Would you support a ban on processed food

[Anonymous]

Processed is kind of a misnomer. I'd love a ban on harmful additives like dyes and preservatives.

[Anonymous]

YES!!!!

The ultra-processed foods, you mean.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn’t support a ban but in college and late night l, yes, would pay a lot for snacks!

[Anonymous]

No. Wouldn’t that make us a nanny state?

[Anonymous]

No.

[Anonymous]

Look… I eat pretty healthfully, but I do like my occasional potato chip or French fry. Why would I want that banned?!

[Anonymous]

I am not a fan of bans and more regulation. No for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if government tries to make healthy food ingredients affordable and heavily taxes unhealthy packaged and processed food and beverages ? Would you support any such effort?

I am not a fan of processed foods but I am not about forcing my personal preferences on others. Let people choose for themselves..

[Anonymous]

No. I would support science rather than quackery and grifting to be driving our policies. I would support increased oversight and testing by the FDA to ensure food safety and labeling regulations are met.

I would be fine with a rating system being developed ..that is based on actual scientific research…identifying foods with highest nutritional content and higher % of natural ingredients.

People forget that before Teddy Roosevelt ushered in regulations you basically played Russian roulette with food buying. Stomach cancer was prevalent due to the ingredients. Arsenic,formaldehyde and many other poisonous chemicals were common place. Spoiled meat was the norm. Heinz invented ketchup as a way to cover up the taste of spoiled meat. Heinz also lobbied hard to get food ingredient label laws in place. His competitors undercut him by selling cheaper knockoffs and lying about the ingredients. This hurt consumer confidence in the product as well. When Heinz succeeded and the FDA was in place and started enforcing the regulations, his knock off competitors disappeared.

Consumers should have information access to what is in food.

[Anonymous]

Are you kidding? Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Healthy food already is relatively more affordable than processed food.

Wrong. An apple costs more than a bag of doritos.

Have you been to a grocery store lately? A family size bag of apples is about the same cost as a family size bag of doritos.

Beans, legumes, rice, frozen vegetables, and water are all infinitely more healthy and considerably cheaper than a ton of processed food at the grocery store.

All of those items you listed have been processed, smarty.

Well, duh. But they're not ultra processed. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Ban processed foods - no.

Ban food coloring - yes. Many we use are already banned in other parts of the world and serve little purpose while being potentially harmful.

Ban other GRAS additives and "natural flavors" - some of them or require higher burden of proof that they are safe.

The problem is so many food safety people are already being laid off. Very short sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YES!!!!

The ultra-processed foods, you mean.

What are they? Do people know what they're talking about? What is the definition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Wouldn’t that make us a nanny state?

This is going to be a nanny state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if government tries to make healthy food ingredients affordable and heavily taxes unhealthy packaged and processed food and beverages ? Would you support any such effort?

One of the first words in any regulation or law is a set of definitions.
I have yet to see a useful definition of "unhealthy packaged" or "processed" foods or beverages.
I like the intention of the idea but don't know how to make it work in 21st century corporate America.