3 ms·

Half of RFK’s platform is insane. The other half makes sense. He claimed he’d focus on the reasonable half (like banning ultra processed foods). I’m hoping t

by hedora 2y ago

Half of RFK’s platform is insane. The other half makes sense. He claimed he’d focus on the reasonable half (like banning ultra processed foods). I’m hoping that’s true. However, vaccinating the chickens creates a huge trade barrier (because you cannot sell vaccinated poultry products in most places), so this could just be another example of Trump’s isolationist trade policies. I guess we can hope they did this to improve public health, but I suspect it’s more of “a stopped clock is right twice a day” situation.

logicchains 2y ago
[flagged]
- sumeno 2y ago
  This website is trying to confuse people into thinking it is the Journal of Public Health Policy, an actual reputable source. It's just more antivax horseshit
- sepositus 2y ago
  Yeah, I've struggled to understand this, especially since it seems the belief goes hand-in-hand with a hatred of late-stage capitalism. How are people reconciling this? It's clear these companies continue to lobby to make money hand over fist with hardly no interest in the safety or health of their consumers.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > It's clear these companies continue to lobby to make money hand over fist Antivaxxers are a supplements-industry bonanza.
    - sepositus 2y ago
      Why did you change the subject?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Why did you change the subject? I didn’t. You cited pharmaceutical profit motive as a reason to suspect vaccines. I’m pointing out that there is a similar motivation in pushing antivax material. The unregulated industry ruthlessly exploiting the masses is more one than the other.
        sepositus 2y ago
        But that wasn't my point? You picked a sentence and then went on a tangent. My point is that people seem to be somehow holding the competing views I mentioned without any issue. I agree the supplement industry is a massive grift. It seems you assumed I didn't think that? Either way, you did change the subject, and I still have no idea why, other than to just put up a talking point.
        hedora 2y ago
        The flagged comment implied thinking vaccines work is a religious belief. It’s not. Instead it’s based in observable evidence. I’m reasonably sure quantum mechanics, relativity and chemistry work because my cell phone relies on them, and there are reproducible scientific experiments that test those theories. The same is true of vaccines. If we were well into Trump’s 25th term in office, and no other living being had seen a cell phone turn on, but some underground cult worshipped broken iPhones, then you could argue they had a religious belief in things like relativity and quantum mechanics. That’s not the world we live in. Hell, Mitch McConnell is apparently old enough to remember that Polio vaccines work. (Which is why they let him vote against RFK.)
        sepositus 2y ago
        > What insane is how people on the left have recently developed an almost religious level of faith in statements about pharmaceutical safety from media corporations for whom pharmaceutical companies represent the largest source of advertising income I don't agree with the OP's partisan take on the issue, but nowhere was it said that it takes religious belief to think that vaccines work.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
brokensegue 2y ago
Banning ultra processed food is unhinged. The conventional definition of UPF isn't coherent.
- hedora 2y ago
  I agree legislative work to precisely define UPF is needed. However, scientists have repeatedly shown that they cause a statistically significant increase in all cause mortality. If you take the random word generator that is RFK’s mouth, then filter it with reproducible scientific studies, the result is probably actually better than what previous political appointees have produced. I’ve already expressed skepticism about the second step, where science is involved. Still, I can hope.
  - brokensegue 2y ago
    there is not evidence that it is the "processing" of the UPF that is the problem. so any attempt to ban UPF is doomed.
    - hedora 2y ago
      https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476 https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25804833/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25804833/ ^—- Conclusions: The consumption of ultra-processed products (i.e. foods with low nutritional value but high energy density) has increased dramatically in Sweden since 1960, which mirrors the increased prevalence of obesity. Future research should clarify the potential causal role of ultra-processed products in weight gain and obesity. So, the last one has a quantitative definition that could be used for a preliminary ban. Also, all those articles link many more. One click deep will provide a dozen concurring studies. I didn’t feel like adding more links.
      - brokensegue 2y ago
        "foods with low nutritional value but high energy density" is not the definition of UPFs that I've seen most often. The definition I most see is the NOVA classification. NOVA doesn't require a UPF food to be of low nutritional value or high energy density. Also the GOP opposed mere taxes on sugary drinks but now they want to ban UPFs? I don't believe it.

by hedora 2y ago

logicchains 2y ago

[flagged]

sumeno 2y ago
This website is trying to confuse people into thinking it is the Journal of Public Health Policy, an actual reputable source. It's just more antivax horseshit
sepositus 2y ago
Yeah, I've struggled to understand this, especially since it seems the belief goes hand-in-hand with a hatred of late-stage capitalism. How are people reconciling this? It's clear these companies continue to lobby to make money hand over fist with hardly no interest in the safety or health of their consumers.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > It's clear these companies continue to lobby to make money hand over fist Antivaxxers are a supplements-industry bonanza.
  - sepositus 2y ago
    Why did you change the subject?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Why did you change the subject? I didn’t. You cited pharmaceutical profit motive as a reason to suspect vaccines. I’m pointing out that there is a similar motivation in pushing antivax material. The unregulated industry ruthlessly exploiting the masses is more one than the other.
      - sepositus 2y ago
        But that wasn't my point? You picked a sentence and then went on a tangent. My point is that people seem to be somehow holding the competing views I mentioned without any issue. I agree the supplement industry is a massive grift. It seems you assumed I didn't think that? Either way, you did change the subject, and I still have no idea why, other than to just put up a talking point.
        hedora 2y ago
        The flagged comment implied thinking vaccines work is a religious belief. It’s not. Instead it’s based in observable evidence. I’m reasonably sure quantum mechanics, relativity and chemistry work because my cell phone relies on them, and there are reproducible scientific experiments that test those theories. The same is true of vaccines. If we were well into Trump’s 25th term in office, and no other living being had seen a cell phone turn on, but some underground cult worshipped broken iPhones, then you could argue they had a religious belief in things like relativity and quantum mechanics. That’s not the world we live in. Hell, Mitch McConnell is apparently old enough to remember that Polio vaccines work. (Which is why they let him vote against RFK.)
        sepositus 2y ago
        > What insane is how people on the left have recently developed an almost religious level of faith in statements about pharmaceutical safety from media corporations for whom pharmaceutical companies represent the largest source of advertising income I don't agree with the OP's partisan take on the issue, but nowhere was it said that it takes religious belief to think that vaccines work.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

brokensegue 2y ago

Banning ultra processed food is unhinged. The conventional definition of UPF isn't coherent.

hedora 2y ago
I agree legislative work to precisely define UPF is needed. However, scientists have repeatedly shown that they cause a statistically significant increase in all cause mortality. If you take the random word generator that is RFK’s mouth, then filter it with reproducible scientific studies, the result is probably actually better than what previous political appointees have produced. I’ve already expressed skepticism about the second step, where science is involved. Still, I can hope.
- brokensegue 2y ago
  there is not evidence that it is the "processing" of the UPF that is the problem. so any attempt to ban UPF is doomed.
  - hedora 2y ago
    https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476 https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25804833/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25804833/ ^—- Conclusions: The consumption of ultra-processed products (i.e. foods with low nutritional value but high energy density) has increased dramatically in Sweden since 1960, which mirrors the increased prevalence of obesity. Future research should clarify the potential causal role of ultra-processed products in weight gain and obesity. So, the last one has a quantitative definition that could be used for a preliminary ban. Also, all those articles link many more. One click deep will provide a dozen concurring studies. I didn’t feel like adding more links.
    - brokensegue 2y ago
      "foods with low nutritional value but high energy density" is not the definition of UPFs that I've seen most often. The definition I most see is the NOVA classification. NOVA doesn't require a UPF food to be of low nutritional value or high energy density. Also the GOP opposed mere taxes on sugary drinks but now they want to ban UPFs? I don't believe it.