Should the USA ban these foods?

Post Reply New Topic

It is the parents responsibility to know what they are feeding their children, not mine, not yours, and not anyone else's. Some parents practice this to the point of annoyance, but I applaud them for that because it means they genuinely care about their children. That said, the average American is about as dumb as you can get, so the FDA/USDA (US food regulators) could put warning labels on the aforementioned items.

Parents typically don't (a) have a degree in chemistry and (b) time to read the ingredients on every product they buy and (c) reading spectacles to read the tiny print on the packaging - assuming all the additives are actually listed.

Parents should be able to trust that food they take off a supermarket shelf does not contain ingredients that will cause harm to their children. Just because the majority of additives don't cause immediately discernible health problems for their children doesn't mean they don't cause long term damage. There is almost an epidemic of behavioural problems exhibited by children nowadays such as attention deficit disorder and studies have repeatedly found that putting children on a healthy diet with no additives can have remarkably positive effects on the health of such children. There are an increasing number of questions arising over various mainstream additives (e.g. aspartame) and their long term affects on health increasing the risk of various cancers for example.

I read an article the other day about the return of the malnutrition disease rickets in the UK due to children having unhealthy junk food diets. This disease was considered a relic of the past. While not directly related to additives it reflects the unhealthy crap that adults and children are becoming accustomed to eating nowadays instead. The average parent and child is a victim of fancy packaging and TV adverts by food "manufacturers". Basic additive-free fruit, vegetables and meat in a tub at the supermarket without fancy packaging just aren't "sexy" and nobody has any (financial) interest in promoting such things.

According to this you applaud me, if I now would decide to poison a child inside me with cigarettes, because of me responsible knowing that I am feeding the child poisonous nonsense, and its my property, so I am allowed to feed it with every poison stuff I decide to feed it? And you would applaud me for thinking that my child, was my slave and ownage, and so I would genuinely care for it, anyway how horrible I treat it? O_o

Ok, if you allow, I think that "my child" simply means that the child wears my DNA, and not that it is my property. And that if a grown up person, decides to become responsible for a child (not own it), that this responsibility means as well to care for it, as long as its depending on me, which excludes for me: Feeding poisonous stuff. Sorry, but a child is simply a human being you have chosen to be responsible for, not an slave you own, you can demand to treat as you want. If you dont want that responsibility, which comes hand in hand with an child, then simply dont decide for a child. I mean we are not talking about different education styles or school form, where you can argue until end of earth, we are simply talking about arsenic substances in food. Anyway how less that is, it cant be useful, if not used controlled for medical reasons.

Why did they not include artificial sweeteners in that list?
High fructose corn syrup is another one, cheaper than sugar but its making America fat!

I'm sure that in 100 years time (or possibly less), scientists will have detailed knowledge of the long-term harm caused by many of today's additives and be horrified by our almost carefree attitude towards them. Pretty much in the same way we look back in horror at manufacturers who used to put lead in cosmetics and radioactive radium salts in everything from bath salts to toothpaste.

I've been saying to the wife for two decades that sooner or later someone will discover that some of these air freshers that people pollute their houses with will be discovered to be carcinogenic and cancer causing. A few months ago I read a scientific article that surprise surprise had found a link between a particular chemical in some air fresheners and cancer.

Just because something doesn't kill a mouse during manufacturers' testing of various additives & chemicals doesn't mean it is safe for humans to consume or breath and won't cause long term health problems in humans.

Look at those American Veterans who drank some of that vegetation defoliant called agent orange during the Vietnam war as an initiation right and show of bravado - supposedly only harmful to plants - many are dead of cancer today.

I thought that the American Conservative motto was strictly caveat emptor. Otherwise, we are the victims of a "nanny state."

Also, there are few laws about labeling what was fed to the animals that you eat. If a chicken dies of arsenic poisoning, that wouldn't count as an ingredient.

Just wow, blatant demonetization of my statement and outright implications that I never began to imply.

I am Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I simply dont know else you meant that with the starting of "It is the parents responsibility to know what they are feeding their children, not mine, not yours, and not anyone else's. " It sounded for me, that children should be doomed to their parents, and others are not allowed to influence in any way.

I am sorry, if I misunderstood you, and you meant it the exact opposite way, but then I really dont understand your starting sentence?

I'm saying that you, first and foremost, are responsible for what you're children consume, not the government.

It's usually about dosage. Pretty much anything is going to kill you quickly if you have too much of it and pretty much anything is harmless in very low levels. But the "tipping point" for lots of these additives, and certainly arsenic, is going to be a lot lower than for Vitamin C or glucose. These "cause cancer" studies are often dubious because they use inappropriate concentrations. Anyway, in my opinion, we should probably only ban certain concentrations of most additives. If the producer can get the required effect from a lower concentration, then good for them.

Scientists will never discover that lead or arsenic or Asbestos are secretly good for you. And often these "good/bad for you" reports are not based on science, but the ramblings of nutritionists, who will advise against fluorinated water and recommend you buy their dietary supplements.

I support bans as they apply to communes, Portland, Oregon, and a few health establishments. Otherwise, a ban would not work in the real world.

Everything in moderation, that's what I say. And I also say that a little of what you fancy does you good. And I also say, variety is the spice of life. However, in an ideal world it would be nice if we all took responsibility for what we fill our faces with instead of blaming 'globesity' and poisoning on politicians.

*cough cough*

This.

I could support banning some of that stuff, but they are just shades of the whole GM food issue, and GM foods/crops pose a bigger risk than all of those combined.

A wise saying says don't eat anything with ingredients you can't pronounce. It's good advice.

People should know the potential risks and vote with their wallet. The whole GM industry might go under because nation after nation is banning them, and in the USA, support for non-GM foods is going up. Monsanto now realizes they might ultimately have to scuttle the whole concept because of consumer resistance.

My only problem with certain ingredients is that the food industry tries to trick you by calling a certain ingredient a variety of different names. I am also annoyed by the natural labels because natural is not defined by the FDA, so "natural" is open for interpretation by the company using the label. The food industry feeds off of uneducated consumers. I think consumers should just educate themselves on ingredients and companies and then make a decision on whether they will eat the product.

Also, there's some ingredients and products that people think are bad for you and will throw a fit over them but they're actually completely wrong.

I remember when Olestra came out



My compatriots actually thought that they could stuff themselves with crap like this, and they wouldn't get fat.

I wonder if this has any supposedly harmful ingredients.......