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.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    a former coworker sat and tried to convince me that sugar is neither bad for you nor addictive. the sugar lobby psychological manipulation propaganda machine is the behemoth that has to be dismantled before any meaningful change can even be attempted

    this coworker was an instructional academic librarian who included confirmation bias and how to avoid it in her teaching

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        4 months ago

        yea, the whole “everything is bad for you if you do enough of it to kill yourself!” is a pretty common response. and yes, that’s true. there IS a threshold for everything. one cigarette won’t kill you either.

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          one cigarette won’t kill you either.

          Interesting. The fearmongers at school told us it could.

        • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

            • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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

                  • willya@lemmyf.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    TIL thanks but source one is just a betting website ad from the link.

            • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months 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.

          • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            We evolved to seek out sugar because it is energy dense in a time when food wasn’t plentiful

            Today we have more food than we know what to do with

          • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.

            why not? if you’re going by “too much of anything is bad for you,” then doesn’t it follow that “NOT too much of anything isn’t necessarily bad for you”?

            so yea, one soda won’t kill you = true. also one cigarette won’t kill you = true.

            what i’m getting at is that your “argument” isn’t one

                • Organichedgehog@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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.

                  • RidgeDweller@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months 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.

                  • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    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.

                • Organichedgehog@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Comparing cigarettes to nicotine is a bad analogy. The body needs sugar (albeit a small amount) to survive. Cigarettes contain nothing the body needs.

                  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    the body needs glucose which is A sugar. but “sugar” in the context of the conversation is referring to refined sugar, which the body absolutely doesn’t need, and when it contains fructose (as in sucrose or HFCS, by far the most consumed sugars), then sorry, it’s not good

          • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Nicotine helps with neural degeneration and things like dementia and alzheimers.

          • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months 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.

      • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah except that every can of coke is too much, and most people don’t have a problem with water addiction

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • Wogi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • Wogi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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?

                  • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months 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.