4 ms·

TBH this is getting so complicated. I’m really starting to think the only solution is a household mass spectrometer we can run all our foods through. Literally

by bilsbie 9mo ago

TBH this is getting so complicated. I’m really starting to think the only solution is a household mass spectrometer we can run all our foods through. Literally see every constitute of each food. Maybe we need an X prize for the under $300 molecular food scanning system. Welcome to the world of broken institutional trust.

KempyKolibri 9mo ago
Even that wouldn't be sufficient. Look at the heterogeneity in dairy - the same amount of SFA in yoghurt has a markedly different impact on LDL-c compared to butter, likely because of both the calcium content of the yoghurt _and_ the actual molecular structure (non-churned dairy has intact milk fat globule membranes). I actually think we need to go the other way and look at foods as foods where we have the data, rather than individual components. Most recent dietary guidelines are more "x% of your plate should be vegetables" than "you should consume x% of your energy as cereal fibre", at least in their headline advice.
- bilsbie 9mo ago
  I agree but I think both approaches are needed. If this device simply found most bad stuff (when above safe limits) we’d be in a way better position. Eg. Arsenic, lead, pesticides, etc. * edited to add “above safe limits” since folks seem to be strawmanning my point. In case it really wasn’t clear.
  - mrguyorama 9mo ago
    So you never eat rice or apples right? They always contain arsenic. They always have
  - KempyKolibri 9mo ago
    This is what regulation already does (quite effectively too, at least over here in the UK). We already know that harmful substances aren’t likely to be present in our foods thanks to regulatory checks. Then we’d be left with checks for substances at levels lower than regulations are concerned with, but I’m not sure why we’d care about that. Fish has mercury present in it, but increased consumption seems to be associated with positive health outcomes. If the device said “danger, mercury”, what are we replacing it with? Red meat? Sausage? The current evidence would suggest that would be a retrograde step.
    - bilsbie 9mo ago
      The whole point of this thread and the past 30 years at least in the US is that those regulations aren’t working.
      - KempyKolibri 9mo ago
        Well that would depend on what you mean by “not working”. It seems like the US regulations are generally doing a good job of keeping toxic products out of the food supply. I’m not sure if your claim is specifically around food colouring. If it is, I’ve not seen any compelling evidence that the food colouring allowed under US regulation is actually problematic for health.

by bilsbie 9mo ago

KempyKolibri 9mo ago

Even that wouldn't be sufficient. Look at the heterogeneity in dairy - the same amount of SFA in yoghurt has a markedly different impact on LDL-c compared to butter, likely because of both the calcium content of the yoghurt _and_ the actual molecular structure (non-churned dairy has intact milk fat globule membranes). I actually think we need to go the other way and look at foods as foods where we have the data, rather than individual components. Most recent dietary guidelines are more "x% of your plate should be vegetables" than "you should consume x% of your energy as cereal fibre", at least in their headline advice.

bilsbie 9mo ago
I agree but I think both approaches are needed. If this device simply found most bad stuff (when above safe limits) we’d be in a way better position. Eg. Arsenic, lead, pesticides, etc. * edited to add “above safe limits” since folks seem to be strawmanning my point. In case it really wasn’t clear.
- mrguyorama 9mo ago
  So you never eat rice or apples right? They always contain arsenic. They always have
- KempyKolibri 9mo ago
  This is what regulation already does (quite effectively too, at least over here in the UK). We already know that harmful substances aren’t likely to be present in our foods thanks to regulatory checks. Then we’d be left with checks for substances at levels lower than regulations are concerned with, but I’m not sure why we’d care about that. Fish has mercury present in it, but increased consumption seems to be associated with positive health outcomes. If the device said “danger, mercury”, what are we replacing it with? Red meat? Sausage? The current evidence would suggest that would be a retrograde step.
  - bilsbie 9mo ago
    The whole point of this thread and the past 30 years at least in the US is that those regulations aren’t working.
    - KempyKolibri 9mo ago
      Well that would depend on what you mean by “not working”. It seems like the US regulations are generally doing a good job of keeping toxic products out of the food supply. I’m not sure if your claim is specifically around food colouring. If it is, I’ve not seen any compelling evidence that the food colouring allowed under US regulation is actually problematic for health.