4 ms·

I think the scientific community has done just fine. When these individual substances are tested they're by and large not found to have negative health effects.

I think the scientific community has done just fine. When these individual substances are tested they're by and large not found to have negative health effects. Then the loonies just refuse to believe it and thing the chemicals are making their kids gay. The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. We have a relatively clear idea of what constitutes "well balanced". You can quibble about the specifics but this bill is fundamentally off on a crazy unscientific tangents. There are just three lines that actually address nutrition: (i) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from saturated fat. (ii) The food or beverage contains a ratio of milligrams of sodium to calories that is equal to or greater than 1:1. (iii) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from added sugars. Instead of paragraphs of banning the "scary chemicals", why not work on making sure kids get the vitamins, vegetables and fiber they need in each meal. I'm not a nutritionist, but there are some basics that are braindead simple that don't involve banning Sucralose.

chithanh 1y ago
> (i) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from saturated fat. Interestingly, dairy products like butter are explicitly allowed, despite the fact that 50%+ of its fats are saturated > I'm not a nutritionist, but there are some basics that are braindead simple that don't involve banning Sucralose. I'm in favor of banning artificial sweeteners. Just look at why they are used in animal farming to see why it is a bad idea to randomly add them to human food.
- KempyKolibri 1y ago
  As I wrote elsewhere: If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases. We can say "just don't consume either" but we have decades of attempting such policies that shows people don't work that way. Someone who wants to drink a can of coke will drink a can of coke, why would we ban the healthier option?
  - chithanh 1y ago
    The evidence actually suggests that soft drink consumption is equally associated with higher all-cause mortality and artificially sweetened is every bit as bad as sugar sweetened. Even when controlling for smoking status, BMI, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478 It was suggested elsewhere that the primary mechanism for soft drink associated mortality is acidic fluids causing tooth decay, which in turn causes cardiovascular disease. (Bacteria entering the bloodstream through inflamed oral mucosa, and forming plaques along arterial walls.) And the evidence for artificial sweetener benefits on population level is practically non-existent. In fact animal farming points to a detrimental effect.
    - KempyKolibri 1y ago
      You have to be very specific in the intervention you’re either looking at in an RCT or modelling in a prospective cohort study. We wouldn’t expect adding NNSs to a diet to improve much (perhaps some benefit from carbonated ones on body mass). We need to investigate/model replacement of SSBs with NNSs. When we do that we pretty consistently see benefits. Good overview as a response to the WHO position paper here that goes over that evidence base: https://mailchi.mp/b30c80ddf8ba/who-as https://mailchi.mp/b30c80ddf8ba/who-as
      - chithanh 1y ago
        Yes, replacement can work to adjust weight trends in a controlled setting. But all empirical observations so far show that artificial sweeteners in people's diets do not have the desired effect when people's food and beverage intake is uncontrolled. In fact results from animal studies are that you can even substitute part of the feed with just the artificial sweetener to achieve the same body mass gain. And this is known since 1960s with Cyclamate and rats: https://doi.org/10.1038/221091b0 https://doi.org/10.1038/221091b0 More studies in the meantime varied a bit on the size of the effect, and some were inconclusive, but generally the results held up. So no, artificial sweeteners do not help to manage weight. What the studies actually show is that controlling people's intake does.
- contrarian1234 1y ago
  The fact that you want to ban everything under the umbrella term of "artificial sweeteners" is why I think you have a fundamentally unscientific approach. Your other responses seem to suggest you just have something against sweet things (even when you seem to acknowledge there are other factors at play like acidity and tooth decay) I'm saying this as someone who rarely consumes these things.. > Just look at why they are used in animal farming I don't know anything about the science behind that - so I'm not in a position to judge. Did they try every possible "artificial sweeteners"? How about if there is another one discovered next year? Is it going to be pre-banned even if it doesn't have these drawbacks? These aren't like the same substance tweaked a bit where you're in a endless ratrace with the chemists.
  - chithanh 1y ago
    > Your other responses seem to suggest you just have something against sweet things (even when you seem to acknowledge there are other factors at play like acidity and tooth decay) We are talking about school lunches here. Sweet meals are bad (whether sugar or artificially sweetened) as it trains children's palate and shapes lifelong preference for sweet food. Hence I support banning artificial sweeteners as California plans to do. When it comes to sweetened drinks, switching from sugary to artificially sweetened is not empirically shown as beneficial. This is the hurdle that proponents of public health interventions to replace sugar with aritificial sweeteners need to overcome. > Did they try every possible "artificial sweeteners"? The study which I linked in another reply looked at various commercially available artificial sweeteners and some combinations. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14203032 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14203032 This is necessary because not every species' taste receptors respond to every type of sweetener, e.g. rats do not respond to NHDC. > These aren't like the same substance tweaked a bit where you're in a endless ratrace with the chemists. Well it depends on who has the burden of proof that a certain food additive is safe and does not cause undesired long term effects, especially in children.
jjcob 1y ago
I went on a trip to South Korea recently. There are very few overweight people there. But the food that people eat doesn't seem healthy at all. - every meal is served with white rice ("empty calories") - every meal is served with Kimchi (high sodium) - most dishes are flavored with soy sauce, gochutan, rice syrup... they are extremely high in sodium + msg - people love fried chicken with syrupy sauces - korean barbeque is popular, with very fatty cuts (pork belly etc.) Pretty much all of those foods would be considered unhealthy, but somehow Koreans don't seem to suffer from obesity like US + Europe do, I have no idea why.
- redeux 1y ago
  It’s actually pretty simple. Despite what you’re calling unhealthy foods (I’d argue kimchi has health benefits from the fermentation), they have a lower overall caloric intake and societal pressure to conform to a thin appearance. If you want to be skinny eat less calories. If you want to be healthy, eat highly nutritious foods and the right amount of calories for your lifestyle.
  - ptero 1y ago
    I am not sure there is a strong societal pressure to be thin. Last several years, sure. But older generations, nor so much (see deities in any buddist temple). And there was enough time after food became abundant for the older generations health to tank if that diet was very bad for them. My 2c.
  - ptero 1y ago
    I am not sure there is a strong societal pressure to be thin. Last several years, probably. But older generations, nor so much (see deities in any buddist temple). And there was enough time after food became abundant for the older generations health to tank if that diet was very bad for them. My 2c.
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    I don't think a large proportion of thin people are thin because of societal pressure. And conversely I don't think societal pressure makes many people thin, because I hear so much complaints about body shaming and unrealistic beauty expectations and discrimination against obesity etc, so it clearly isn't working any miracles. I think most people who are thin just have a food intake regulation that is pretty well balanced so they don't over eat because they don't feel that hungry when they have had enough calories. The reason why some groups of people have been increasingly prone to obesity is external factors interfering with that regulation. It's probably lots of things, food availability, ingredients, cost, culture, other mental health issues, medications, entertainment, work, availability of cars. One thing it is not is simple. The calories in vs calories out mechanic is simple, the reasons why that's going out of kilter is not.
mschuster91 1y ago
> The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. Part of the problem is the logistics and financing of school and generally cantina meals. Unlike restaurants which can command high meal prices for artisans preparing meals out of ingredients as close to "fresh from the field" as possible, mass kitchens face insane cost pressure, which often means going for pre-processed food with very long shelf lifes for packaged units to keep waste as close to zero as possible. Generally, I love to point at tomatoes when talking about food access and quality... for one, most tomatoes you can buy these days are grown in greenhouses with artificial light and bred to have pretty robust skin to avoid damages in shipping and storage, at the cost of flavor. As an individual making a tomato salad, you can mask off that lack of flavor by just dumping balsamico, olive oil, salt and pepper over the tomatoes... but if you are making, say, a tomato soup in a large ass kitchen for pasta, you'll probably go for the ultra-processed variant from a can or tub: no need to have employees cut up and mash tomatoes, it will keep fresh for far longer than if you'd send someone to the wholesalers to buy tomatoes every day... And the truly ultra large kitchens that make meals for thousands of school children (or prisoners or hospital patients) a day, they probably go for the even cheaper variant and that's where the problems really show - entirely premade tomato sauce, filled with preservatives to prevent the sauce from going bad, with tons of sugar and flavorings to make it palatable (as the source tomatoes are going to be the cheapest, lowest quality, flavorless tomatoes the original processor can find), and quite possibly with a bunch of food dyes on top to appear "healthy red like a good organic tomato".

chithanh 1y ago

> (i) The food or beverage contains 10 percent or greater of total energy from saturated fat. Interestingly, dairy products like butter are explicitly allowed, despite the fact that 50%+ of its fats are saturated > I'm not a nutritionist, but there are some basics that are braindead simple that don't involve banning Sucralose. I'm in favor of banning artificial sweeteners. Just look at why they are used in animal farming to see why it is a bad idea to randomly add them to human food.

KempyKolibri 1y ago
As I wrote elsewhere: If someone is habitually consuming sugar sweetened beverages, replacing those with ASBs will, the evidence strongly suggests, reduce your risk of obesity and various chronic diseases. We can say "just don't consume either" but we have decades of attempting such policies that shows people don't work that way. Someone who wants to drink a can of coke will drink a can of coke, why would we ban the healthier option?
- chithanh 1y ago
  The evidence actually suggests that soft drink consumption is equally associated with higher all-cause mortality and artificially sweetened is every bit as bad as sugar sweetened. Even when controlling for smoking status, BMI, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478 It was suggested elsewhere that the primary mechanism for soft drink associated mortality is acidic fluids causing tooth decay, which in turn causes cardiovascular disease. (Bacteria entering the bloodstream through inflamed oral mucosa, and forming plaques along arterial walls.) And the evidence for artificial sweetener benefits on population level is practically non-existent. In fact animal farming points to a detrimental effect.
  - KempyKolibri 1y ago
    You have to be very specific in the intervention you’re either looking at in an RCT or modelling in a prospective cohort study. We wouldn’t expect adding NNSs to a diet to improve much (perhaps some benefit from carbonated ones on body mass). We need to investigate/model replacement of SSBs with NNSs. When we do that we pretty consistently see benefits. Good overview as a response to the WHO position paper here that goes over that evidence base: https://mailchi.mp/b30c80ddf8ba/who-as https://mailchi.mp/b30c80ddf8ba/who-as
    - chithanh 1y ago
      Yes, replacement can work to adjust weight trends in a controlled setting. But all empirical observations so far show that artificial sweeteners in people's diets do not have the desired effect when people's food and beverage intake is uncontrolled. In fact results from animal studies are that you can even substitute part of the feed with just the artificial sweetener to achieve the same body mass gain. And this is known since 1960s with Cyclamate and rats: https://doi.org/10.1038/221091b0 https://doi.org/10.1038/221091b0 More studies in the meantime varied a bit on the size of the effect, and some were inconclusive, but generally the results held up. So no, artificial sweeteners do not help to manage weight. What the studies actually show is that controlling people's intake does.
contrarian1234 1y ago
The fact that you want to ban everything under the umbrella term of "artificial sweeteners" is why I think you have a fundamentally unscientific approach. Your other responses seem to suggest you just have something against sweet things (even when you seem to acknowledge there are other factors at play like acidity and tooth decay) I'm saying this as someone who rarely consumes these things.. > Just look at why they are used in animal farming I don't know anything about the science behind that - so I'm not in a position to judge. Did they try every possible "artificial sweeteners"? How about if there is another one discovered next year? Is it going to be pre-banned even if it doesn't have these drawbacks? These aren't like the same substance tweaked a bit where you're in a endless ratrace with the chemists.
- chithanh 1y ago
  > Your other responses seem to suggest you just have something against sweet things (even when you seem to acknowledge there are other factors at play like acidity and tooth decay) We are talking about school lunches here. Sweet meals are bad (whether sugar or artificially sweetened) as it trains children's palate and shapes lifelong preference for sweet food. Hence I support banning artificial sweeteners as California plans to do. When it comes to sweetened drinks, switching from sugary to artificially sweetened is not empirically shown as beneficial. This is the hurdle that proponents of public health interventions to replace sugar with aritificial sweeteners need to overcome. > Did they try every possible "artificial sweeteners"? The study which I linked in another reply looked at various commercially available artificial sweeteners and some combinations. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14203032 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14203032 This is necessary because not every species' taste receptors respond to every type of sweetener, e.g. rats do not respond to NHDC. > These aren't like the same substance tweaked a bit where you're in a endless ratrace with the chemists. Well it depends on who has the burden of proof that a certain food additive is safe and does not cause undesired long term effects, especially in children.

jjcob 1y ago

I went on a trip to South Korea recently. There are very few overweight people there. But the food that people eat doesn't seem healthy at all. - every meal is served with white rice ("empty calories") - every meal is served with Kimchi (high sodium) - most dishes are flavored with soy sauce, gochutan, rice syrup... they are extremely high in sodium + msg - people love fried chicken with syrupy sauces - korean barbeque is popular, with very fatty cuts (pork belly etc.) Pretty much all of those foods would be considered unhealthy, but somehow Koreans don't seem to suffer from obesity like US + Europe do, I have no idea why.

redeux 1y ago
It’s actually pretty simple. Despite what you’re calling unhealthy foods (I’d argue kimchi has health benefits from the fermentation), they have a lower overall caloric intake and societal pressure to conform to a thin appearance. If you want to be skinny eat less calories. If you want to be healthy, eat highly nutritious foods and the right amount of calories for your lifestyle.
- ptero 1y ago
  I am not sure there is a strong societal pressure to be thin. Last several years, sure. But older generations, nor so much (see deities in any buddist temple). And there was enough time after food became abundant for the older generations health to tank if that diet was very bad for them. My 2c.
- ptero 1y ago
  I am not sure there is a strong societal pressure to be thin. Last several years, probably. But older generations, nor so much (see deities in any buddist temple). And there was enough time after food became abundant for the older generations health to tank if that diet was very bad for them. My 2c.
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  I don't think a large proportion of thin people are thin because of societal pressure. And conversely I don't think societal pressure makes many people thin, because I hear so much complaints about body shaming and unrealistic beauty expectations and discrimination against obesity etc, so it clearly isn't working any miracles. I think most people who are thin just have a food intake regulation that is pretty well balanced so they don't over eat because they don't feel that hungry when they have had enough calories. The reason why some groups of people have been increasingly prone to obesity is external factors interfering with that regulation. It's probably lots of things, food availability, ingredients, cost, culture, other mental health issues, medications, entertainment, work, availability of cars. One thing it is not is simple. The calories in vs calories out mechanic is simple, the reasons why that's going out of kilter is not.

mschuster91 1y ago

> The problem isn't the MSG. It's providing a well balanced diet. Part of the problem is the logistics and financing of school and generally cantina meals. Unlike restaurants which can command high meal prices for artisans preparing meals out of ingredients as close to "fresh from the field" as possible, mass kitchens face insane cost pressure, which often means going for pre-processed food with very long shelf lifes for packaged units to keep waste as close to zero as possible. Generally, I love to point at tomatoes when talking about food access and quality... for one, most tomatoes you can buy these days are grown in greenhouses with artificial light and bred to have pretty robust skin to avoid damages in shipping and storage, at the cost of flavor. As an individual making a tomato salad, you can mask off that lack of flavor by just dumping balsamico, olive oil, salt and pepper over the tomatoes... but if you are making, say, a tomato soup in a large ass kitchen for pasta, you'll probably go for the ultra-processed variant from a can or tub: no need to have employees cut up and mash tomatoes, it will keep fresh for far longer than if you'd send someone to the wholesalers to buy tomatoes every day... And the truly ultra large kitchens that make meals for thousands of school children (or prisoners or hospital patients) a day, they probably go for the even cheaper variant and that's where the problems really show - entirely premade tomato sauce, filled with preservatives to prevent the sauce from going bad, with tons of sugar and flavorings to make it palatable (as the source tomatoes are going to be the cheapest, lowest quality, flavorless tomatoes the original processor can find), and quite possibly with a bunch of food dyes on top to appear "healthy red like a good organic tomato".