737
FDA wants to cut sodium in packaged and processed foods by about 20% (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The agency wants to lower how much salt we consume over the next three years to an average of 2,750 milligrams per day. That's still above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday laid out fresh goals to cut sodium levels in packaged and processed foods  by about 20%, after its prior efforts to address a growing epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases showed early signs of success.

The FDA in October 2021 had set guidelines to trim sodium levels in foods ranging from potato chips to hamburgers in a bid to prevent excessive intake of salt that can trigger high blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

The agency is now seeking voluntary curbs from packaged-food makers such as PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Campbell Soup. The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 151 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Now do the same for sugar

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Sugar is NOT bad for you. Too much of anything is what's bad.

    Drinking too much water can kill you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.

    Sugar is arguably good for you in moderation. We evolved to seek out sugar in the form of fruits, berries, etc. Quick energy, fast acting carbohydrates etc.

    Can't think of how this translates to a single cigarette lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    "In moderation" being the key part. As in, not selling drinks and snacks that are like 30% sugar

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Agree 100%. And arguably "in moderation" is much lower than people might want it to be. Plus most of this stuff is processed with high fructose corn syrup trash.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    HFCS is literally just liquid sugar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    HFCS is literally just liquid sugar.

    HFCS isn't even just one product. There are different blends that are all HFCS. At the extreme, HFCS-90, is far FAR different than table sugar. HFCS-55 is close to table sugar (which would be numbered "50" if table sugar used that same numbering scheme), and there's HFCS-42 which is farther away from table sugar.

    The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) have been successful in rebranding HFCS under a bunch of different names so you don't know it anymore. Current labeling has HFCS-90 (the worst kind) simply called "Fructose" on ingredient labels now. source

    source2 which is a bit more sketchy to me

    edit: corrected first source link

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    As in, not selling drinks and snacks that are like 30% sugar

    On the flip side, those snacks and drinks are ideal for athletes.

    I wouldn't want to stop having those foods available, simply because the majority of the population are idiots when it comes to fueling their bodies.

    People need to have some self control, ffs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The human body doesn't need nicotine to survive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The human body also doesn't need added sugars to survive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    But it does need sugar to survive. Comparing sugar to cigarettes is kinda dumb. But you keep making whatever false equivalencies support your argument, boo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You absolutely do not need to consume any sugar to survive.

    What little sugar you do need (an absolutely tiny amount) your body can easily make itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The person you're replying to is clearly uninformed but I do want to let you know that like most things involving the human body, this isn't a one-size-fits-all problem. I did keto but I have nondiabetic hypoglycemia, which is how I got an A1C of 3.9, and how I found out how dangerous that is and that I do actually require some (preferably complex) carbohydrates every day.

    I understand nondiabetic hypoglycemia is pretty rare so I still support you fighting misinformation (and especially that no one requires added sugars, which should, by now, just be common sense) but I did want to throw this out there, that folks should absolutely seek a doctor before going all in on a zero sugar diet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Yes, sugar is needed to survive, but a normal diet with little processed foods will supply more than enough. OP is talking about added sugars which are known to increase risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, etc.

    I agree that the comparison is dumb. Regardless, I think a better way to frame your previous statement is nicotine is a known carcinogen while glucose itself is not. Thanks for the snark lol not everything is confrontational. Ease up on your quills, hedgehog.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    I think you’re conflating natural occurring sugars to manmade sugars.

    The natural sugars in fruits is okay. Adding 75-80% of the daily value of man made added sugars to ONE drink are what we are talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's like saying arsenic isn't bad for you, but too much is.

    Sugar is indeed bad for you. Like any refined carbohydrate.

    Too much sugar as it happens is an insanely small amount. Most people have had too much sugar before they've left the house in the morning.

    We need carbohydrates, but as it happens we only need a little and we can get everything we need from a few servings of green vegetables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Arsenic actually does seem to have a role in the human body. We might need 12-25 μg per day.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246629/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Huh. TIL.

    Lead? Heroin?

    I stand by my point, refined sugar isn't even arguably good for you. A handful of jolly ranchers won't kill you but it's not a good source of carbohydrates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No arguing about it. You need sugar to live. You should be getting it alongside other nutrients in regular food.

    You don't need soda to live. Empty calories are what's bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You need some carbohydrates.

    In no universe do you need refined sugar. You absolutely don't need hundreds of grams of carbohydrates a day. Your body needs less than 100 grams a day and that's being generous.

    You can literally get all the carbohydrates your body needs from green vegetables or a single piece of fruit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    In other words, you should be getting it alongside other nutrients in regular food.

    from green vegetables or a single piece of fruit.

    Which is fructose. Do you know what "refined sugar" (HFCS) is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Well, about fructose...

    In nature, fructose is usually found in about equal parts with glucose, but high-fructose corn syrup (at least the stuff used in beverages, maybe more) has more fructose than glucose.

    Weird quirk about our digestion, fructose is absorbed 1:1 with glucose, so if there's less glucose than fructose, some fructose gets left behind as excess free fructose, and that fructose can go and play with other parts of the body. It's been found to cause childhood asthma, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and allergic sensitization.

    Not all sugars are the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And fat!!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Fats aren't bad for you like sodium and sugars are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sodium and sugar are not "bad" for you. Sodiums/salts are arguably an absolute necessity for brain function lol (electrolytes). It's the too much that is the bad part. There's natural sugar in fruits and stuff, which you already know. Blanket statements like "sugar is bad" are dumb.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Maybe if the issue wasn't soo widespread, but the manufactured over abundance has tipped the scales enough that simple statements of sugar/sodium being bad for you (even if not entirely correct) are a step in the right direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No, you are wrong and so is your ridiculous statement.

    even if not entirely correct

    It's not that it's "not entirely correct", it's entirely incorrect. Full stop.

    We evolved to seek out sugar. Originally in the form of fruits and berries and whatnot, as its an efficient fast acting carbohydrate for quick energy. It is good for you. Period.

    Over consumption due to over abundance and the capitalist profit motive not giving a shit about the consequences on people's health, because muh profits, is why people eat to much of it.

    Your solution is to blatantly lie, which is dumb and wrong. Lying is not a step in the right direction ever.

    Educate people, and hold capitalists accountable, in the form of violent regulation. You ain't gonna do that cuz you have no power and never will. Lying is dumb. Sugar is good for you in moderation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •