Kennedy Moves to Eliminate Petroleum-Based Food Dyes from American Diet

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Thai food is healthier because the meals are not super-sized.

 

As for 7/11, nothing wrong with their Caesar salads.

well the bad oil usually reused, sugar and salt are pretty bad in Thailand. 7/11 in the USA has been offering better options the past few years. Okay in Thailand they have a Caesar these days... 

 

On the bottom end of things both foods are nasty. However I would say it is easier to eat more healthy in the USA as it has just way more choices. I dunno we are comparing a slice of pizza and a Mountain Dew to a mama noodles and M-150 here. 

[candide]

40 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

In a number of visits to America, I never ceased to be astounded by the quantity of food heaped onto plates in restaurants. Not a square inch was left uncovered. Roast beef the size of a loaf of bread, starters which were a meal in themselves.

 

The problem with fast food is its quantity of carbohydrates and sugar. Cut out those components from the diet and people will lose weight fast.

 

Our ancestry is hunters and fishermen. We only started getting fat when we began growing crops.

 

It is a myth fat is bad for you. I eat as much cheese as I want, which is 40% fat.

 

I lost 13 kg by banning potatoes, rice, carrots, sugar, and processed carbohydrate from my diet. I eat bamboo, broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage. My BMI is normal.

 

QED.

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Don't you lack energy?

Actually, banning carbohydrate completely is not recommended  as the body needs energy. The ideal meal composition is 1/4 carbohydrate, 1/4 protein, and 1/2 vegetables (excluding beans  etc which are rather carbohydrate). For older people losing muscles, a higher proportion of protein may be better.

 

The type of carbohydrate matters much. White rice, white bread, etc.. are digested quickly, creating a surge of glucides which may be transformed into fat. Brown rice, brown bread, pasta, etc.. are digested more slowly, so they don't create a surge of glucides. For the same reason, they also provide energy during a longer period of time.

 

In order to avoid a surge of glucides, it's also better not to eat carbohydrate at the beginning of the meal, rather in the middle or at the end.

 

As concerns sugar, most people ignore that fructose is worst than zaccharose (for the same reason). In particular, avoid smoothies. The liver cannot deal with such a large shot of fructose and transforms it into fat.

[Harrisfan]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Actually, banning carbohydrate completely is not recommended  as the body needs energy. The ideal meal composition is 1/4 carbohydrate, 1/4 protein, and 1/2 vegetables (excluding beans  etc which are rather carbohydrate). For older people losing muscles, a higher proportion of protein may be better.

 

The type of carbohydrate matters much. White rice, white bread, etc.. are digested quickly, creating a surge of glucides which may be transformed into fat. Brown rice, brown bread, pasta, etc.. are digested more slowly, so they don't create a surge of glucides. For the same reason, they also provide energy during a longer period of time.

 

In order to avoid a surge of glucides, it's also better not to eat carbohydrate at the beginning of the meal, rather in the middle or at the end.

 

As concerns sugar, most people ignore that fructose is worst than zaccharose (for the same reason). In particular, avoid smoothies. The liver cannot deal with such a large shot of fructose and transforms it into fat.

Veges are mostly carbs. You left off fat.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, candide said:

 

Actually, banning carbohydrate completely is not recommended  as the body needs energy. The ideal meal composition is 1/4 carbohydrate, 1/4 protein, and 1/2 vegetables (excluding beans  etc which are rather carbohydrate). For older people losing muscles, a higher proportion of protein may be better.

 

The type of carbohydrate matters much. White rice, white bread, etc.. are digested quickly, creating a surge of glucides which may be transformed into fat. Brown rice, brown bread, pasta, etc.. are digested more slowly, so they don't create a surge of glucides. For the same reason, they also provide energy during a longer period of time.

 

In order to avoid a surge of glucides, it's also better not to eat carbohydrate at the beginning of the meal, rather in the middle or at the end.

 

As concerns sugar, most people ignore that fructose is worst than zaccharose (for the same reason). In particular, avoid smoothies. The liver cannot deal with such a large shot of fructose and transforms it into fat.

It's a common misconception carbohydrates are needed for energy. Fat provides twice the energy sugar and carbohydrates do.

 

Sugar provides rapid energy, hence the term sugar hit. OTOH, fat provides long-term sustained energy.

 

Deprive the body of readily metabolized sugar and carbohydrate, it turns to burning fat instead. With exercise, that means weight loss. Unless excess protein is used to bulk up muscle mass.

[jas007]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

In a number of visits to America, I never ceased to be astounded by the quantity of food heaped onto plates in restaurants. Not a square inch was left uncovered. Roast beef the size of a loaf of bread, starters which were a meal in themselves.

 

The problem with fast food is its quantity of carbohydrates and sugar. Cut out those components from the diet and people will lose weight fast.

 

Our ancestry is hunters and fishermen. We only started getting fat when we began growing crops.

 

It is a myth fat is bad for you. I eat as much cheese as I want, which is 40% fat.

 

I lost 13 kg by banning potatoes, rice, carrots, sugar, and processed carbohydrate from my diet. I eat bamboo, broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage. My BMI is normal.

 

QED.

 

 

Food Inc. is big business in America.  They make lots of money feeding Americans junk and destroying their health in the process. 

 

Sugar, high fructose corn syrup, processed and ultra-processed foods, seed oils, chemicals, preservatives. It's almost criminal. And to add insult to injury, the entire industry is supported by big government by way of food stamps or whatever they're called these days (cards given to people on welfare to buy food).  So, there's a lot of money at stake in maintaining the status quo. 

 

I try to eat healthy most of the time, but it's truly difficult, especially in America, to find food that's both safe to eat and healthy.  

 

In Europe, they say it's much easier to eat right.  Real food with real ingredients, only.  The junk they sell to people in America wouldn't be allowed. 

 

 

[MicroB]

The problem is some of these dyes were already on the list to be phased out. Of the rest, the clinical data is mixed about harm. On the otherhand, advocates say these  colorants are of no benefit to consumer, so the barrier to banning them (evidence) should be lower than for other additives.

 

But the problem is the rhetoric. The Health Secretary is exagerrating the importance of these dyes in the health of children, while ignoring others which have much stronger evidence (sugar, HFCS). But the latter has much stronger defenders from industry (farmers). There is extremely strong evidence  about nitrites, but that will see Americans deprived of cheap crispy bacon, salamis, slim jims and jerky. Will he ban bacon and pizza? No.

 

The danger is the ban is enacted and then interest in food quality falls away, and a Health Secretary announces he has fixed autism etc, based on some nonsense, and switch his focus to vaccines, fluoride etc.

 

Safety of food will worsen due to cuts at the FDA and HHS that he has overseen. Banning the dyes is easy, but will be a smokescreen to the real harm in health that is likely to occur. Banning dyes sounds like fantastic news to the Little People.

[Watawattana]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

"What makes junk food addictive?

Junk food addiction stems from how these foods are engineered to be hard to resist. Manufacturers use various food science tricks to ensure you keep coming back for more. Let's explore some of these concepts that contribute to junk food addiction:

Dynamic contrast

Vanishing calorie density

Sensory specific satiety (SSS)

Evoked qualities

Energy density theory

Post-ingestional conditioning

Salivary response

Super normal stimulus

Casomorphins

High glycemic starch

https://www.nutriadvanced.co.uk/news/the-science-of-junk-food-addiction-how-the-companies-keep-us-lovin-it/

 

I'm not about to disagree with anything you've said, I still think, however, that people can make choices, and not eat such food, and to reduce their calorific indicate whilst increasing their calorific output.  Governments can help by banning or putting taxes/tariffs on such foods; the list you made is excellent.  So, well done RFK for making a start, and thanks for your input.

 

For fuller disclosure, I'm 95kg (210lbs), 6' 3" (1.91m), BMI = 26.  Meaning I'm overweight (just).  Reason?  Too many beer calories in, not enough exercise calories out.  The usual signals of too much beer are not present (liver/ blood sugar etc.), so my answer is more calorific output (I like beer more than I like sitting on my ass).  I won't use a taxi to get me 1/2 a mile down the road, I won't use a moving walkway to get me up to a gym & I will walk to a bar that's 2 miles away rather than 1/2 a mile (I'll be walking past about 25 bars to get there...).  I will continue to not eat 💩 food.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

I'm not about to disagree with anything you've said, I still think, however, that people can make choices, and not eat such food, and to reduce their calorific indicate whilst increasing their calorific output.  Governments can help by banning or putting taxes/tariffs on such foods; the list you made is excellent.  So, well done RFK for making a start, and thanks for your input.

 

For fuller disclosure, I'm 95kg (210lbs), 6' 3" (1.91m), BMI = 26.  Meaning I'm overweight (just).  Reason?  Too many beer calories in, not enough exercise calories out.  The usual signals of too much beer are not present (liver/ blood sugar etc.), so my answer is more calorific output (I like beer more than I like sitting on my ass).  I won't use a taxi to get me 1/2 a mile down the road, I won't use a moving walkway to get me up to a gym & I will walk to a bar that's 2 miles away rather than 1/2 a mile (I'll be walking past about 25 bars to get there...).  I will continue to not eat 💩 food.

But, thanks to science, it's a lot more difficult to give up.