You are probably correct in pointing out the technicalities that need to be addressed. However, whilst we argue on the technicalities, millions of kids are exposed to products that are loaded with sugar, salt, preservatives etc etc etc..Now you could be right in that the link between the consumption of these products and ill-health has not been proven. However, it is a fact that anyone could live a perfectly healthy life if they completely avoided all these products..so why are we arguing??? We wouldn't be discussing this if the food industry was not bankrolling anyone who could create noise that could be used to help them continue selling rubbish to our kids...Now, in terms of disclosure..I'm completely independent...
Thank you. I don't think anyone argues that foods high in salt, fat or sugar are unhealthy - but that is irrespective of whether they are ultra-processed or not. There are plenty of data showing the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages - but I don't think many data show that bread is contributing to ill health. Yet UPF would demand to treat bread the same was as sugar-sweetened beverages.
And if you want to accuse me of corruption, you are of course free to do so - but it would be nice to have a bit more evidence than "I don't agree with you".
I didn't accuse anyone for anything! The fact that there's no evidence does not mean that we should keep consuming products/foods that are not required (at best) and are likely harmful longer term...it is as simple as that! Arguing the semantics does not help the consumer...Propose a way forward and I will support it..!
You are probably correct in pointing out the technicalities that need to be addressed. However, whilst we argue on the technicalities, millions of kids are exposed to products that are loaded with sugar, salt, preservatives etc etc etc..Now you could be right in that the link between the consumption of these products and ill-health has not been proven. However, it is a fact that anyone could live a perfectly healthy life if they completely avoided all these products..so why are we arguing??? We wouldn't be discussing this if the food industry was not bankrolling anyone who could create noise that could be used to help them continue selling rubbish to our kids...Now, in terms of disclosure..I'm completely independent...
Thank you. I don't think anyone argues that foods high in salt, fat or sugar are unhealthy - but that is irrespective of whether they are ultra-processed or not. There are plenty of data showing the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages - but I don't think many data show that bread is contributing to ill health. Yet UPF would demand to treat bread the same was as sugar-sweetened beverages.
And if you want to accuse me of corruption, you are of course free to do so - but it would be nice to have a bit more evidence than "I don't agree with you".
I didn't accuse anyone for anything! The fact that there's no evidence does not mean that we should keep consuming products/foods that are not required (at best) and are likely harmful longer term...it is as simple as that! Arguing the semantics does not help the consumer...Propose a way forward and I will support it..!
You claim that we wouldn't have this discussion without the food industry - so I must assume you were referring to me.
Why do you think bread is not required?