737
FDA wants to cut sodium in packaged and processed foods by about 20%
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
737 points (99.5% liked)
News
23287 readers
3885 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
yea, the whole "everything is bad for you if you do enough of it to kill yourself!" is a pretty common response. and yes, that's true. there IS a threshold for everything. one cigarette won't kill you either.
Interesting. The fearmongers at school told us it could.
Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.
Sugar is arguably good for you in moderation. We evolved to seek out sugar in the form of fruits, berries, etc. Quick energy, fast acting carbohydrates etc.
Can't think of how this translates to a single cigarette lol.
"In moderation" being the key part. As in, not selling drinks and snacks that are like 30% sugar
Agree 100%. And arguably "in moderation" is much lower than people might want it to be. Plus most of this stuff is processed with high fructose corn syrup trash.
HFCS is literally just liquid sugar.
HFCS isn't even just one product. There are different blends that are all HFCS. At the extreme, HFCS-90, is far FAR different than table sugar. HFCS-55 is close to table sugar (which would be numbered "50" if table sugar used that same numbering scheme), and there's HFCS-42 which is farther away from table sugar.
The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) have been successful in rebranding HFCS under a bunch of different names so you don't know it anymore. Current labeling has HFCS-90 (the worst kind) simply called "Fructose" on ingredient labels now. source
source2 which is a bit more sketchy to me
edit: corrected first source link
TIL thanks but source one is just a betting website ad from the link.
Thanks for replying, update with archive.org link
On the flip side, those snacks and drinks are ideal for athletes.
I wouldn't want to stop having those foods available, simply because the majority of the population are idiots when it comes to fueling their bodies.
People need to have some self control, ffs.
We evolved to seek out sugar because it is energy dense in a time when food wasn't plentiful
Today we have more food than we know what to do with
why not? if you're going by "too much of anything is bad for you," then doesn't it follow that "NOT too much of anything isn't necessarily bad for you"?
so yea, one soda won't kill you = true. also one cigarette won't kill you = true.
what i'm getting at is that your "argument" isn't one
The human body doesn't need nicotine to survive
The human body also doesn't need added sugars to survive.
But it does need sugar to survive. Comparing sugar to cigarettes is kinda dumb. But you keep making whatever false equivalencies support your argument, boo.
You absolutely do not need to consume any sugar to survive.
What little sugar you do need (an absolutely tiny amount) your body can easily make itself.
The person you're replying to is clearly uninformed but I do want to let you know that like most things involving the human body, this isn't a one-size-fits-all problem. I did keto but I have nondiabetic hypoglycemia, which is how I got an A1C of 3.9, and how I found out how dangerous that is and that I do actually require some (preferably complex) carbohydrates every day.
I understand nondiabetic hypoglycemia is pretty rare so I still support you fighting misinformation (and especially that no one requires added sugars, which should, by now, just be common sense) but I did want to throw this out there, that folks should absolutely seek a doctor before going all in on a zero sugar diet.
Lol I'm not uninformed. Arguing that the human body doesn't need sugars is a braindead take, but ok.
Yes, sugar is needed to survive, but a normal diet with little processed foods will supply more than enough. OP is talking about added sugars which are known to increase risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, etc.
I agree that the comparison is dumb. Regardless, I think a better way to frame your previous statement is nicotine is a known carcinogen while glucose itself is not. Thanks for the snark lol not everything is confrontational. Ease up on your quills, hedgehog.
i never said it did, nor did i imply that it's good for you
Comparing cigarettes to nicotine is a bad analogy. The body needs sugar (albeit a small amount) to survive. Cigarettes contain nothing the body needs.
the body needs glucose which is A sugar. but "sugar" in the context of the conversation is referring to refined sugar, which the body absolutely doesn't need, and when it contains fructose (as in sucrose or HFCS, by far the most consumed sugars), then sorry, it's not good
Nicotine helps with neural degeneration and things like dementia and alzheimers.
Processed sugar is arguably never good for you, even in moderation.
I think you’re conflating natural occurring sugars to manmade sugars.
The natural sugars in fruits is okay. Adding 75-80% of the daily value of man made added sugars to ONE drink are what we are talking about.