Welcome to the dark ages: MAHA report

It certainly makes sense to study and limit exposure to some environmental chemicals. Agriculture and ag-chemical trade groups are already pushing back, specifically mentioning glyphosphate and atrazine.

Focus on childrens' health seems to miss some things:

"Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is also on the MAHA commission, which is curious given the fact that she stripped roughly $1 billion of funding from the USDA that used to allow local farmers to deliver food to food banks and schools."

quote from
RFK Jr.'s MAHA Commission Releases First Report to Donald Trump

As expected, report says a lot about vaccines (pediatric vax schedules in particular). Possibly unexpected is no mention of studies that do show safety and efficacy of vaccinations. Brings me back to first push back mentioned above. Pharmaceutical companies may not have responded to this report yet.

 

Arstechnica is so far still working the perimeter of this (if that term can be used). This is Beth Mole's wheelhouse so we should expect more

Uncertainty loomed as FDA advisors met to discuss this year’s COVID shot - Ars Technica
CDC can no longer help prevent lead poisoning in children, state officials say - Ars Technica

 

I like Hawaii governor Josh Green's take the best.
He said that RFKj should have been the EPA director, because he doesn't know beans about medicine.

If they ONLY eliminate food coloring and make changes to SNAP we will be better off than we were four years ago....

 

I read an article that said a decade ago no state in the US had an obesity rate above 35% of their population. But here we are today and 23 states in the US have an obesity rate above 35%. This is a direct consequence of capitalism and the profit motive deciding what we eat, rather than the science of a healthy diet defining what we eat. Then when people get health issues related to obesity, the medical industry, which has also been corrupted by the profit motive is more interested in bankrupting people than making them healthy again. It's mutually assured self destruction!

 

I read an article that said a decade ago no state in the US had an obesity rate above 35% of their population. But here we are today and 23 states in the US have an obesity rate above 35%. This is a direct consequence of capitalism and the profit motive deciding what we eat, rather than the science of a healthy diet defining what we eat. Then when people get health issues related to obesity, the medical industry, which has also been corrupted by the profit motive is more interested in bankrupting people than making them healthy again. It's mutually assured self destruction!

We need you to eat this.......have it.
We need you to take these pills.....have them.
We need you to sign this loan....sign here.

Inner health and peace comes from saying no..

 

I'm by no means small at 6ft. in height and 200 pounds. I love the hard labor gardening/over exertion with my physical strength and endurance, yet all my life, the amount of food I eat every day is very little compared to most, even compared to what you ate today. It's healthier in the long run to not eat enough rather than eat too much. Three meals a day has never made sense to me. How about one small meal a day with some small snacks throughout the day instead? That's normal for me. When I'm hungry just a bite or two gets rid of the hunger without filling me up. Had that hunger turned into a full meal I'd get too sleepy and lazy.

But currently the real crime of today is making food addictive with chemicals designed to stimulate your brain's craving center. Getting the brain to want more no matter how harmful to your body is the worst part of this current crime of greed and corruption that's turning everyone into Jabba the hut.

 

Dietary improvements US and global are sensible. But medical agencies also have other things to manage related to development and distribution of modern medicines. Letting one substitute for both falls short as Policy.

 

Isn't that what we've been doing up to now?

When you can buy a snicker's bar and a red bull with a SNAP card, and when you allow chemicals into food that have been banned from cosmetics for decades - HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY assert that prior regimes have "done both?"

 

How about Gatoraid?
Perhaps Juice drinks?
Juice?

I would guess no one would suggest Juice not be allowed. But where do you draw the line?
And how much money are you going to put behind reviewing and picking and choosing what can and can’t be bought?
Should the government review all products once a year? Perhaps anytime there is a change to a product?

I understand that SNAP paying for a Jolt seems senseless. But are you proposing spending $2 to save $1?
Or, as the current administration is planning, kick 100 people off SNAP to prevent 1 from cheating?

 

Education is the answer... The more people know about how harmful the stuff is they're tricking you into putting in your body they less likely they will make money selling it, as well as the more likely laws will created to ban the worst offenders.

As for Gatorade, that's an interesting example. Back in the early 80's I'd drink it after football practice. But that was when it first became popular because was a true post workout drink with electrolytes and glucose, which means your body can absorb the carb super fast in healthy ways. But because profit is more important Quaker Oats bough it in '83 and then sold it to Pepsi who eventually relplaced the healthy and natural glucose with toxic crack (aka: High Frutctose Corn Syrup).

"High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) contributes to obesity, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and an increased risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. HFCS can also negatively impact gut health by reducing gut microbiome diversity, potentially leading to digestive problems. Additionally, it can cause Increase Triglycerides and Cholesterol problems/hear disease, as well as increase the risk of gout and colorectal cancer."

If you want an honest post workout, try a packet of Emergen-C... It still is like old school Gatorade with glucose and electrolytes. I add L-Glutamine into it because that's the amino acid that your muscles are most in need of replacing after an intense workout.

 

Corn syrup isn't any different from other sugars to your body. The problem is that US subsidies for corn, hostility to foreign sugar companies, and fat is bad messaging means it ends up in everything.

 

Your statement indicates you need more information about what you're saying because different types of sugars are processed differently by your body. The makers of HFCS have spent hundreds of millions in disinformation campaigns and looks like they got to you too.

"Is Corn Syrup the Same as High Fructose Corn Syrup?

Although both are made from cornstarch, these two syrups should not be confused with the other. In fact, high fructose corn syrup is made from regular corn syrup. Think of high fructose corn syrup as the highly processed and altered child of corn syrup. For corn syrup, the glucose gets extracted from corn, then made into a syrup by using boiling water. Put simply, corn syrup is essentially just liquid glucose.

High fructose corn syrup doesn't stop there. The glucose from the cornstarch gets converted into fructose after exposure to enzymes, thus resulting in a different, much sweeter product. Manufacturers of HFCS can control the sweetness level by limiting the amount of fructose converted. This is why you can find different types of HFCS, depending on how much fructose is in the final product.

Because it's made of glucose, corn syrup is usually considered the better option health-wise. Glucose is much easier for the body to digest. Fructose, in contrast, can only be digested through the liver, which can be strenuous on the body when consumed in large amounts." Corn Syrup vs High Fructose Corn Syrup | Indiana Sugars

 

Work with sugars, thank you.

Before people started making HFCS or even corn syrup, they were using sugar made from the juice of various plants, sugar cane being the best known. Table sugar is sucrose, which is a dimer of glucose and fructose. They are in a ratio comparable to HFCS. Even in honey and maple syrup, glucose and fructose make up a major portion of the carbohydrates.

Fructose is not the boogie man causing health problems seen in the US population. It is just sugars period. A major health study, now kown to have errors, declared fat to be the boogieman. Food companies took out the fat in response, but fat is a major source of flavor. The restore that lost flavor they increased the sugar content. HFCS just happened to be the cheapest option in the US. Otherwise, you'd be decrying the evils of cane sugar and its industry.

 

Sugar manufactures have been just like the tobacco industry when it comes to denying, delaying and deposing of basic facts about what sugar does to your body in unhealthy amounts. Without reference, nor even basic logic, you parrot the sugar industry's misinformation because you're a more obedient type of lack of intelligence rather than a critical thinking type of of actual real intelligence.

 

In post #12 and #14, HFCS and its makers were your evil, and now it's the sugar industry. Seems you are coming around to my thinking on the subject.

Let me rephrase what my lack of intelligence was saying there.

There is too much sugar in the American diet. It started being added when fat was named the worse part of the diet for health.

Is that good enough, or does it need a conspiracy spin for it to be acceptable for ya?

For any others that might be reading, HFCS(high fructose corn syrup for @Mendel Leisk) can be 42% to 55% fructose to glucose. It came out in the 1960s to make a product from corn syrup(nearly all glucose) comparable to sucrose for mixing, cooking, and baking. Sucrose is table sugar and is 50:50 glucose to fructose. Without US policy regarding corn, our diet would have too much sucrose, with the same health issues as HFCS is causing today.

 

@ 'how much money'....
As long as it's MY money that's being spent, and as long as chronic obesity remains the number one cause for health problems in America - my answer would be ALL OF IT!

AND as long as we're on the subject of Juice.....I would ABSOLUTELY not only 'suggest' but would INSIST that some so-called fruit juices NOT be allowed!
You must not have very many 'lunch ladies' or educators in your circle, otherwise you would already know that most 'fruit juices' served in schools have more corn in them that they do fruit.

America has a long and very sad history of ignoring her children's nutrition....

Welcome to the dark ages, pal.
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid - Good Medicine Colorado

PLUS...
You're not even getting to the truly evil part of the fact that Red Bull is allowed in SANP purchases!
PARENTS spend SNAP dollars, and as it turns out????
Red Bull is fairly expensive!!!
This is why even though America spends over 100 billion bongo-bucks a year on......food assistance, there is REAL CHILD food insecurity that remains in America!!!!

Liberalism, REAL liberalism USED to stand for more than just making somebody ELSE write a check to solve a problem and then ridiculing those who wonder why the 'problem' is getting WORSE and NOT better!!!!

 

Well, at least your answer is to fix it rather than kick people off the program.