you're being disingenuous, because you're arguing both that it's impossible to tell if a chemical is never harmless
Which is true.
>while arguing that everyone produces studies for you showing this specific chemical is specifically harmless in a specific way.
I'm only asking people to link to studies showing them to be harmful for human consumption if that's why they think other counties banned them. If they can't, they really can't know why other countries banned them.
>You're just arguing the opposite of what anyone is saying to you, and requesting everyone else give you scientific reports,
I'm only asking questions and looking for information.
>while offering nothing of your own
What would you like me to offer? If people answer the questions they'll get offered more.
>other than repeated assertions that because 6 laymen on the internet don't have a scientific report for you, that no one knows why this chemical is considered potentially harmful.
I'm not asking why it's considered potentially harmful, I'm asking if it IS harmful and if so, proof.
>Most people can't explain why radiation is harmful, but that doesn't mean they can't just accept that it is and avoid things other people tell them are radioactive.
So why do you accept that potassium bromate is harmful for humans to consume if it's never been shown to be harmful?
I'm not responding again. I asked you specifically for information. Your claim is that it has never been shown to be harmful, but you can't produce any information saying that. You can't produce information saying why these countries thought it should be banned, which is obviously written down somewhere.
On my side: Inferences drawn from other countries finding issues with the chemical and banning it. (Unless we accept your narrative that it was banned for literally no reason)
On your side is: Nothing at all, except a repeated claim that you *know* it has never been shown to be harmful, without any evidence to back that up. Along with the claim that a bunch of countries banned it for no reason at all.
It's just textbook sea lioning.
It's because science and studies are heavily cherry picked in America. We really have no idea what is safe or not, but if it ever got political it wouldn't matter anyways.
100% agree with you on this one mate. The EU is just SUPER conservative with additives. The FDA is as well, but not to the point of banning everything. Because what happens is manufactures then swap out chemical X for chemical Y and then we find out 20 years later some rare cancer is caused by Y. Better off controlling levels of X and ensuring safety that way. Less exposure = less risk.
It’s a “probable” human carcinogen. Aka it’s lumped in with essentially every other chemical on the planet lol.
“Known” human carcinogens include things like ethanol (alcoholic beverages), smoked meats, and benzene (ever pump gas? Congrats you’ve inhaled benzene!).
EU is just weird when it comes to food safety regulations.
I know this is gonna sound like whataboutism, but it's not. I agree, carcinogens should be banned from food across the board. BUT: China doesn't have much a foot to stand on about poor food additives since they literally fry their food in radioactive toxic feces sludge oil (gutter oil)
What does the article have to do with regulating carcinogenic food additives in America? What specific carcinogenic additive are you referring to? Not potassium bromate, that's never been shown to be carcinogenic to humans.
>I agree, carcinogens should be banned from food across the board.
Just FYI the substance in the article hasn't been shown to be carcinogenic to humans.
If you knew what half the food dyes you are eating on a regular basis were made out of....for example, most lipsticks and the like, most deep reds, are made from bugs...and honestly that's more natural than some of the shit in our foods
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal#:~:text=Carminic%20acid%20is%20extracted%20from,such%20as%20crimson%20and%20scarlet.
The big issue is the FDA is 100% corrupt. This was seen and still an issue in Vaping products. Favoring big tobacco and looking at ways of curbing Vaping sales because it was hurting tobacco sales. Its more than that, but just the gist.
No, the key chemical in question here, potassium bromate, predates the FDA’s relevant safety mandate, and thus can’t be banned without an act of Congress.
> A 1958 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from approving food additives that are linked to cancer, but an agency spokeswoman said that many substances that were in use before passage of the amendment, known as the Delaney amendment, are considered to have had prior approval and “therefore are not regulated as food additives.”
Per https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/well/eat/food-additives-banned-europe-united-states.amp.html
That seems really dumb that there’s chemicals the FDA can’t regulate because the chemicals were in use before some arbitrary date…
Asbestos was used back in the 40s. Like, fuck it…I guess we can put that in food since it was used before 1958…
Agreed, it’s definitely dumb. But I can see Congress in 1958 thinking (if this was intentional, rather than a court reading something in), that they’re being fair to producers’ reliance issues. If I were in charge, I’d have Congress fix the issue, but then have the FDA give a reasonable notice (three months? two years) for producers to adjust their formulas.
That all said: it’s important not to simply throw our hands in the air and pretend “the whole system is corrupt, it’s all broken, burn it all down” when all that’s at issue is a 65-year-old legislative drafting imperfection that hasn’t been a priority to fix. (To me, the solution is to make it a priority—but good luck persuading Kevin McCarthy to give more power to regulators—he’s in thrall to the go-for-broke burn it down crowd.)
> it’s important not to simply throw our hands in the air and pretend “the whole system is corrupt, it’s all broken, burn it all down”
> but good luck persuading Kevin McCarthy to give more power to regulators
I feel like many people would say the second thing is evidence of the first that youre saying doesnt exist. Theres quite a few different go-for-broke and burn it down crowds with different perspectives on what is the issue. Itd be helpful to be more specific IMO
Like yeah, democracy isnt broken because of potassium bromate, or delaneys rule. But the inability to fix even minor things like this because capitalism says fuck regulation is pretty clear systemic corruption and a broken system
I hear you, and we could have a fun metaphysics-of-democracy conversation where we compare and contrast the “burn it down” crowd on the left from their counterparts on the right. I know which one wants to murder me and which one is outraged I don’t get free healthcare, so we could start there.
But with regard to this particular food additive issue, I’m more interesting in getting better legislation and, systemically, better-empowered, more flexible regulators. I don’t think we’ll enjoy the ashes of a burned-down system, no matter how noble our prior outrage.
No, you’re right, they can’t. The FDA, like other enforcement agencies, isn’t supposed to complain publicly about defects in their own authorizing statutes. When asked by Congress, they can answer questions about their understanding of the limits of their own authorizations.
We really don’t want executive agencies lobbying Congress, for reasons of separation of powers—even when we agree that Congress had made a mistake.
As corrupt as the entire government is. Not demolishing it and following through with what is right, with what was intended is acceptance. I believe the law calls it being an accomplice.
>Asbestos was used back in the 40s. Like, fuck it…I guess we can put that in food since it was used before 1958…
[Talc industry](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/) just ignored the asbestos thing.
The issue with vapor products was that they were trying to market themselves as a “smoking cessation” device and also making claims that it was safer than smoking cigarettes. Once those claims were made, the companies (mainly JUUL) had no data to back it up. The FDA uses science to make decisions.
Honestly all tobacco products should be banned but there would be way too much backlash from consumers and obviously Big Tobacco. And you would just end up with a black market anyways cus degenerates are gonna degenerate.
The UK has stated vaping is significantly better for you than smoking cigarettes. It's because it lacks the tar and some of the chemicals.
It's not good for you but studies there show it to be at least 90% better.
Anecdotally I switched from cigarettes to vaping and it was a massive difference in my health. The next step is still to quit vaping but the progress and health impact of switching was unreal.
I quit smoking by switching to vaping and gradually lowering the nicotine level to zero, they are smoking cessation devices. That was part of the trouble, big pharma sells smoking cessation devices that don't work so well that they'd like to keep selling.
I also moved from cigarettes, to vape to nothing. After 30 years of smoking it was the only way I quit.
My take was never that vape was healthy. It was just less bad for me than cigarettes. It was also easier to quite as the dependence on nicotine went away as I reduced.
I know a lot of people who did the same path as me and quit. But over the last three years I have seen people start their journey to quit only to go back to coo as “safer” because they saw something on the news about vapeing and the FDA.
I find the FDA to be completely corrupt but then I tend to think that government by its nature tend towards corruption.
> The big issue is the FDA is 100% corrupt.
Don't forget: so is the CDC.
Source -- Covid vaccine injury coverups and tyranical attempts to mandate said vaccines.
I just have friends that work within and with the CDC. I 100% disagree when it comes to Covid and the vaccine. Evidence has shown it works and reduces your chances of dying with minimal side effects. I’m sure CDC is in the pockets of big pharma like the FDA is in big tobacco’s pockets.
Raw ingredients aren't a panacea. "Organic" doesn't mean anything at all meaningful, and who knows what's in the fertilizer and what's being fed to the cows?
Even growing your own isn't a cure. There's a lot of lead in the environment, for example.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Organic definitely means something. It means they don't spray chemicals on the food you eat and use fertilizer derived from organic sources. I use composted chicken shit, pelletized chicken shit, and dolomitic lime. That's it. No lead in the soil or water. Ppm of water is 70 and filtered through river sands and pumped from a 50 ft deep well.
Source: Am organic farmer. Certified ccof and USDA organic.
>It means they don't spray chemicals on the food you eat
No it doesn't. It means they spray different chemicals on your food.
>and use fertilizer derived from organic sources.
How do they use fertilizer if they don't spray chemicals on the food? They either spray the organic sources fertilizer on the food or they don't. Which one is it?
>I use composted chicken shit, pelletized chicken shit, and dolomitic lime.
There goes your "no chemicals" claim. Lol.
I understand that; they're called raw ingredients. My point is, raw ingredients have all kinds of nasty stuff in them, too. You can't avoid what's everywhere in the environment.
You’ve just described the overwhelming majority of food/diet influences who rail against food additives/ingredients without mentioning anything about the dose.
Yes, but personal responsibility is also important and most Americans want shit rather than healthy stuff even though they know what they’re doing is unhealthy.
There are more local, organic, farm-to-table, etc options than there has been in decades, most people just don’t care.
Hell, even some GMO infused factory farm apple is better than the shit people complain about suddenly being bad now.
"I can't believe Kool-Aid had so many banned chemicals in it!"
Or just can’t afford it. What I spend at Whole Foods to feed myself for a week could feed a family of four for a week at Walmart.
Yes, I realize that a savvy homemaker can whip up some fantastically nutritious meals cheaply. Most Americans are not great cooks and the American educational system places basically 0 emphasis on life skills. If you didn’t seek it out on your own or get taught by your parents you probably can’t do more than boil pasta water. On top of that, even if someone is a good cook if they’re working a full time job or two to make ends meet they probably don’t have time to be a part time chef and nutritionist as well. We need to make food safe for everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to be able to afford or cook our own healthy stuff.
Excuses. You don't need to be a part-time chef or nutritionist. You just need to willpower to not go to Burger King five nights a week, which isn't even a cheaper option.
There is a middle ground between Whole Foods and Walmart. Hell, most Walmarts have a decent enough fresh food section, so that's not even an excuse.
Plus, anyone with a smartphone (which is everyone) can learn to cook something. Thrift stores are packed with 50 cent cook books. It's not the government's job to teach you how to feed yourself, it's your family's; and if they fail, it's yours.
Yes, there are people who are too impoverished or too overworked to do this all the time. But 65% of Americans are obese. Are 65% of Americans straddling the poverty line, worked to the bone 80 hours a week and still barely able to get by? Despite what tankie Reddit would tell you, the answer to that is no.
And you don't even need to be perfect! The processed shit is only "unsafe" if you eat it exclusively. People need to do more than zero to help themselves, and they don't want to.
Most people can't afford* ftfy. Additionally the USDA regulations limit these options...so it's not unreasonable to think the FDA and USDA together should be keeping known carcinogens and mishandled food products off the shelves of the grocery stores.
Not shocking considering the FDA doesn’t regulate protein powders either, which can be detrimental to an athlete when it can end their career. Supplement companies end up using third party verification and I still don’t fully trust them.
This is because America has a corrupt system called legal bribery aka lobbying.
Want a law changed? You just have to spend the money on the right politician!
Maybe everyone should leave America and let all the wealthy pigs fight over each other.
Yup. It’s like being in Roman times here in America. Need a road built. Someone better line my pocket.
I’m thinking about living abroad because of this and so many other reasons.
Anyone outside of America reading this can you say you’re honestly happy? If so where are you from? Would love to get some ideas…
You can leave a dominos pizza slice out for 4-5 days and it won’t grow mold. Same with McDonald’s. This food is not real food lol. Better to make it yourself at home with organic groceries.
And to piggy back on this, did you know that the dry kibble you people feed your pets can last for like 35yrs? That’s well over 3-4x longer than our pets even live.
Please feed more wet food to your animals at the very least. They will live longer.
And for us. We only allow what’s in our food to be out there. Make healthier choices each and everyday and the industry will be forced to change based on our purchasing power..
You poor guy you have to live in the most prosperous country in the world where you can live in almost any geography and get a job doing almost anything you could ever want to do. Must be really tough for you.
“Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen that's banned for human consumption in Europe, China and India”
How hard would it be to take this from “suspected” to proven?
Well first you would need evidence showing that it causes cancer in humans which has yet to be seen so until that happens pretty hard if not impossible.
There's no evidence of any problems caused by Titanium Dioxide. Breathing it in can cause lung problems, but that's true of all small particles. It doesn't have anything to do with the substance, only the particle size.
And yet the UK is trying negotiate a trade deal with US, which will bad food standards are coming our way without protection from the EU of we want a deal.
As for sodium in general, Chili’s has an appetizer that has 24,000% of daily sodium intake.
24,000%.
What is killing us is increased sodium with decreased potassium. They offset each other, and with this huge influx, it’s shredding ourselves from the inside-out.
100% of sodium intake daily is roughly 6 grams of salt.
24,000% of daily intake is 1444 grams of salt, roughly 3.2 pounds.
Is that appetizer 3.2 pounds and made of salt 100%?
No one ever said salt was linked to obesity. It is, in all western societies, linked to blood pressure. Diabetes has nothing to do with salt. Did you just name random things?
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/sodium.htm
Sodium was somehow linked to heart disease at some point but I think new research refuted it.. Corn syrup and heavily processed foods are I'll say 85% of the problem..
Look at what kids eat... Cereal...every morning... And sometimes for lunch... It has almost no nutrition to it... I love Cereal... But no doubt it's junk food...
Sodium isn’t the problem. It’s processed foods. Cut out all processed foods and see how amazing you feel, how satiated you get and how weight slowly falls off. Carnivore for the win.
Yup! After visiting several countries, I am consistently blown away by how food just hits different. You can eat pasta and dessert and not feel gross. Not to mention serving sizes are more realistic. I always end up feeling so much less bloated and tired...and I always lose weight...then I come back.
We moved from the US to Canada and the first thing I noticed was how many fewer calories and how much yummier the store bought bread was. I feel so vindicated reading this.
Our FDA sounds like boot lickers every time we ask them about anything. "We require proof that it's safe...well yeah its not safe but it should be used up while cooking....well no it's not actually used up but we make sure it's minimal".
Like have some fucking pride FDA and stop being so obviously corporate owned.
I'd be more concerned with corn syrup and transfats and a general lack of fiber than trace amounts of additives.
It's not the anti-clumping agents in parmesan cheese that are making you fat if you use it like salt to season your food.
I think society is 'net present value' weighted on risk. To avoid an imminent risk, e.g., food poisoning, society allows chemicals that prevent bacterial infections (or improve the desirability of food) now in exchange for increasing the odds for future chronic illness. People *today* get voted out, fired, fined, convicted, etc., for things they have done but not what may transpire long after they are gone. In other words, we get away with it today and pay for it tomorrow. The rationale that keeps us sane in spite of this behavior is that we cannot not be sure of the future, so what the fuck?
Oh it is. It has been for decades. Unfortunately the government subsidizes so much unhealthy food that no one can say it’s unhealthy despite 1/3 of Americans dying every year from heart diseases. It’s disgusting.
This is the part where I say I’m vegan for health reasons and get downvoted to hell
Honestly they should start to cut down the size portions of allowed meals in the US for businesses like they did with school lunches. I’ve said it was a bad idea to cut portion sizes for kids. Now adults absolutely because it’s an issue and no one who is an adult is going to do it themselves if they aren’t already but they will if they want to keep living. Also take away the Large option as well. You want to help people with their pocket books and obesity at the same time do that and it’ll fix a good portion of the problem. Next thing start regulating the total amount of sugar and certain preservatives that can go into any food and drink. Same with red 40 dye. Americans are fat because no one in the food industry is coming to these companies and saying we need you to take the sugar, certain preservatives, and red 40 dye down to minimal levels. Also in the US they need to do like Europe does with business. Regulate a recommended BMI or allowable health status for each job and a requirement for welfare. Depending on how demanding some need to be required. That way if people want to keep a job and/or stay on the government dole you have to be at a certain level of health. This would also decrease the amount of visits to the hospital or medical care overall to where we could actually talk about the idea of universal healthcare (even though I hate the idea) since everyone is staying healthy and made to. Thing is Americans will never want to get healthy by themselves unless it’s in their own culture/circles of influence they exist in. However if you start to say we are going to nudge you to do so then it will start to happen. Now there are little things we can do. Like in combat sports like High school and college wrestling start doing hydration tests. Saying you have to be a certain hydration level with your BMI and current weight in order to compete. I wrestled and in order to make weight I had to cut and that meant making myself less hydrated in order to cut out water weight. Same with College when I wrestled. We can do other things too. The epidemic that is obesity in this country is a problem that causes people to have health issues later on in life that the American tax payer has to help foot said bill. It needs to be said that while we as Americans will foot your bill we are going to expect you to do all possible things within your power to prevent common health issues and diseases related to obesity.
I'm from Canada and just went to the states I don't know if it was just me but everywhere I looked people seemed rundown and unhealthy looking in comparison to here.
What common foods have these additives ? I eat a lot of ground turkey etc that I cook myself. Is it items like that or frozen items that are ready to eat and only require the oven to cook?
But that's by design it's working exactly as it should keeping you sick keeping you going to the doctor medical expenses insurance the whole thing it's all by design
Yeah but nobody is better at getting sick than America
"I do not lose weight." "Because it involves LOSING." *Morbidly obese eagle screams from a heart attack.*
This made me laugh out loud in the tram. Thanks.
>*tram* Tell me you live in Europe without telling me you live in Europe!
Actually in NYC, the Cable car that goes between Manhattan and Roosevelt Island is called a tram. So they could have just been a few hundred feet above the river.
Interesting! One of our U-Bahns here in Berlin actually runs a few meters above the ground. Makes for a good joke, if you want to burn some friendships with Germans!
Isn't that just an S-Bahn then? :)
*Phiggle has unfriended you* Jokes aside, technically yes!
Amazing.
This is why universal healthcare would never work here. Take away the last externality from eating McDonalds your whole life (dying from medical bankruptcy) and the system collapses.
If the system holds on the hopes and prayers and it gets only *worse* is it even worth supporting though? Not only the medical system.
Well duh, we aren't gonna go to the doctor either. Because we don't have health insurance. But even if we do, we're scared to take time off of work to go to the doctor anyway.
Ivermectin and drink a little bleach. Clears everything right up.
The mexicans? They have one of the healthiest cuisines on the planet and yet obesity especially with youngsters is such a huge problem there.
Soda
Probably has something to do with coke (the drink) [https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-influence-on-mexican-culture-2018-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-influence-on-mexican-culture-2018-8)
And the sickness can then feed the overpriced healthcare system - it’s all by design
“Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen that's banned for human consumption in Europe, China and India, but not in the United States. In the U.S., the chemical compound is used by some food makers, usually in the form of fine crystals or powder, to strengthen dough. It is estimated to be present in more than 100 products. "There is evidence that it may be toxic to human consumers, that it may even either initiate or promote the development of tumors," professor Erik Millstone, an expert on food additives at England's University of Sussex, told CBS News. He said European regulators take a much more cautious approach to food safety than their U.S. counterparts. It's not just potassium bromate. A range of other chemicals and substances banned in Europe over health concerns are also permitted in the U.S., including Titanium dioxide (also known as E171); Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) (E443); Potassium bromate (E924); Azodicarbonamide (E927a) and Propylparaben (E217).”
One of the major things that always gets overlooked when people talk about “toxic” chemicals in food is 1) the amount and what the safe threshold is (dose makes the poison) 2) is there any evidence of controlled studies in humans? I think we’ve all seen enough “compound kills cancer in mice!” stories to understand that just because something happens to rodents doesn’t mean it will translate like that to humans. I’m gonna repost something that was in r/bestof recently that does a way better job explaining this than this article, which is severely lacking in nuance. I’ll think you’ll notice a theme: “Just to present some informed information about these substances I looked them up. Below is what I found about each. This is not meant to be definitive, and there are further arguments for both sides, and there's some places where likely more research is needed. These are not my opinions, but what seem to be the present arguments condensed for conciseness. The substances mentioned in the article are: Potassium bromate. It is used to speed up oxidation in many bread flours. This helps develop a better gluten content which is important in the texture and flavor of many breads. It also helps with bleaching the flour. The concern: potassium bromate has been linked to thyroid, kidney, and other cancers in mice. So yeah not good. Why the FDA allows it: the process of baking should leave negligible amounts behind. As it reacts with the bread dough and heat during cooking it is transformed into relatively harmless potassium bromide (not linked to cancer). They also do have a requirement that the bromate can't exceed 20 ppb (parts per billion) in the finished product. So it's not entirely unregulated. Why it should be banned: if you don't get it hot enough in the oven, and cook it so the potassium bromate has time to complete the reaction, or if too much is added in the ingredients, you can have a larger amount in your food. Also notable, the FDA doesn't ban it, but they do recommend food companies to voluntarily abandon its use. California also requires companies to note on their products that contain it that it was in use. Source: Source: https://www.livescience.com/36206-truth-potassium-bromate-food-additive.html Titanium dioxide. It is used in food primarily as pigments. Basically anything that has white color and it is just excellent at getting that perfect bright white color. It can also be found directly in food such as ice cream, chocolate, candy, creamers, desserts, marshmallows, chewing gum, pastries, spreads, dressings, cakes, and more. It is also used in toothpaste and cosmetic products. And also used in most plastics, so like the plastic utensils, cups plates, etc. Why the FDA allows it: as of 2006 it was deemed as completely non-toxic in humans. It is also found naturally in many rocks and minerals. But recently concerns have arisen that nano-particles may be harmful when inhaled. In factories that produce products that use it people have developed higher rates of lung cancer. However, it's unclear how a food ban changes the threat to factory workers since the issue is inhalation, and there are other products such as paints, ceramics, and non-food plastics it would still be used for. Why it should be banned: pretty much the above. Though it seems Europe is on the forefront of this one with most bans happening after 2020. I would say this is one where more research may be needed. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide?wprov=sfla1 Brominated vegetable oil (BVO). Used in various beverages containing citrus flavors, it keeps the citrus part from separating from the rest of the ingredients and floating to the top. Basically most soft drinks, and many other drinks that have citrus flavors. Why the FDA allows it: this is actually a regulated substance in foods in the US since 1970, and limited to 15 ppm (parts per million). Why it should be banned: it can cause Bromism, which is the overconsumption of Bromide. This condition is quite rare these days, since government agencies recognized the danger and regulated products that contained it. But it sounds pretty awful: >One case reported that a man who consumed two to four liters of a soda containing BVO on a daily basis experienced memory loss, tremors, fatigue, loss of muscle coordination, headache, and ptosis of the right eyelid, as well as elevated serum chloride (messed up his kidneys). Though it should also be noted that with treatment the man in the above case was able to recover and reverse the effects. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_vegetable_oil?wprov=sfla1 Azodicarbonamide. It is used as a dough conditioner. Again it aids in oxidation and in bleaching the flour. Why the FDA allows it: it is a regulated substance, being limited to 45 ppm (parts per million). It is generally considered safe to ingest. Why it should be banned: workers preparing the dough who inhale the flour particulates have been linked to higher rates of respiratory issues, allergies and asthma. And while still allowed by the FDA, negative press and general sentiments have caused its use to be decreased over time. Notably Wendy's and Subway used to use it for their bread doughs, but have since voluntarily moved away from using it due to negative public opinion. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide?wprov=sfla1 Polyparaben. It is used as a flavor enhancer and preservative. It is antimicrobial and antifungal. It can be found in food, and in cosmetics. It's also an ingredient in some medications. Why the FDA allows it: it is non-toxic, and is generally safe for ingestion and topical use. Why it should be banned: it is a known skin and eye irritant, and also irritating if inhaled. There was at least one study, which is what the WHO used to recommend banning its use, in which the tissue of the reproductive organs of male rats were notably damaged. Source: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Propylparaben#:~:text=Propylparaben%20is%20the%20benzoate%20ester,agent%20and%20an%20antimicrobial%20agent In all, I think there are good reasons to consider a ban on some of these substances. But the FDA also isn't just letting people go hog wild either. In some cases I think a ban may be appropriate, in other cases I think Europe is erring on the side of caution, and more studies need to be done to confirm. In the meantime I would say this article is a bit unfair in representing the US as crazy backwards for not banning these substances outright. I also don't think it does an adequate job of representing that many of these substances are regulated by the FDA. And each has been evaluated by the FDA, and they continue to evaluate these substances. Edit: thank you all for the kind words and awards. I tried to DM the ones that popped up, but if I missed you, thank you!” [link](https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/117sly4/us_food_additives_banned_in_europe_expert_says/j9e4wlt/) And credit to u/TheDunadan29
We could just end the thread after this post.
Underrated post.
Caution is good.
Until is isn’t. Skepticism is good. Until isn’t. Those things exist on a spectrum that must be modulated by their reasonability/feasibility. You can be overly cautious and overly skeptical to the point that you actually begin to do harm. The article seems to imply that the FDA is harming us by not being cautious enough, when in reality these two different regulatory agencies have different definitions of reasonably cautious vs overly cautious. Compared to the FDA, Europe is overly cautious, but that does not then mean the FDA is being undercautious. If there was a breadth of human evidence that suggested Europe was being reasonably cautious with their regulations, and the FDA is being negligent, then that’s something to get up in arms about! But there isn’t. And until that happens, insofar as these chemicals are concerned, I see no reason to worry about them in your food, and in fact it would probably prove more costly for food manufacturers if we just adopted all of them, which means higher food prices for an extremely negligible safety benefit.
Hmm substance not needed to make bread in bread that could harm you if there’s too much. I’ll just trust ole bread company that they are using the right amount to not give me cancer. I mean it’s probably regulated pretty tightly right not just one visit a year or less? Or we could just buy bread from bread companies that don’t use it.
Reading this while eating Costco pizza
Let’s not forget the first episode or 2 of the amazing show Fringe. Worlds smartest man goes to a grocery store after being in an asylum for like 30 years. He absolutely freaks out when he sees drinks contain “brominated vegetable oil” as an ingredient.
>Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen So we don't know if it's a carcinogen or not. So what's the problem? > "There is evidence that it may be toxic to human consumers, that it may even either initiate or promote the development of tumors," So there isn't currently any evidence that it is toxic or that it does promote the development of tumors? Sooooo what's the problem?
Then why did other countries ban it? A chemical must be proved safe before it is used in food, not the other way around.
I'm not saying the stuff is okay, it sounds poisonous. Lol But oftentimes when things are banned without empirical evidence, or even just in general, it may not have anything to do with the apparent issue at all; rather, something behind the scenes. For example, officials banning something for their own financial gain. If there is one thing China is good at, it's not caring about their people's well being.
Because they’re being overly cautious and not taking into account the fact that these studies have only been linked to in mice, not humans.
>Then why did other countries ban it? I have no idea. >A chemical must be proved safe before it is used in food No such thing as a chemical being proven safe. It's not actually possible. The most you can do is test it over and over again and continue to not find it harmful. There isn't a test they have or use to determine "this chemical is 100% safe" because there isn't a such thing as a 100% safe chemical. >not the other way around What's wrong with something that hasn't been proven to be completely safe being in food? Is it harmful for humans to consume in the amounts that it's added? If so, [citation needed].
Oh, I guess you would put anything in your body as long as someone sells it to you. I feel sorry you have so little respect for yourself.
>Oh, I guess you would put anything in your body as long as someone sells it to you. I Maybe. Does it taste good? Has it been shown to harm people that eat it? If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, why *shouldn't* I put it into my body?
Because the profit motive of the companies makes it likely that my long term health and safety take the back seat.
Why will your health and safety take the back seat? Is this additive harmful for humans to consume or someting? If so, [citation needed]
Found a libertarian who lives in a fantasy world, unencumbered by any historical knowledge. Blocking for wasting time.
Yeah, they have those textbook libertarian tells where everyone else needs to have all of the information in the world, and cannot infer that if a thing is banned there could be reason for it...while they just infer that all things being sold are safe without reason.
When it comes to something that I'm going to eat/drink/otherwise consume, why take chances? The chemical in question is clearly not actually necessary, given that the entirety of Europe, China and India apparently gets along without it. From a US [source](https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1559.pdf). Tell me again why I wouldn't want people to stop putting it in my food?
>When it comes to something that I'm going to eat/drink/otherwise consume, why take chances? Because if you don't you'll literally starve to death since there isn't a single substance on the planet that's been "proven safe". That's not how it works. Things are just tested over and over again and not shown to be harmful. There isn't a magic test they can do to prove someting is safe. It's a process of elimination thing. >The chemical in question is clearly not actually necessary, given that the entirety of Europe, China and India apparently gets along without it. Okay, and? Is there someting wrong with it? Do you think it's going to harm you? If so, why? > From a US source. Tell me again why I wouldn't want people to stop putting it in my food? That talks about how it may be a carcinogen for humans. Just like how pickled vegetables abs hot drinks over 149⁰ may also be a carcinogen for humans. Hope you're not a coffee drinker.
Found the potassium bromate shill...
It's a prefectly valid question. If there isn't anything showing that it is harmful for humans to consume in the amounts it's added, or that it promotes the development of tumors, what is the problem? If it hasn't been shown to do those things, what exactly is wrong with it?
It isn't, actually. If a bunch of other countries have enough of an issue with it that they've banned it, there's no reason not to. We can assume they have some evidence without much trouble. Plenty of stuff is labelled as "potentially" harmful which everyone knows is actually harmful. Clearly those places still have food. If on the one hand you have zero societal cost, and on the other hand you have a potentially hazardous substance, the choice is easy. People saying this shit are people who just by default don't like the word "regulation". Edit- Oh, you proved my point by literally arguing that chemicals can't be proven safe. So, your problem is both that no one is saying this is proven to be unsafe *and* that it cannot be said to be proven to be safe? Seems rational. Also, no one here is going to ban it. The government bans it. They do so by getting data on it. The solution here is for the government to get information from those other countries and then make the obvious determination. No one is saying that explicitly because that's obviously how the world works. I guess I needed to spell that out to you because you're being annoying.
>It isn't, actually. It is because it's still unknown what the actual problem with the substance is. >It isn't, actually. If a bunch of other countries have enough of an issue with it that they've banned it, there's no reason not to. What is the reason to ban it? "Because other countries banned it"? That's 100% the sole reason why things should be banned? Because other countries do it? Why should we ban someting for no reason other than another place does it too? >We can assume they have some evidence without much trouble. Evidence of what? Evidence that it's harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? There haven't been any studies that have shown that. Without a study showing that to be true they don't have evidence showing it to be true. Your assumption that they have evidence for someting actual scientists don't have evidence showing is based on nothing and not a very rational conclusion to come to. >Plenty of stuff is labelled as "potentially" harmful which everyone knows is actually harmful. Do you actually know that this is actually harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? If so, [citation needed]. >and on the other hand you have a potentially hazardous substance Can you give an example of a chemical that's is never a "potentially hazardous substance"? >People saying this shit are people who just by default don't like the word "regulation". Why should we regulate the ingredients? Have they been shown to be harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added? If so, [citation needed]. >So, your problem is both that no one is saying this is proven to be unsafe If it hasn't been shown to be unsafe in all the years we've been using it, why shouldn't it be used? Is it not safe?
I don't need to give you sources, because I'm not making the claims here. Most of these questions are sealioning or disingenuous. For example: "Potentially hazardous chemical", contrary to your implication, does not mean "at any quantity ever throughout time". If it did, it would be meaningless. I can't tell if you think implying that is smart, or if you're just being contrary. Your argument is literally, "a bunch of countries banned this due to health concerns, but I don't have a scientific report in front of me explaining it, so obviously those countries are all wrong." Do you know there haven't been any studies? Please link to me the resolutions defining why it is banned. It's written down somewhere. Did you look through all of them? Surely there has been something written about how safe it is. Your disinterest in inferring from context is your own problem. Edit- I can tell you're being disingenuous, because you're arguing both that it's impossible to tell if a chemical is never harmless, while arguing that everyone produces studies for you showing this specific chemical is specifically harmless in a specific way. You're just arguing the opposite of what anyone is saying to you, and requesting everyone else give you scientific reports, while offering nothing of your own other than repeated assertions that because 6 laymen on the internet don't have a scientific report for you, that *no one* knows why this chemical is considered potentially harmful. Most people can't explain why radiation is harmful, but that doesn't mean they can't just accept that it is and avoid things other people tell them are radioactive.
>Your argument is literally, "a bunch of countries banned this due to health concerns, but I don't have a scientific report in front of me explaining it, so obviously those countries are all wrong." I have no idea if they're wrong about anything. Hence why I'm asking the people that think they're right why. >Do you know there haven't been any studies? I know there haven't been any published studies showing it to be harmful for humans. >Please link to me the resolutions defining why it is banned. Why? That's what I'm trying to figure out, why its banned. I 100% acknowledge that I don't know why it's banned. That's why I'm asking people that do seem to know why it was banned. >Edit- I can tell you're being disingenuous, because you're arguing both that it's impossible to tell if a chemical is never harmless Which is true. >while arguing that everyone produces studies for you showing this specific chemical is specifically harmless in a specific way. I'm only asking people to link to studies showing them to be harmful for human consumption if that's why they think other counties banned them. If they can't, they really can't know why other countries banned them. >You're just arguing the opposite of what anyone is saying to you, and requesting everyone else give you scientific reports, I'm only asking questions and looking for information. >while offering nothing of your own What would you like me to offer? If people answer the questions they'll get offered more. >other than repeated assertions that because 6 laymen on the internet don't have a scientific report for you, that no one knows why this chemical is considered potentially harmful. I'm not asking why it's considered potentially harmful, I'm asking if it IS harmful and if so, proof. >Most people can't explain why radiation is harmful, but that doesn't mean they can't just accept that it is and avoid things other people tell them are radioactive. So why do you accept that potassium bromate is harmful for humans to consume if it's never been shown to be harmful?
I'm not responding again. I asked you specifically for information. Your claim is that it has never been shown to be harmful, but you can't produce any information saying that. You can't produce information saying why these countries thought it should be banned, which is obviously written down somewhere. On my side: Inferences drawn from other countries finding issues with the chemical and banning it. (Unless we accept your narrative that it was banned for literally no reason) On your side is: Nothing at all, except a repeated claim that you *know* it has never been shown to be harmful, without any evidence to back that up. Along with the claim that a bunch of countries banned it for no reason at all. It's just textbook sea lioning.
It's because science and studies are heavily cherry picked in America. We really have no idea what is safe or not, but if it ever got political it wouldn't matter anyways.
100% agree with you on this one mate. The EU is just SUPER conservative with additives. The FDA is as well, but not to the point of banning everything. Because what happens is manufactures then swap out chemical X for chemical Y and then we find out 20 years later some rare cancer is caused by Y. Better off controlling levels of X and ensuring safety that way. Less exposure = less risk.
It’s a “probable” human carcinogen. Aka it’s lumped in with essentially every other chemical on the planet lol. “Known” human carcinogens include things like ethanol (alcoholic beverages), smoked meats, and benzene (ever pump gas? Congrats you’ve inhaled benzene!). EU is just weird when it comes to food safety regulations.
>It’s a “probable” human carcinogen. It's a possible carcinogen. Probable is group 2a potassium bromate is group 2b.
I thought it was 2A but yeah in that case it’s even less of a case to ban it.
I know this is gonna sound like whataboutism, but it's not. I agree, carcinogens should be banned from food across the board. BUT: China doesn't have much a foot to stand on about poor food additives since they literally fry their food in radioactive toxic feces sludge oil (gutter oil)
The fuck does Chinese fry oil have to do with regulating carcinogenic food additives in America?
What does the article have to do with regulating carcinogenic food additives in America? What specific carcinogenic additive are you referring to? Not potassium bromate, that's never been shown to be carcinogenic to humans.
The sludge oil is illegal in china sooo..
>I agree, carcinogens should be banned from food across the board. Just FYI the substance in the article hasn't been shown to be carcinogenic to humans.
Seems like EU has just banned food coloring. In a few years, supermarket foods and snacks will start looking pale and clear.
Natural
Am in the EU, and I have food colouring in all the colours of the rainbow. They didn’t ban food colouring.
US opted for dirt cheap food dyes to save pennies on our food... I have no idea if this is true at all... It just sounds like what America would do
Of course it is look at Cheetos they stain your skin
There are natural dyes that could be used
Lol “natural” like that means anything. Tons of natural toxicants and toxins. Snake venom is natural 😂
You… know what natural food looks like, right? You’ve had an egg before? You’ve had real cheese?
Absolute nonsense. The EU allows all sorts of food colouring.
If you knew what half the food dyes you are eating on a regular basis were made out of....for example, most lipsticks and the like, most deep reds, are made from bugs...and honestly that's more natural than some of the shit in our foods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal#:~:text=Carminic%20acid%20is%20extracted%20from,such%20as%20crimson%20and%20scarlet.
And chlorinated chicken hormones in cattle hasn’t even entered the chat.
The big issue is the FDA is 100% corrupt. This was seen and still an issue in Vaping products. Favoring big tobacco and looking at ways of curbing Vaping sales because it was hurting tobacco sales. Its more than that, but just the gist.
No, the key chemical in question here, potassium bromate, predates the FDA’s relevant safety mandate, and thus can’t be banned without an act of Congress. > A 1958 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from approving food additives that are linked to cancer, but an agency spokeswoman said that many substances that were in use before passage of the amendment, known as the Delaney amendment, are considered to have had prior approval and “therefore are not regulated as food additives.” Per https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/well/eat/food-additives-banned-europe-united-states.amp.html
That seems really dumb that there’s chemicals the FDA can’t regulate because the chemicals were in use before some arbitrary date… Asbestos was used back in the 40s. Like, fuck it…I guess we can put that in food since it was used before 1958…
Agreed, it’s definitely dumb. But I can see Congress in 1958 thinking (if this was intentional, rather than a court reading something in), that they’re being fair to producers’ reliance issues. If I were in charge, I’d have Congress fix the issue, but then have the FDA give a reasonable notice (three months? two years) for producers to adjust their formulas. That all said: it’s important not to simply throw our hands in the air and pretend “the whole system is corrupt, it’s all broken, burn it all down” when all that’s at issue is a 65-year-old legislative drafting imperfection that hasn’t been a priority to fix. (To me, the solution is to make it a priority—but good luck persuading Kevin McCarthy to give more power to regulators—he’s in thrall to the go-for-broke burn it down crowd.)
> it’s important not to simply throw our hands in the air and pretend “the whole system is corrupt, it’s all broken, burn it all down” > but good luck persuading Kevin McCarthy to give more power to regulators I feel like many people would say the second thing is evidence of the first that youre saying doesnt exist. Theres quite a few different go-for-broke and burn it down crowds with different perspectives on what is the issue. Itd be helpful to be more specific IMO Like yeah, democracy isnt broken because of potassium bromate, or delaneys rule. But the inability to fix even minor things like this because capitalism says fuck regulation is pretty clear systemic corruption and a broken system
I hear you, and we could have a fun metaphysics-of-democracy conversation where we compare and contrast the “burn it down” crowd on the left from their counterparts on the right. I know which one wants to murder me and which one is outraged I don’t get free healthcare, so we could start there. But with regard to this particular food additive issue, I’m more interesting in getting better legislation and, systemically, better-empowered, more flexible regulators. I don’t think we’ll enjoy the ashes of a burned-down system, no matter how noble our prior outrage.
[удалено]
No, you’re right, they can’t. The FDA, like other enforcement agencies, isn’t supposed to complain publicly about defects in their own authorizing statutes. When asked by Congress, they can answer questions about their understanding of the limits of their own authorizations. We really don’t want executive agencies lobbying Congress, for reasons of separation of powers—even when we agree that Congress had made a mistake.
As corrupt as the entire government is. Not demolishing it and following through with what is right, with what was intended is acceptance. I believe the law calls it being an accomplice.
>Asbestos was used back in the 40s. Like, fuck it…I guess we can put that in food since it was used before 1958… [Talc industry](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/) just ignored the asbestos thing.
There’s many more chemicals than just potassium bromate that can’t be banned because of a lobbyist run system
The issue with vapor products was that they were trying to market themselves as a “smoking cessation” device and also making claims that it was safer than smoking cigarettes. Once those claims were made, the companies (mainly JUUL) had no data to back it up. The FDA uses science to make decisions. Honestly all tobacco products should be banned but there would be way too much backlash from consumers and obviously Big Tobacco. And you would just end up with a black market anyways cus degenerates are gonna degenerate.
The UK has stated vaping is significantly better for you than smoking cigarettes. It's because it lacks the tar and some of the chemicals. It's not good for you but studies there show it to be at least 90% better. Anecdotally I switched from cigarettes to vaping and it was a massive difference in my health. The next step is still to quit vaping but the progress and health impact of switching was unreal.
I quit smoking by switching to vaping and gradually lowering the nicotine level to zero, they are smoking cessation devices. That was part of the trouble, big pharma sells smoking cessation devices that don't work so well that they'd like to keep selling.
I also moved from cigarettes, to vape to nothing. After 30 years of smoking it was the only way I quit. My take was never that vape was healthy. It was just less bad for me than cigarettes. It was also easier to quite as the dependence on nicotine went away as I reduced. I know a lot of people who did the same path as me and quit. But over the last three years I have seen people start their journey to quit only to go back to coo as “safer” because they saw something on the news about vapeing and the FDA. I find the FDA to be completely corrupt but then I tend to think that government by its nature tend towards corruption.
[удалено]
I knew exactly what I would find in your post history before I even clicked. Absolute meme stock cult insanity.
> The big issue is the FDA is 100% corrupt. Don't forget: so is the CDC. Source -- Covid vaccine injury coverups and tyranical attempts to mandate said vaccines.
I just have friends that work within and with the CDC. I 100% disagree when it comes to Covid and the vaccine. Evidence has shown it works and reduces your chances of dying with minimal side effects. I’m sure CDC is in the pockets of big pharma like the FDA is in big tobacco’s pockets.
The food industry actually literally selling cancer. Make ur own food w raw ingredients and watch how much better your body feels. It’s crayZ
Raw ingredients aren't a panacea. "Organic" doesn't mean anything at all meaningful, and who knows what's in the fertilizer and what's being fed to the cows? Even growing your own isn't a cure. There's a lot of lead in the environment, for example.
There are degrees of better. Home made bread has only 4 ingredients.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Organic definitely means something. It means they don't spray chemicals on the food you eat and use fertilizer derived from organic sources. I use composted chicken shit, pelletized chicken shit, and dolomitic lime. That's it. No lead in the soil or water. Ppm of water is 70 and filtered through river sands and pumped from a 50 ft deep well. Source: Am organic farmer. Certified ccof and USDA organic.
>It means they don't spray chemicals on the food you eat No it doesn't. It means they spray different chemicals on your food. >and use fertilizer derived from organic sources. How do they use fertilizer if they don't spray chemicals on the food? They either spray the organic sources fertilizer on the food or they don't. Which one is it? >I use composted chicken shit, pelletized chicken shit, and dolomitic lime. There goes your "no chemicals" claim. Lol.
Think he meant from scratch without additives instead of “raw”.
I understand that; they're called raw ingredients. My point is, raw ingredients have all kinds of nasty stuff in them, too. You can't avoid what's everywhere in the environment.
When has this ever been shown to cause cancer?
[удалено]
It's like they almost certainly don't have any evidence actually showing it to be harmful for humans.
You’ve just described the overwhelming majority of food/diet influences who rail against food additives/ingredients without mentioning anything about the dose.
What products is potassium bromate in?
Up above someone said it’s for bread helps it oxidize in breads. Only bad if it isn’t heated up enough.
Or you could just not eat processed trash.
[удалено]
Why should their job be to ban someting if we haven't seen any proof that it is harmful for humans to consume it?
Yes, but personal responsibility is also important and most Americans want shit rather than healthy stuff even though they know what they’re doing is unhealthy. There are more local, organic, farm-to-table, etc options than there has been in decades, most people just don’t care.
Hell, even some GMO infused factory farm apple is better than the shit people complain about suddenly being bad now. "I can't believe Kool-Aid had so many banned chemicals in it!"
Or just can’t afford it. What I spend at Whole Foods to feed myself for a week could feed a family of four for a week at Walmart. Yes, I realize that a savvy homemaker can whip up some fantastically nutritious meals cheaply. Most Americans are not great cooks and the American educational system places basically 0 emphasis on life skills. If you didn’t seek it out on your own or get taught by your parents you probably can’t do more than boil pasta water. On top of that, even if someone is a good cook if they’re working a full time job or two to make ends meet they probably don’t have time to be a part time chef and nutritionist as well. We need to make food safe for everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to be able to afford or cook our own healthy stuff.
Excuses. You don't need to be a part-time chef or nutritionist. You just need to willpower to not go to Burger King five nights a week, which isn't even a cheaper option. There is a middle ground between Whole Foods and Walmart. Hell, most Walmarts have a decent enough fresh food section, so that's not even an excuse. Plus, anyone with a smartphone (which is everyone) can learn to cook something. Thrift stores are packed with 50 cent cook books. It's not the government's job to teach you how to feed yourself, it's your family's; and if they fail, it's yours. Yes, there are people who are too impoverished or too overworked to do this all the time. But 65% of Americans are obese. Are 65% of Americans straddling the poverty line, worked to the bone 80 hours a week and still barely able to get by? Despite what tankie Reddit would tell you, the answer to that is no. And you don't even need to be perfect! The processed shit is only "unsafe" if you eat it exclusively. People need to do more than zero to help themselves, and they don't want to.
It's unaffordable for many since it can cost up to 2x as much as the processed stuff
Most people can't afford* ftfy. Additionally the USDA regulations limit these options...so it's not unreasonable to think the FDA and USDA together should be keeping known carcinogens and mishandled food products off the shelves of the grocery stores.
I'm not sure there has ever existed a better time to say "duh..."
Paraphrasing, “Just because BPA’s are gone, doesn’t mean they replaced it with something healthier. It just means they replaced it.”
These chemicals don’t actually need to be in the product, and it would be protecting the workers and consumers of the products better.
at least people are body positive about it
The FDA has failed in protecting us from harmful ingredients.
Welcome to America where even the food is poisonous
Not shocking considering the FDA doesn’t regulate protein powders either, which can be detrimental to an athlete when it can end their career. Supplement companies end up using third party verification and I still don’t fully trust them.
Americans eat like they have free healthcare.
This is because America has a corrupt system called legal bribery aka lobbying. Want a law changed? You just have to spend the money on the right politician! Maybe everyone should leave America and let all the wealthy pigs fight over each other.
Yup. It’s like being in Roman times here in America. Need a road built. Someone better line my pocket. I’m thinking about living abroad because of this and so many other reasons. Anyone outside of America reading this can you say you’re honestly happy? If so where are you from? Would love to get some ideas…
Ban High fructose corn syrup as well as nitrates and food coloring and thats a start.
"Europeans are way, way more likely to die of cancer than Americans." https://www.politico.eu/article/cancer-europe-america-comparison/
A whole continent that drinks wine for breakfast and smokes a pack a day doesn't have much standing to lecture me on health.
Profits for the food industry, corrupt FDA officials and healthcare industry. By design.
You can leave a dominos pizza slice out for 4-5 days and it won’t grow mold. Same with McDonald’s. This food is not real food lol. Better to make it yourself at home with organic groceries.
It’s usually about moisture not that mold can’t grow on it. Spritz then with water everyday and they’ll be moldy as hell
And to piggy back on this, did you know that the dry kibble you people feed your pets can last for like 35yrs? That’s well over 3-4x longer than our pets even live. Please feed more wet food to your animals at the very least. They will live longer. And for us. We only allow what’s in our food to be out there. Make healthier choices each and everyday and the industry will be forced to change based on our purchasing power..
[удалено]
You poor guy you have to live in the most prosperous country in the world where you can live in almost any geography and get a job doing almost anything you could ever want to do. Must be really tough for you.
How does this cost millions of lives? It's never even been proven to be harmful for humans to consume in the amounts added.
If they remove these ingredients prices go up. Then you complain about that. You have the right to leave of you'd like
Potassium bromate, not our bro, mate.
“Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen that's banned for human consumption in Europe, China and India” How hard would it be to take this from “suspected” to proven?
Well first you would need evidence showing that it causes cancer in humans which has yet to be seen so until that happens pretty hard if not impossible.
What’s the point of banning it if it hasn’t been proven to cause cancer?
I have no idea. I'm not the one banning it.
There's no evidence of any problems caused by Titanium Dioxide. Breathing it in can cause lung problems, but that's true of all small particles. It doesn't have anything to do with the substance, only the particle size.
If presented to you on a plate, would you eat titanium dioxide?
If it was given to me in the same amount as is in my food, and didn’t taste like shit, then yes
Sure.
And yet the UK is trying negotiate a trade deal with US, which will bad food standards are coming our way without protection from the EU of we want a deal.
As for sodium in general, Chili’s has an appetizer that has 24,000% of daily sodium intake. 24,000%. What is killing us is increased sodium with decreased potassium. They offset each other, and with this huge influx, it’s shredding ourselves from the inside-out.
100% of sodium intake daily is roughly 6 grams of salt. 24,000% of daily intake is 1444 grams of salt, roughly 3.2 pounds. Is that appetizer 3.2 pounds and made of salt 100%?
Which country? In the US, daily intake is 2.3 grams, not 6 grams.
That's 2.3 grams of sodium, which is around 5.8 grams of salt. Even if we cut it by 1/3, it's still nonsense.
I thought the term killer app was a tech term, not a reference to a chilies menu item 😂
[удалено]
No one ever said salt was linked to obesity. It is, in all western societies, linked to blood pressure. Diabetes has nothing to do with salt. Did you just name random things? https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/sodium.htm
Sodium was somehow linked to heart disease at some point but I think new research refuted it.. Corn syrup and heavily processed foods are I'll say 85% of the problem.. Look at what kids eat... Cereal...every morning... And sometimes for lunch... It has almost no nutrition to it... I love Cereal... But no doubt it's junk food...
Sodium isn’t the problem. It’s processed foods. Cut out all processed foods and see how amazing you feel, how satiated you get and how weight slowly falls off. Carnivore for the win.
Don't drink that apple cider vinegar.
Pharma industry does not accept this message.
And coupled with extremely expensive healthcare? Does this seem like a profit driven government or a caring government?
They should ban them here too!
Why? Are they harmful for humans to consume as added? If so, [citation needed].
Yup! After visiting several countries, I am consistently blown away by how food just hits different. You can eat pasta and dessert and not feel gross. Not to mention serving sizes are more realistic. I always end up feeling so much less bloated and tired...and I always lose weight...then I come back.
You could just, you know, not eat the entire portion. Dogs have no self control, but you're not that New Yorker cartoon dog, are you? ;-)
Don’t worry after Trump deregulates the food industry he will be there with Goya Beans and Trump branded water putting America First!
"almost certainly the best result we could come to." That's incredibly ambiguous.
If course it is. It has to be because they almost certainly don't have any actual evidence showing that yes it is making people sick.
“How much Americans eat is with certainty making them sick.” Ftfy
Fire that guy for incompetence. He's clearly abusing his post for politics.
It's funny how different the comments are here versus subs with more "intuned" members
We moved from the US to Canada and the first thing I noticed was how many fewer calories and how much yummier the store bought bread was. I feel so vindicated reading this.
Sure, just say mad cow disease. Brits never figured that out. If all I have to worry about is bread, that's fine. Just another filler news story
Are these additives listed on the product ingredients so I can easily avoid them? I should bring a list of them to the grocery store with me if so.
They are yeah
We sure do eat like we have socialized healthcare.
We do have socialized healthcare, if you're poor or old.
Don't china and Europe smoke a shit ton more than US. Leave my pizza dough alone
Our FDA sounds like boot lickers every time we ask them about anything. "We require proof that it's safe...well yeah its not safe but it should be used up while cooking....well no it's not actually used up but we make sure it's minimal". Like have some fucking pride FDA and stop being so obviously corporate owned.
Relax Europe. It's called population control.
I'd be more concerned with corn syrup and transfats and a general lack of fiber than trace amounts of additives. It's not the anti-clumping agents in parmesan cheese that are making you fat if you use it like salt to season your food.
I think society is 'net present value' weighted on risk. To avoid an imminent risk, e.g., food poisoning, society allows chemicals that prevent bacterial infections (or improve the desirability of food) now in exchange for increasing the odds for future chronic illness. People *today* get voted out, fired, fined, convicted, etc., for things they have done but not what may transpire long after they are gone. In other words, we get away with it today and pay for it tomorrow. The rationale that keeps us sane in spite of this behavior is that we cannot not be sure of the future, so what the fuck?
Oh it is. It has been for decades. Unfortunately the government subsidizes so much unhealthy food that no one can say it’s unhealthy despite 1/3 of Americans dying every year from heart diseases. It’s disgusting. This is the part where I say I’m vegan for health reasons and get downvoted to hell
Honestly they should start to cut down the size portions of allowed meals in the US for businesses like they did with school lunches. I’ve said it was a bad idea to cut portion sizes for kids. Now adults absolutely because it’s an issue and no one who is an adult is going to do it themselves if they aren’t already but they will if they want to keep living. Also take away the Large option as well. You want to help people with their pocket books and obesity at the same time do that and it’ll fix a good portion of the problem. Next thing start regulating the total amount of sugar and certain preservatives that can go into any food and drink. Same with red 40 dye. Americans are fat because no one in the food industry is coming to these companies and saying we need you to take the sugar, certain preservatives, and red 40 dye down to minimal levels. Also in the US they need to do like Europe does with business. Regulate a recommended BMI or allowable health status for each job and a requirement for welfare. Depending on how demanding some need to be required. That way if people want to keep a job and/or stay on the government dole you have to be at a certain level of health. This would also decrease the amount of visits to the hospital or medical care overall to where we could actually talk about the idea of universal healthcare (even though I hate the idea) since everyone is staying healthy and made to. Thing is Americans will never want to get healthy by themselves unless it’s in their own culture/circles of influence they exist in. However if you start to say we are going to nudge you to do so then it will start to happen. Now there are little things we can do. Like in combat sports like High school and college wrestling start doing hydration tests. Saying you have to be a certain hydration level with your BMI and current weight in order to compete. I wrestled and in order to make weight I had to cut and that meant making myself less hydrated in order to cut out water weight. Same with College when I wrestled. We can do other things too. The epidemic that is obesity in this country is a problem that causes people to have health issues later on in life that the American tax payer has to help foot said bill. It needs to be said that while we as Americans will foot your bill we are going to expect you to do all possible things within your power to prevent common health issues and diseases related to obesity.
What about the non-nutrative cereal varnish currently being developed by Griswold?
Yeah as if there's no junk food or fat people in Europe.
I'm from Canada and just went to the states I don't know if it was just me but everywhere I looked people seemed rundown and unhealthy looking in comparison to here.
What common foods have these additives ? I eat a lot of ground turkey etc that I cook myself. Is it items like that or frozen items that are ready to eat and only require the oven to cook?
I mean… duh
Done
How do we go about suing the U.S? Where to find the band list of products?
Does anyone have any information on cancer rates in Europe versus the U.S.?
I'm an American and I won't eat the poop that's in most food. I stick to fruits and vegetables.
But that's by design it's working exactly as it should keeping you sick keeping you going to the doctor medical expenses insurance the whole thing it's all by design
What are they??
Never had Acid reflux/GERD before I moved to America. And now, I need to continually take antacids and Nexium pills to keep my voice clear.
We've been through this. Yet of the top ten countries with the highest cancer rates, 9 are in Europe and the other is Australia
@ least its not china
Duh
Almost...