3 ms·
Based on about as much hard evidence as the anti-vaxxers have.
by damnitbuilds 2y ago
Based on about as much hard evidence as the anti-vaxxers have.
- tossit444 2y ago> To identify which ultra-processed foods should be eliminated from school offerings, scientists will consider whether a product includes additives that are banned elsewhere, whether it has been linked to health harms, whether it has been show to contribute to food addiction, and whether it contains excessive fat, sugar or salt, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, said on the call. Should make it a rule for people to read the post instead of merely the title.
- damnitbuilds 2y agoWhat hard evidence will they use to decide if foods "Contribute to food addiction"? How can food have "excessive fat, sugar or salt" if it is the only fatty/sugary/salty food someone eats? Why should being banned elsewhere be a reason to ban it in California? Surely being proven harmful should be the bar? Should make it a rule for people to comprehend the post and think about its implications instead of merely reading it.
- sp3000 2y agoAh yes, we should wait for irrefutable proof to determine whether nutrient-dense real foods are better for our children than the ubiquitous ultra-processed food made up of ingredients that are entirely foreign to the human body. Over 50% of American kids are dealing with chronic illness. The food supply is the #1 culprit.
- damnitbuilds 2y agoSo you only eat ingredients that are not foreign to the human body? Is this the first post here by a cannibal?