American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[FlamesAddiction]

One of his appointees, Elon Musk, has obvious ties to Russia. He openly admits that he has had meetings with Vladimir Putin as well as other Russian government officials. I assume other Trump appointees have ties as well. If no one is going to question Musk pulling the strings with his open Russia connections, I don't know what would be done about the other appointees no matter what the FBI found.

I find funny how in the U.S., they can appoint unelected people to such high ranking important positions, yet in some areas you have to be elected to be a dog catcher.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

To your first point, sure, it might be a good thing to look at, but if you ban some of these additives in food that don't have a ton of evidence linking them to diseases, and then simultaneously ban vaccines or reduce public confidence in them, any potential benefits from food changes are instantly wiped out by removing the one public health measure that has insanely good data to support it prolonging people's lives.

To your last point...organic doesn't automatically equal healthier. Pesticides are only an issue in a handful of thin skinned fruits and vegetables. The majority have thick rinds or waxy coatings, and the majority of pesticides are easily washed off. The flip side of that is the lack of available produce that comes if you turn everything organic overnight (not to mention the lack of labour to actually harvest the produce), limiting supply and driving up prices. Wasn't this election mostly about things rising in price too quickly?

The correct answer to ethical and healthy diet is not organic but locally sourced. In rural AB areas this should probably not be too difficult or expensive, relatively speaking. Even here in ruralish IL if your grocery budget from supermarkets was X, you locally sourced food budget will be 4X. So it's mostly a diet for virtue signaling rich people. 'Organic' label is essentially a scam.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hackey

In todays day and age if you think your family doctor knows best when it comes to health and wellness you're living under a rock. This has become such a specialized field. Also any person can research and learn things...just like doctors do.

This is what happens to people who have more ego than intelligence. Surely your family doctor only knows what you can google yourself. Surely.

The number of times I have seen this prove truly disastrous is quite large

[Winsor_Pilates]

Damn; my wife just spend a night in hospital with a sliced almond stuck in her throat.
The specialist doctor used an endoscope and got it out in 5 minutes but she had to stay overnight until that specialist came in the next morning.

How could no one else in the hospital know to just google it!? Could have saved us 14 hours and lots of discomfort. What's wrong with these idiots!

[ResAlien]

But what did Dr Googoo recommend?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

But what did Dr Googoo recommend?

Ivermectin and healing crystals were the top 2 ads from RFKHealing.com

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I don't think his plan is to force people into anything. I definitely think education on these topics would be beneficial though. The general population is probably quite oblivious to what they're actually consuming even if they think its harmless. Removing certain ingredients from food is something you can do that benefits people and lets them choose what they want at the same time. A lot of ingredients in American products are banned in other countries. When you look at food products and they have 40 ingredients and only need 5 then there probably is an issue there.

Regulations on production would be similar. Everyone knows organic produce will be healthier than produce that's been sprayed by a crap load of chemicals. Trying to improve that seems like a no brainer and ultimately benefits everyone.

Which particular additives are you concerned with that the EU bans that the US doesn’t.

Red 40 is regularly misstated that it is illegal in Europe. It is legal to use there with labeling requirements. Other products have different names leading people to think they are banned other ones are banned for completely different applications or trade reasons.

So which food additives specifically are you concerned with and is there evdidence to support the harm.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Which particular additives are you concerned with that the EU bans that the US doesn’t.

Red 40 is regularly misstated that it is illegal in Europe. It is legal to use there with labeling requirements. Other products have different names leading people to think they are banned other ones are banned for completely different applications or trade reasons.

So which food additives specifically are you concerned with and is there evdidence to support the harm.

I'm surprised that you or anyone would be opposed to the removal of chemicals and additives in food whether they are harmful or not. What is wrong with legislating more natural food?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm surprised that you or anyone would be opposed to the removal of chemicals and additives in food whether they are harmful or not. What is wrong with legislating more natural food?

Ooooh. I'd like to play this game. Please explain what a natural food is

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm surprised that you or anyone would be opposed to the removal of chemicals and additives in food whether they are harmful or not. What is wrong with legislating more natural food?

I’m very anti the appeal to nature fallacy.

We should’ve making evidence based decisions to govern the food system.

If people want to talk about a specific product then I think that is a reasonable discussion to have. But statements like what’s wrong with legislating natural foods is kind of ridiculous. There is no context to what that even means.

I’m all for a sugar tax and fat tax but I am vehemently against the natural is better as a basis without support evidence.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm surprised that you or anyone would be opposed to the removal of chemicals and additives in food whether they are harmful or not. What is wrong with legislating more natural food?

I'm surprised you or anyone else think there is a snowballs chance in hell a Trump administration will do anything to cut into pharma or fast/junk food profits or in any way regulate to improve regular folks lives

We all know how this ends, big Government needs to get out of the markets way, people should be allowed to buy cheaper salmonella infected chicken if they want and the Government shouldn't be interfering in the 1st amendment rights of companies to lie about their foods ingredients or medicines side effects

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m very anti the appeal to nature fallacy.

We should’ve making evidence based decisions to govern the food system.

If people want to talk about a specific product then I think that is a reasonable discussion to have. But statements like what’s wrong with legislating natural foods is kind of ridiculous. There is no context to what that even means.

I’m all for a sugar tax and fat tax but I am vehemently against the natural is better as a basis without support evidence.

The issue is that science is always evolving and some impacts can be long term which are difficult to test for in labs. I'd prefer to take a cautious approach as much as possible and limit the ingestion of chemicals and additives. Things may not appear harmful but xx years down the road we could be fighting some serious health issues.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ooooh. I'd like to play this game. Please explain what a natural food is

Asptus is 100% natural, and therefore must be good for me.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The issue is that science is always a evolving and some impacts can be long term which are difficult to test for in labs. I'd prefer to take a cautious approach as much as possible and limit the ingestion of chemicals and additives. Things may not appear harmful but xx years down the road we could be fighting some serious health issues.

I understand your intent, but at the end the day, most of the additives aren't for flavour as much as they are for preservation and shelf stability.


While they likely do cause compounding health issues, they prevent foodborn illnesses and massive amounts of food waste. The second point is directly linked to ensuring food stability.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Asptus is 100% natural, and therefore must be good for me.

Everything is natural. I'm honestly interested in someone even defining it for me. Never had anyone be able to do that

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm surprised that you or anyone would be opposed to the removal of chemicals and additives in food whether they are harmful or not. What is wrong with legislating more natural food?

Legislating the removal of things that are not harmful? Do you even like freedom?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Everything is natural. I'm honestly interested in someone even defining it for me. Never had anyone be able to do that

Every bit of food we eat has been modified by man with crossbreeding techniques that go back thousands of years in some cases. This has significantly altered our food from its wild-type originally occurring "natural" state. So if you want to be technically correct, which I do, NONE of our food is natural.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Every bit of food we eat has been modified by man with crossbreeding techniques that go back thousands of years in some cases. This has significantly altered our food from its wild-type originally occurring "natural" state. So if you want to be technically correct, which I do, NONE of our food is natural.

It's even more silly when you think about it. Where is the line? For example, some people have said food that isn't heavily processed. Ok. What's a process? Cooking food involves changing it chemically by adding heat to denature proteins. Is that processing? I had someone else say that it's about adding chemicals. Sodium Chloride? Is that a chemical?


There's no actual way to define it as it's just a general feeling about food

[Coach]

While overall I completely agree. You CAN still hunt for meat and forage for natural berries and fungi etc. Heck you can even find whale heads just laying on the beach for the taking...

But overall, yeah, if you bought your food or your seeds, it's inescapable and the main reason humanity has been able to sustain and grow. If you're anti-GMO you are pro-mass extinction.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by SebC

Legislating the removal of things that are not harmful? Do you even like freedom?

Because it is common for things to be considered safe and then become harmful with further research after being consumed for years. Sometimes science just doesn't know.

For example, BVO was developed and started to be used in the 1930's and it was a safe food additive. In the 1970s it was realized that it is not as safe as originally thought and it became regulated in the US and banned in other countries. This year the US removed it entirely as it was determined to be unsafe.

So yeah, I'm good with removing "harmless" additives as well because realistically the food scientists, chemists, regulators, etc. don't know #### about potential long term impacts.