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

31–40 of 55 posts

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

#31

Post by otterley »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #16
icegreentea2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this should have moved faster, but there's no way this is a single days work. Especially since a large part of the required work is meta work to show that they worked "properly". There are executive orders (and maybe laws? can't remember) that require all rule making to be subject to thorough cost benefit analysis. One of the required actions between a proposed and final rule is to review, reply to, and perha…

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.

The speed (or lack thereof) at which our administrative agencies make rules is a reflection of the speed (or lack thereof) at which our democracy reaches consensus on change. What you're seeing isn't so much inefficiency, but rather how process works in a democracy. It's slow because Congress made it slow.

If we lived in a dictatorship, things would go faster, public be damned. China gets things done, but at great expense to the impacted people.

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

#32

Post by tayo42 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #25
BadHumans wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salmon can be accumulators of plastics and heavy metals. It is not as simple was labeling things as healthy or not healthy.

Salmon is healthy and it is that simple. You’re bringing up unproductive questions that could go on forever about any food. If that’s the goal, we don’t need the bureaucracy. It’s the same outcome as shutting down this part of the agency, since they aren’t going to declare anything until decades after the world already moved on from their broken guidance and figured out that salmon or whatever else is healthy. No one…

Disagree that these are unproductive questions.

For tuna it's recommended you don't eat it frequently becasue of high mercury levels.

Why would not consider that for things like salmon?

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

#33

Post by nerdponx »

tayo42 wrote: post #28

Isnt farmed salmon pretty iffy on healthy? I read something that basically made me stop eating farmed salmon. There seems to be a handful of farms near maybe Norway that the high end grocery stores carry that claim to be different but couldn't verify. They use like food coloring to make up for their unnatural farm diet.

The FDA guidelines only look at macronutrients. There a lot of "unhealthy" things that would be considered "healthy" by both the old and new standards.

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

#34

Post by llamaimperative »

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…

Never before has someone thought to take on the US food industry! I'm sure they'll just bend over and take it this time, and I'm sure their Congressional defenders from the heartland will totally let them this time because... reasons. Lol.

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

#35

Post by maerF0x0 »

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 )

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

#36

Post by nerdponx »

soared wrote: post #2

> Avocados, nuts and seeds are among products that will now qualify to use the “healthy” claim. Avocado, salmon and water are among the foods that will qualify for a “healthy” claim on food packaging. Yeah maybe there are some issues with government efficiency if it took 30 years for foods like this to be able to brand themselves healthy whereas white bread could false advertise with FDA approval.

The biggest impediment to government efficiency is lobbying and propaganda by various special interests that do not have the public good in mind. Imagine how much would get done without those things.

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

#37

Post by Retric »

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

Corn is the US sugar lobby.

Pretending they are different things is mostly just marketing at this point.

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

#38

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#39

Post by maerF0x0 »

BadHumans wrote: post #18
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.

Salmon can be accumulators of plastics and heavy metals. It is not as simple was labeling things as healthy or not healthy.

And there's the wild vs farmed issue. And then it matters which waters they're in, and feed their given etc.

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

#40

Post by djsavvy »

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 just ignoring it since I doubt it's actually leaching lead into my coffee despite the label saying it will.
Post reply on HN