Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#41

Post by immibis »

djsavvy wrote: post #40
maerF0x0 wrote: post #35

I'd wager it would have quite a bit more impact if all other foods had to put something like "Unhealthy!" on the nutrition info panel. Even better they could help break down the binary thinking and battles over single words and double down on something like nutrient density (quick hit from google: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/13_0390.htm )

I'm not quite sure about that — a lot of other countries have those sort of warning labels on foods or a comparison of the nutrition facts with healthier foods, and I'm not sure how much of an impact that label would end up having. I think it would be like the prop 65 stickers in California — it ends up becoming so ubiquitous it's effectively meaningless. I got a new espresso maker with a prop 65 label on it but am j…

I'm not sure what the relevant law is but a lot of packaged foods here (Germany) have nutrition scores A-E displayed prominently on the front corner. Apparently it's relative to a category, so they don't end up with E on all frozen pizzas and A on all frozen veggies, but can actually be used to see which frozen pizza is healthier.

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#42

Post by Jimmc414 »

One tangentially related example is Tic Tacs, which contain 94.5% sugar[0] but can legally advertise as "0 sugar" because the serving size is less than 0.5 grams under FDA labeling rules.[1] [2]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic_Tac

[1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR...

[2] https://i.imgur.com/9p6dMgD.jpg

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#43

Post by llamaimperative »

Retric wrote: post #37
llamaimperative wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're saying it is the corn lobby, not the sugar lobby, that distorted our diet guidelines so much. Corn = huge "real American" industry Sugar = not

Corn is the US sugar lobby. Pretending they are different things is mostly just marketing at this point.

“I hate what the sugar lobby has done to our country but damnit I’ll come out swinging against anyone coming after our corn farmers’ subsidies!”

- a reasonable misunderstanding to have when people speak the way you’re suggesting

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#44

Post by Dylan16807 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #30
Dylan16807 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still sugar, and the reason it's bad is because it's sugar rather than the exact composition.

I think they're saying it is the corn lobby, not the sugar lobby, that distorted our diet guidelines so much. Corn = huge "real American" industry Sugar = not

Saying it's really the corn lobby is fine, but "corn syrup instead of sugar" is not the right way to describe things.

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#45

Post by robomartin »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #17
robomartin wrote: post #15

I could be wrong on this, yet my impression is that the bureaucrats, given RFK's intentions, are in fear for their jobs and are looking to mitigate exposure by, well, actually starting to do their jobs. The damage cause to society by a vast array of foods is likely the top contributor to not only disease-caused mortality but the massive cost of providing healthcare. The appointment of someone like RFK, with a mission…

It's possible that the RFK thing is driving some urgency, but the timeline is broadly in line with their stated goals from their 2016 to 2025 strategic plan. They started this whole process with public consultation in 2017, and released the proposed plan back in 2022.

A change in urgency is good. The issues with our food have been known for quite some time. Given the carnage and damage to health at a massive scale, taking seven years to start acting is irresponsible. This isn't new knowledge at all.

An airplane crashes and it becomes top news for days. Five thousand children and a million people per year are diagnosed with a diet-induced disease with horrible consequences and the media pays no attention to the issue at all.

The death and destruction caused by the global metabolic disease pandemic should make everyone take pause:

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(23)00039...

For context, COVID is estimated to have killed approximately 7 million people world-wide. Metabolic disease is killing over TEN MILLION every year and has been killing over 8 million per year for the last 20 years. And I am just quoting data from the Cell Metabolism Journal publication, which only covers 20 years. The destruction goes back decades beyond that.

In other words, this has been a real "clear and present danger" case for decades. This is precisely why these agencies need to be shake-up to the core. What have they been doing for the last 20 or 30 years?

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#47

Post by Jimmc414 »

boh wrote: post #13

Unfortunately the FDA has limited resource to actually police most of their existing guidelines and will have just as much trouble policing this one. Buy and cook raw ingredients as often as you can because the only way packaged foods make a profit is either to lower costs or increase prices, and neither option is to your benefit.

The FDA gets 7.2 Billion dollars per year. The problem is probably that 3.3 Billion of that is paid by "User fees" which have effectively become a vehicle for industry lobbyists

https://www.fda.gov/media/166050/download

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#48

Post by mikestew »

toast0 wrote: post #26
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that is evidence of the ineffectiveness of government bureaucracies. You’re describing the way things work today. I’m saying the way it works is broken and needs to change. Allowing claims that salmon or water is healthy shouldn’t take long.

> Allowing claims that salmon or water is healthy shouldn’t take long. Seems suss. The root word of Salmonella is Salmon; clearly it may not be healthy. Water is just a rebranding of dihydrogen monixide, and we all know how bad that stuff is. It's made from rocket fuel, and you're trying to push it off as healthy?

The root word of Salmonella is Salmon; clearly it may not be healthy.

If you’re digging up Dr. Salmon, after whom Salmonella is named, and consuming his corpse…yeah, that might be a bad idea.

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#49

Post by jjtheblunt »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #42

One tangentially related example is Tic Tacs, which contain 94.5% sugar[0] but can legally advertise as "0 sugar" because the serving size is less than 0.5 grams under FDA labeling rules.[1] [2] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic_Tac [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR... [2] https://i.imgur.com/9p6dMgD.jpg

i believe the ingredients list is ordered by amount of ingredient, so it's a quick scan to see if sugar (of whatever sort) is an added ingredient, despite the nonsense of numerical truncation being allowed in grams.

Re: After 30 years, FDA overhauls guideline for the claim "healthy" on food packages

#50

Post by m463 »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #49
Jimmc414 wrote: post #42

One tangentially related example is Tic Tacs, which contain 94.5% sugar[0] but can legally advertise as "0 sugar" because the serving size is less than 0.5 grams under FDA labeling rules.[1] [2] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic_Tac [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR... [2] https://i.imgur.com/9p6dMgD.jpg

i believe the ingredients list is ordered by amount of ingredient, so it's a quick scan to see if sugar (of whatever sort) is an added ingredient, despite the nonsense of numerical truncation being allowed in grams.

new zero calorie sucrose

serving size: 1 grain.

Post reply on HN