I found a clean version of Snickers, Milky Way and Kit Kats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, what you describe is still ultra-processed and decidedly not good for you. I think it may even be worse because you have been lulled into a false sense of certainty that what you are eating is somehow healthy.

It would be better to just eat the mini Snickers every once in a while when you have the craving, because you'll feel satisfied and ultimately eat less than what you are doing with your "healthy" junk food.

OP here. There are different degrees of "bad for you", PP, and of course, everything that's full of sugar, fat, salt or is overly processed has to be consumed in moderation (sounds like I'm describing 99% of food in America, doesn't it?). Isn't it nice that these little candies LACK some potentially harmful ingredients, even if they're just as sugary (but with real sugar) and just as heated/pressed as other candy bars?

I happen to love Snickers. We never buy them: I negotiate a deal with my kids that they give me all their ToT Snickers as commission for costumes, driving and festivities. This year I won't have to do that! And thankfully my kids aren't big candy people. Every year half their stash goes in the bin.

No. It doesn’t. Even correcting for the clearly hyperbolic “99%”. What you may be saying is it sounds like a lot of the food CONSUMED in America. Not available. Fresh fruits and vegetables are still conspicuously available in every grocery store - people can make the choice to buy them or, instead, buy a bunch of overpriced candy thinking they’re making a healthy choice by cutting out out 0.01mg of an artificial color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many regulators, including the European Union, regulate under the precautionary principle. In essence, if it could cause harm they ban it. Or, if it has been shown to cause harm in quantities well above what is consumed, they ban it because they don’t know what amount is actually safe.

It’s not a particularly science based approach.

So the fact that substances are banned in other countries isn’t a particularly useful fact.

People certainly can choose to cut out certain substances but they shouldn’t be fooling themselves that it’s “healthier”. At best we don’t know. And much more likely, we do know that the quantity consumed doesn’t pose a risk.

People will quickly point out the power of food manufacturers over the FDA and USDA and the profit motivations of those companies. Sure. But 1. They do sell their products in Europe with a different recipe, so they probably don’t fight every substance with the same degree of profit concern. And 2. The alternative products are often making a much higher profit margin and they are also pushing all sorts of narratives about the toxicity of their competition for profit motivations.

All of this is why the best science based advice that exists is to limit/avoid ALL processed foods. The link to certain health conditions has been established. What hasn’t been established is the link to any single preservative, flavoring, dye, oil, or emulsifier. The link to cancer from processed food could be from something else entirely. No one, including internet research experts, actually knows.

Contrary to the MAHA narrative, the fda will ban substances if conclusive scientific evidence of toxicity is established.

It's weird that you're defending the practice of "assume it's safe enough and put it into the food supply and cosmetics."

Why wouldn't anyone want things tested for safety first?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Little Secrets Milk and Dark Chocolates, at Whole Foods. It's a bag of mini candies that look and taste similar to the brands mentioned above, but without artificial preservatives, coloring and without that suspect emulsifier often used in chocolates, PGPR (polyglycerol polyricinoleate, or E476).

I had a few and love them.

Ugh. I would never eat this manufactured slop. But I'm glad you enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many regulators, including the European Union, regulate under the precautionary principle. In essence, if it could cause harm they ban it. Or, if it has been shown to cause harm in quantities well above what is consumed, they ban it because they don’t know what amount is actually safe.

It’s not a particularly science based approach.

So the fact that substances are banned in other countries isn’t a particularly useful fact.

People certainly can choose to cut out certain substances but they shouldn’t be fooling themselves that it’s “healthier”. At best we don’t know. And much more likely, we do know that the quantity consumed doesn’t pose a risk.

People will quickly point out the power of food manufacturers over the FDA and USDA and the profit motivations of those companies. Sure. But 1. They do sell their products in Europe with a different recipe, so they probably don’t fight every substance with the same degree of profit concern. And 2. The alternative products are often making a much higher profit margin and they are also pushing all sorts of narratives about the toxicity of their competition for profit motivations.

All of this is why the best science based advice that exists is to limit/avoid ALL processed foods. The link to certain health conditions has been established. What hasn’t been established is the link to any single preservative, flavoring, dye, oil, or emulsifier. The link to cancer from processed food could be from something else entirely. No one, including internet research experts, actually knows.

Contrary to the MAHA narrative, the fda will ban substances if conclusive scientific evidence of toxicity is established.

It's weird that you're defending the practice of "assume it's safe enough and put it into the food supply and cosmetics."

Why wouldn't anyone want things tested for safety first?

I think this is really where recent science education has fallen down.

These substances are tested. Some of these substances are some of the most evaluated ingredients ever. Many of them have been shown to interfere with the health of mice in large quantities.

But, let’s say there’s a substance that scientists think theoretically could cause problems. They run the best study they can practically design and complete. It produces no statistically significant results indicating a safety issue. Is that product how safe? Well, it’s impossible to prove something is safe, because that is actually proving a negative (proving *nothing* is wrong). However, it’s relatively easy to run a study and prove something is toxic… if it’s toxic quickly enough, even at small doses.

It’s impossible to design a sufficiently robust study to test the real world toxicity in humans of small quantities of ingredients. It would involve a multi-year (likely multi-decade) very tightly controlled study (as in you couldn’t consume any other substance that could cause the same negative results) and you’d need a control arm too. Even if that was possible (it’s not) you’d need the study approved by ethical review and since you’re trying to intentionally cause cancer in humans, you’re unlikely for it to get approved.

So, as a result, most of these substances are evaluated by Europe with the precautionary principle in mind (if there’s a possibility to causes a problem it is restricted/forbidden).

In the U.S., the fda basically says unless you can show harm, it’s allowed. Which is the scientifically valid way of doing it - since you can’t prove it’s safe, you only prove if it’s harmful. In the end, not being able to prove it’s harmful isn’t the same as being able to prove it’s safe.

But ultimately two of the most harmful substances humans consume are alcohol and sugar. Neither are banned in the US or Europe.

Europeans also eat a lot of processed meats (though there are signs it’s decreasing). And in those countries that do, they have the colorectal cancer rates to show it.

Overall, there’s not convincing clear evidence that Europe’s approach to food ingredients has led to better outcomes.

There is room for improvement for US when it comes to scrutinizing and regulating these substances - and certainly we know enough to know *processed* foods should be limited so in effect you’d be limiting exposure to most of those substances if you reduce consumption of processed foods. But there’s no evidence (and actually evidence to the contrary) that eating a (by definition, processed) candy bar with no preservatives in it is superior to eating a candy bar with preservatives.

So, if you like the occasional snickers just eat one. But focus on reducing processed (and ultra processed) foods, overall.