Much of politics today seems to be driven by the source of policies. If President Donald Trump or his administration is for it, Democrats are against it. Democrats have pulled 180-degree turns from past support for unilateral military operations by Democratic Presidents to opposing government shutdowns. However, one of the most intriguing has been the opposition to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has launched moves against unhealthy food additives and products. That was evident yesterday when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) virtually declared war over his effort to press Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks over high-sugar drinks.
Dunkin’ Donuts is clearly an iconic brand, but the lack of support for Kennedy’s food policies is striking in light of the general support of Democrats for Big Gulp laws like the one in New York put forward by former mayor Michael Bloomberg (R).
For the record, I have long opposed efforts to ban unhealthy foods. While I strongly support educational campaigns by the government about such unhealthy choices, I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. I also previously wrote how I believe the Big Gulp law was unlawful. It was later struck down.
In this country and other countries, such as Great Britain, similar measures targeting unhealthy foods have been rallying points for the left.
Yet, Kennedy received pushback after announcing that “We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it.’ I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”
Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.
Kennedy is not necessarily calling for a ban. He has been pushing to improve the food-ingredient approval system by implementing reforms long called for by nutrition advocates. Much of this effort focuses on improving the Generally Recognized as Safe policy. He has been attacking an exemption allowing food companies to independently verify the safety of food additives without the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight.
Kennedy has stated that this “loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply. In Europe there’s only 400 legal ingredients. This agency does not know how many ingredients there are in American food.”
That would seem precisely what many liberals once heralded. Yet, no democratic administration was ever willing to go head-to-head with these companies. Kennedy is doing what administrations like the Obama and Biden administrations failed to do.
However, he remains persona non grata on the left, viewed as a traitor as a member of a famous Democratic family who supported Trump. They would rather defend unhealthy food than a party turncoat.
Once again, I generally oppose limits on consumer choices, preferring educational campaigns and healthy guidelines. However, the latest controversy only highlights the flipping of the magnetic poles in American politics.
May 2018 started the compliance date for menu requirement to post calorie and nutrition information, SO what’s the big concern from the Ultra Leftists (The Insane that escaped from the asylum) in Massachusetts beside Running hither and there yelling at the top of their lungs, TRUMP, Paul Revere they are not.
Above addressed information that was desired by consumers, as if it ever made a difference in the consumer’s habits, but the information was available to the individual consumer. Question: at a restaurant or grocery store when viewing menu or product do you sometimes, always or ever use the information in the equation when purchasing an item, or do you even read that information? Buy you Books, and buy you Books, and what do you do, Eat the Cover.
Would the additional information make a difference, IMHO not so much, but it should be available none the less? Massachusetts Executive Clerk is making a Mountain out of a Mole Hill.
Above from GW.
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too……… https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Where do you draw the line between food and drugs? Both are ingested and have health effects. The food companies use chemical ingredients that consumers are equally ignorant of as the contents in their Rx.
The approach Europe adopted is common sense. If food producers stick to the 400 safety-proven ingredients, then they are free to compete for consumers on price, flavor, appearance, etc. Each of these ingredients has to be max. dose defined.
I enjoy a Coke now and then, but diluted with extra ice, and throwing away half the bottle.
I’m with Bobby….ingredients lacking proof of benign effect or dose limits should be excluded by law from the food supply.. What are we?….citizens or Guinea pigs?
Of all the things going on right now, Turley has to dig deep to look for a diversion away from the lies and ever-changing rationale about starting the war with Iran, the deaths of 6 Americans, thousands of Americans stranded in the Middle East, the lack of anything resembling a clearly-defined objective, much less exit strategy, the Epstein scandal, the scandalous firings at the FBI, all to find a reason to criticize the Governor of Massachusetts because that’s what MAGA does. People should be free to make whatever choices they desire about what they eat and drink. The government provides sound recommendations for healthy eating, based on science, which is an appropriate role for the government to play, but we still have the right to choose. We still have bakeries selling greasy fried donuts, pastries full of sugar and trans fats, cakes, cookies and other treats that people buy every day, as well as fast food restaurants selling salty and fatty french fries and greasy fried foods and beef, all with salty pickles, mayo, tartar sauce, fake cheese and other condiments, all of which should be taken in moderation and not as a regular part of a healthy diet. There’s even one fast food outlet that brags about its artery-clogging “beef tallow” french fries. So, should “Big Brother” ban or dictate what ingredients should be in these foods? And RFK is an idiot. He has no credibility.
Hey Gigi/Natasha!! Rage and Republic Debuts as #2 on New York Times Best Sellers List
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/02/12/rage-and-the-republic-debuts-as-2-on-new-york-times-bestseller-list/
BTW, if you would of read the good professor’s article, you would see it is a Democrat who is defending all those unhealthy foods with her “come and take it,” comment.
Upstate: Good for you to point out to Gigi that “it is a Democrat who is defending all those unhealthy foods.”
And good for you about the bacon. We use Kroger’s around here, they haVe a pre-cooked low sodium bacon that is good. Indeed, having a BLT for lunch today–with a few swigs of Coke. good combo, ha ha
Lin, A BLT and a Coke? Careful—at the rate this ‘data request’ is going, you might need a federal permit and a 40-page safety study just to finish that meal. Good thing those ‘unhealthy’ Democrats haven’t banned your lunch yet, or you’d be stuck with a kale smoothie and a lecture. Bon appétit!
X
Progressives made the regulations.
I would be surprised if the federal safety study required to put a food on the market is only 40 pages.
I will be happy to join you to eliminate ALL such regulations.
RFK jr. is not asking for anything that is not already required.
He is just asking for an explanation for conclusions that appear questionable.
Regardless, RFK jr. is not for the most part making new regulations. He is questioning how well the Regulations progressives imposed are actually being followed.
John Say,
“He is just asking for an explanation for conclusions that appear questionable.”
Correct. And yet, some how, the MA governor and others here have it in their minds that to eat a BLT you will need a federal permit and read a 40 page paper to eat it.
This is another “Trump tweeted this!!!” And in 10 minutes of analysis by intrepid CNN pundits they came to the conclusion he was going to declare martial law and make himself dictator for life during his first term.
Stop calling me Gigi or Natasha. And, as previously explained to you, “debut” numbers can, and frequently are, massaged to boost credibility and to try to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. Someone wanting to juice the ratings buys a couple of cases of the book from Amazon or wherever and then they are claimed to be a “best seller”. That’s what Joe Kennedy did for JFK”s first book “Why England Slept” that started out as a college thesis, in which he blamed England for not being better prepared for Hitler. Turley’s book slid precipitously, and isn’t even listed on the NYT nonfiction best sellers list for this week, but Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s book “Nobody’s Girl” has been on the list for 19 weeks. Turley has little credibility outside of MAGA–a self-inflicted wound. But, you are right–I don’t always read the swill written by Jonathan Turley in detail because it is MAGA BS and a waste of time I’ll never get back, but the gist of the MA Governor’s position is that people are free to choose–not that she’s “fighting for” sugary drinks as being good for you, which is what Turley’s headline says.
Stop calling me Gigi or Natasha
Are you no longer identifying as she/her/dem or are you back to Hemorrhoids, Legion, PowerBottom, Traila Trash?
Asking for George – Svelaz – Peter Shill
Gigi/Natasha, “as previously explained to you, “debut” numbers can, and frequently are, massaged to boost credibility and to try to create a self-fulfilling prophesy.”
Sounds like a Blue Anon conspiracy theory.
” Turley has little credibility outside of MAGA”
That would be half of America.
Not even close–MAGA’s numbers, at best, are in the thirties, and losing support. The lie about “no new wars” and the lie about Epstein files transparency and the promise to call out all of those wealthy powerful men who abused little girls offends even MAGAs, except for the diehards.
We all thought “the Epstein files” would be documents written or saved by Epstein and Maxwell. Nor voicemail messages left by anonymous randoms on the FBI’s number
No. That would be the half of America that voted for Trump.
I am going to wait and see what comes of the war with Iran before passing judgement. There is a lot more going on than just Iran. China got some 80% of its oil from Iran. This hurts them, big time. This gives Trump leverage over them. This also may influence Russia. And the EU and NATO. There is a lot more going on here than your simplistic ‘no new wars,” mantra.
What is to say about the Epstein files? Bill Gates. Bill Clinton. It is reported that going through pictures of Bill Clinton at various Epstein places, Bill Clinton was smiling. So much so, his own lawyer snatched the pics from Bill Clinton’s hands it was such bad optics.
It has been reported Bill Clinton himself said he never heard of Trump doing anything wrong.
Can you point out to whom those wealthy and powerful men were?
“Stop calling me Gigi or Natasha.”
If you post as anonymous – you do not get a voice and what others call you.
If it quacks like a duck!”
This is a legal blog.
Turley has addressed the legality/constitutionality of Trump’s actions.
Their are measures in both the House and Senate to provide addtional boundaries to Trumps military powers.
These have both failed.
You are free to push you representative and senator if you wish more limits.
I personally prefer the clear text of the constitution – and would require the president to have authorization for an operation of this scale.
But that ship has sailed. Nothing Trump has done is outside of what other presidents have done.
Many people have questions – and that is GOOD – it is evidence that the failures of past presidents has undermined our Trust in a presidents exercise of military power.
But by current constitutional and legal standards Trump’s actions are legitimate.
Lots of polls are suggesting they are not popular – but that is not what I see around me.
Regardless public judgement of this will not ultimately rest on the moment, but on the outcome.
If this is resolved quickly.
If the loss of american life is small.
If the stated objectives are accomplished – an end to Iran;s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and end to Iran’s missle program, and an end to Irans terrorist disruption of other nations.
Trump will be viewed as “the goat”. If not this will be another of the failed meddling of US presidents in foreign affairs.
ATS
The objectives have been CRYSTAL CLEAR
an end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
an end of Iran’s missile program.
an end to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism regionally and through out the globe.
Will Trump settle for less than perfect accomplishment of those objectives ? Possibly.
Regardless those are the objectives.
If you do not like them – make that argument.
When this is over – you are also free to challenge how well that they were accomplished.
“People should be free to make whatever choices they desire about what they eat and drink. The government provides sound recommendations for healthy eating, based on science, which is an appropriate role for the government to play, but we still have the right to choose. We still have bakeries selling greasy fried donuts, pastries full of sugar and trans fats, cakes, cookies and other treats that people buy every day, as well as fast food restaurants selling salty and fatty french fries and greasy fried foods and beef, all with salty pickles, mayo, tartar sauce, fake cheese and other condiments, all of which should be taken in moderation and not as a regular part of a healthy diet. There’s even one fast food outlet that brags about its artery-clogging “beef tallow” french fries. So, should “Big Brother” ban or dictate what ingredients should be in these foods? ”
I completely agree. But that was NOT the case before RFK, and it is still NOT the case, and it is not likely to ever be the case.
The closest you can come to this is to make all our own food.
But if you produce food for consumption by others – there are local, state and federal laws that regulate all aspects of that.
If you do not like that – RFK jr. is not the cause – and Gov. Healey is not the answer.
Nearly a century of progressive meddling in food and drugs is the cause.
Neither RFK jr. nor Healey are unfortunately not trying to end that.
RFK Jr. is just trying to get food producers to explain how they reached safety conclusions required by law and delegated to them by prior HHS,
Do I trust RFK jr. – Certainly not. But I do trust him more than his critics.
You can be LESS WRONG without actually being right.
I agree that the Democrats have become reflexively anti-Trump. If DJT was spotted along a highway picking up trash, we will soon hear from Sen Warren and AOC about the inherent beauty of roadside trash. So I would suggest that the geniuses in the White House devise a strategy to use this reflexive tendency to their advantage. For example, they could have DJT come out in favor of mass amnesty for illegal aliens. By this set of political dynamics, the Democrats will be forced to oppose mass amnesty and instead support efforts to expeditiously remove illegal aliens. Or consider if DJT proposes to abolish ICE. What possibly could the Democrats do except fervently proclaim the manifest virtues of ICE? This is a dynamic that just cries out to be utilized.
-And it is not just sugar, but also salt overloads!I am blessed to be healthy, fit, and non-diabetic,) –but I love some good long gulps/swigs of Coca Cola–in the greenish glass bottles! The sugar content is alarming-in just one bottle! But I do not want sugar to go away.
Notwithstanding, there is No need for these EXCESSES, flavor-wise or other, and they could gradually wean people off by slowly and sequentially lowering those additives by just a few percentage points year by year.
Many of us grab takeout food from external sources, grocery frozen isles, or eat in restaurants. Good thing that those overdoses of sugar/salt (unlike crack/coke) do not cause us to go into stuporous unconsciousness on the restaurant floors!
(or maybe we SHOULD! That’ll teach them to cut it out!
Lin,
Thank you for the visual of “stuporous unconsciousness on the restaurant floors!” and the laugh!
I have always been on the salt-phobic side and generally make my own bacon. On the occasions when I do not have any on hand and have to resort to buying the store stuff, I have to soak it in a cold water bath for thirty minutes to draw out some of the salt.
The menus most dangerous to Americans are found on ballots. Gavin Newsom has proved far more destructive to the health and wellbeing of Californians than has any food additive, and nothing contained in any food or drink compares with the threat to New York City residents posed by Mamdaniosis.
What’s Up with that? I recall Trump saying that he wanted the real Coke~Cola to become available (Cane Syrup etc.)
Not ‘Original Flavor’ Coke~Cola or Mexican Bottled Coke~Cola.
Did he get his wish? or is it available at the White House only?
And where are the Dunkin Doughnut’s, vanilla-custard and chocolate-cream Bavarian Cream Doughnut?
BTW: My wife wants her summer poolside favorites back; a Carton of Virginia Slims and a couple of cases of the original Tab (saccharine and all).
We just want to die Happy 😀
Mexican bottled Coca-Cola IS real Coke. It’s always been made with cane sugar. That is why it’s imported plus the glass bottle preserves the flavor better.
Pepsi is wrecked.
Oh yum, the Boston creme pie donuts…my reason has to kick in or I’d gobble a dozen. 😋
Here it is – the Real Thing
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwAew3YWEAAoaoI?format=jpg
“Healey responded with a taunt, ‘Come and take it…’”
“Come and take it?” Molon Labe? From Democrats? Really?? The Party of cash for mullahs dares us? The Party of the Afghanistan bugout defies us?
Your terms are acceptable. Make our day, cupcakes.
I think she got her inspiration from nearby Maine’s guv Janet Mills, disdainfully and disrespectfully arguing with the President in an open room of collected governors, telling him “I’ll see you in court!” Insolent (what is it called, chutzpah?) whether you like the President or not.
Flagrant and open discourtesy and unprofessional contretemps, in my book. What are we teaching our kids about civil discourse?
Lin, grammar schools in liberal land now teach F bombs as a form of punctuation. I might be kidding, but libs keep upstaging satire :-O
Like most career politicians, Mills believes she can out-Trump Trump. At heart, Trump is a city New Yorker. He speaks like many people you’d meet on the streets of the City. Direct, brash, uncouth, you name it. The polished politicians who try to “Trump” simply look foolish by comparision because they just don’t have the experience of getting things done – IE, meeting a payroll, dealing with Labor Unions (other than begging for their member’s dues) – let alone any kind of philanthropic efforts using their own money. Bernie is another caricature of Bernie himself. He may still have a New York dialect and insulting speech patterns, but he’s made nothing but a career made from draining the taxpayers of their hard earned dollars. Leftists like Mills and Sanders virtue-signal all day long, every day, and twice on Sunday’s. Silly Karens.
The word “donut” is adequate notice to the public of the unhealthy contents.
Or otherwise called a fat pill
Perhaps the simplest way to look at this is with the cup itself. The paper cup used for a hot beverage is not considered safe merely because paper exists. Manufacturers test the specific cup design to ensure it is chemically safe at the temperatures and conditions in which it will be used. That is product safety, not just ingredient safety.
Sugar may be GRAS as an ingredient, but the question being raised concerns the formulation of certain beverages at extremely high quantities. That leaves the companies with a fairly simple answer to provide. Either they have evaluated the safety of their formulations at those levels, or they have not.
If they have conducted such analysis, producing it should not be controversial. If they have not, then the answer is simply that they rely on the general GRAS status of sugar rather than any product-specific safety evaluation. Either way, that information helps consumers better understand the basis for what is being sold.
And if the latter is the case, it is easy to see why companies might resist the question. Acknowledging the absence of product-level safety analysis is precisely the kind of gap that often invites regulatory attention, something most companies understandably prefer to avoid.
Olly, good grief, you’re conflating two different things. Material science and health safety.
Testing a paper cup for chemical leaching is a matter of acute safety—ensuring the glue or plastic doesn’t melt and poison you instantly. High sugar content, however, is a nutritional health issue. A cup is either chemically stable or it isn’t. Sugar, conversely, is a legal food source where the ‘safety’ depends entirely on the individual consumer’s total daily diet and metabolic health. You cannot ‘test’ a high-sugar latte for safety the way you test a cup, because the ‘harm’ of sugar isn’t a chemical reaction within the cup; it’s a long-term caloric result within the human body.
That ‘high quantities’ change the safety of the formulation is legally flawed. The FDA regulates concentrations of additives (like dyes or preservatives), but sugar is a bulk food ingredient. There is no ‘secret’ safety data for a 100g sugar drink because sugar is not a drug with a ‘toxic dose’ in a single serving.
You’re arguing that companies should be providing “safety data” on ingredients that have already been studied, measured, and found to be safe by the FDA. Kennedy has all the information he’s asking, he’s asking the wrong entity for the information.
“Olly, good grief, you’re conflating two different things. ” He’s got an issue with reality.
These issues are a bit more complicated and most government officials aren’t the best to make these decisions.
For example: if you are a construction worker in Arizona working in 100+ degree temperatures all day, drinking water all day. Lots of salt, sugar and even fast food is not as harmful as it would be for a white-collar worker sitting at a desk in air-conditioning all day.
Only the individual (you and me) can make those decisions with accurate food labeling and consumer education. Government bureaucrats sitting in an air-conditioned office can’t accurately make those choices for us.
A Democrat is now protecting the Big Gulp. Fine, your choice is your choice. However, we should not forget that Obama changed the content and the quantity of school lunches. The portions were so small that the football players didn’t have enough energy to practice. Obama said you must and Kennedy says you should be aware to be able to make the proper choices. Did Maura Healey stand up against the food regulations by Obama? Most likely not considering that Democrats couldn’t even stand up in recognition of a one hundred year old World War Two veteran at the state of the union address.
Hypocrisy duth have a head of warts and cankers.
TiT,
There was one upside to the Obama school lunch mandates: Kids would bring packs of sugar or salt from home and the kids learned the valuable lesson of supply and demand, economics 101.
You’re economics analogy would be correct only, free stuff is not a economic commodity, if the kids were BUYING or SELLING (trading) the S&P the analogy would be accurate.
In addition. What families keep packets of S&P at home? Available only in small quantiles; packets are strictly a commercial product.
Should have gone to college.
Yes. They were buying and selling. And yes, some people will grab extra packets of sugar or salt or soy sauce from the store or market and take them home. Or in today’s times, restaurants will send out these packets with a Doordash order/delivery.
Strictly a commercial product? What? Have to have a license to operate a restaurant to walk into a Costco and buy a bulk order of sugar packets?
You must of went to Harvard.
Whoever keeps claiming that sugar is Generally Recognized As Safe has forgotten the maxim that it is the dose that makes the poison.
For those claiming this is simply opposition to government overreach, try a simple thought experiment.
Suppose Sec. Kennedy announced that his department would not request any safety data from Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts regarding the formulation of their ready-to-consume beverages. Suppose he said the government has no interest in whether companies have any research supporting the safety of those sugar levels.
Does anyone really believe the reaction would be applause for restraint? More likely it would be immediate outrage demanding transparency.
That reaction would answer the question. The issue here is not government overreach. It is whether people are willing to apply the same standard of transparency regardless of who is asking the question.
Olly, The thought experiment fails because it assumes that if Kennedy isn’t demanding ‘new’ data, the government is silent. That’s false. The FDA and HHS already have a massive, existing framework for sugar. They already define GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status and mandate Nutrition Facts and Menu Labeling. If a Secretary said he had ‘no interest’ in whether sugar was safe, the outrage wouldn’t be about a lack of new ‘transparency’—it would be because he was abandoning his statutory duty to enforce the laws already on the books.
The issue isn’t about applying the ‘same standard of transparency.’ The standard for transparency is: Tell the consumer exactly what is in the cup. We already do that through grams and calories. What is being requested here isn’t transparency (which is providing facts); it is justification (forcing a company to defend a legal ingredient). We don’t ask bakeries to ‘prove the safety’ of a birthday cake, even though it has high sugar, because the transparency is already achieved by the ingredient list.
why are you always so ornery? always trying to prove (to the man in the mirror?) that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than others? You aren’t. Such a joke.
geroge/X thinks he knows it all.
and “conflating” and “catch-22,” like non-sequitur, are all things he learned from this blog. even “ad hominem.
It’s flattering that you think I need a blog to learn basic logic and Latin, but I promise those concepts have been around a lot longer than this comment section.
If you’re so worried about where I got the words, maybe try focusing on why they apply so perfectly to your arguments. Or is ‘vocabulary’ the only thing you have left to ‘rebut’ since the actual facts aren’t working out for you?
Yup, still waitin’ on those FDA facts. Nope, still haven’t seen ’em.
looks like someone struck a nerve in georgie or X, he reacts like a bee stung him, comes out batting and swatting when truth hurts. try again, georgie.
no georgie, you forget that we have input history of all your early posts going back months and a few years, and we can see EXACTLY when you started using these words. Hint: not from knowing logic or Latin. clown.
DustOff,
In order to follow OLLY’s logic and responses, I read a few of X comments. OLLY is clearly winning, X knows it. As a result, X attempts to reframe the discussion, move the goal posts, introduce new irrelevant issues or talk in circles.
Upstatefarmer, “ OLLY is clearly winning, X knows it.”. ROLF!! By what measure?
Olly has been running in a circular logic trap he can’t get out of. I posted factual and logical rebuttals to his incorrect logic about the topic. There has been no reframing and/or moving the goal posts.
The goalposts haven’t moved an inch. My position has remained consistent from the start:
Transparency already exists.
The Facts: Every gram of sugar in those drinks is already disclosed by law.
A consumer (like the diabetic example) has 100% of the data they need to make a choice.
Labeling is transparency; demanding ‘new’ safety studies for a legal, GRAS-certified ingredient is regulatory intimidation.
Calling a consistent argument ‘talking in circles’ is just a way to avoid answering the core question:
If the sugar count is already on the menu, what specific ‘safety’ information is missing that isn’t already covered by 50 years of FDA science? Accusing someone of reframing is easy; answering the data-driven points I’ve made is apparently much harder.”
It’s called a refutation or opposing view. It’s a pretty common way of responding to someone you think is not entirely correct in their opinion or view. It has nothing to do with proving anything. Just regular plain ol’ discourse. You should try it sometime.
looks like now georgie is copycatting the style that others use –replacing end-letters with an apostrophe. same thing when he just this last year or so started using yup an nope. not an original thought-or style– in that one’s head!
Anonymous,
When critique my apostrophes all you want instead of my arguments, I’ll take that as your official white flag on the actual facts. Anyway—yup, the sugar counts are still on the menu. Back to the point?
Funny how you’re tracking my grammar like a hawk but can’t seem to find a single logical hole in my point about FDA labeling. I’ll keep the style; you keep avoidin’ the argument.
Most voters oppose European style “Nanny State” forms of government, from women that support Pro-Choice to gun owners to food/alcohol to TV/Movie Parental Ratings (where parents, not government officials, censor our kids).
When the USA did try these foreign models of governing during “Alcohol Prohibition” it was a complete disaster that created an illegal black market and helped strengthen organized crime.
Turley is correct, provide the consumer education and accurate food labeling, but never authorize a politician or government official to make choices for your own family. Nobody trusts politicians anyway, why would you trust them as a Nanny-State taking away your freedom?
If consumers are expected to rely entirely on their own judgment, perhaps you can help clarify something. As a self-reliant consumer, where should people look to find scientifically established safe levels of sugar consumption in ready-to-drink beverages that does not involve government health guidance?
If the position is that government should not ask companies for safety data, then the obvious question becomes where consumers are supposed to obtain reliable safety information in the first place.
Olly,
You’re getting all twisted up in a catch-22 sort of argument.
Your question assumes that if the government doesn’t ‘force’ data out of a company, the consumer is left in a vacuum. That’s a false choice. Consumers look to the same place they look for the ‘safe’ amount of salt, fat, or calories: independent clinical science. Organizations like the American Heart Association and the World Health Organization provide clear, peer-reviewed guidelines on sugar. We don’t need a specific ‘safety study’ from Dunkin’ to know that 80g of sugar is a high dose; we use the nutrition label the law already provides to check it against established medical science.
You are arguing that the government should demand data because consumers need ‘reliable’ information. But if the FDA already has the power to set those safety levels and hasn’t found 80g of sugar to be ‘toxic’ or ‘adulterated’ under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, then the ‘reliable information’ is that the product is legal. Demanding more ‘data’ is just a request for a second opinion on a settled legal fact.
The ‘reliable safety information’ is already in the consumer’s hand. It’s the grams of sugar on the back of the bottle or the app. ‘Safety’ in food isn’t a secret held by the company; it’s a biological reality. If a consumer wants to know if a level of sugar is safe for them, they consult their doctor or public health data.
Companies are experts in flavor and logistics, not human metabolism. If Kennedy wants to know the safe level of sugar, he has the entire NIH and FDA at his disposal. Which is what I have been saying all this time.
Here’s a question you should ponder. How do you propose companies like Dunkin and Starbucks determine the safety level of sugar in their drinks?
Olly, consider this,
Think about a diabetic customer. They know exactly how dangerous sugar can be, but they can still walk into a Starbucks and order safely. Why? Because the law already forces companies to label exactly how much sugar is in every drink.
The diabetic uses that label to decide what’s safe for their body. They don’t need Starbucks to conduct a scientific study to tell them that 100 grams of sugar is a lot—they can see the number on the menu and make an informed choice. This is exactly why RFK’s request for ‘safety data’ feels like a performance. The transparency is already there; the responsibility for the choice lies with the consumer, not a government-mandated corporate white paper.
If a diabetic can use a standard nutrition label to avoid a medical emergency, then the current system of transparency is working. Both Dunkin’ and Starbucks already provide the sugar counts required by law. The ‘safety’ of a drink depends on the person drinking it, not a secret file in a corporate office. RFK Jr. asking for ‘safety data’ on a substance as well-understood as sugar is redundant—the data is already on the menu, and the choice belongs to the consumer. Right?
Great question, Olly. On a related note (I think) I like my family doctor. Then again, he keeps prescribing drugs to lower my cholestoral while he’s reading my test results indicating all my lipid levels are normal, even slightly below ‘guidelines’. I don’t take the statin he’s offering – he knows this. Yet he persists on pushing me to take a medicine I don’t need because it’s what the government’s FDA approves, even recommends. I don’t need to change doctors (yet) but you’re right, where would I even start to look for a new one if government encourages doctors to put everyone on medication(s) they don’t really need?
A better starting point for RFK: ban federal money being spent on crap foods.
Food stamps should not be used to buy candies, cookies, chips, and most packaged drinks.
Ag subsidies should exclude sugar and seed or semisynthetic oils.
While you’re at it, get rid of subsidies allowing ethanol as a motor fuel – it’s, stupid, terrible thermodynamics.
If Starbucks an Dunkin can not provide data that their sugary drinks are safe, how does he propose to stop Walmart from selling me a 5 pound sack of refined sugar?
Every 2 years I go and get a PET scan to see if my cancer has come back. Do you know how the tumors are highlighted on the scan? From what I have been told it is the increased amount of sugar. The tumors actually light up and make it easy to identify.
So why not have the sugar identified? Perhaps there would be a reduction in cancer. I know that I avoid sugar, as much as I can, so I do not have to go through what I went through.
rcs
You do not understand what the PET scan does, and you seem to think that sugar is the cause of your cancer.
Sugar did not cause your cancer.
The PET scan relies on the high metabolic activity of the cancer. Cancer cells are much more metabolically active and consume more glucose that normal cells. When you undergo a PET scan, the injection you receive is usually fluorodeoxyglucose, FDG, which is glucose tagged with radioactive Fluorine-18. The cancer cells take up more of the FDG than normal cells and are lit up by the radioactive fluorine, not the glucose itself.
Unbelievable, yet totally believable. These people are insane. 🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
Freedom of choice is freedom to make choices both good and bad
Sounds a lot like our right to vote.
We end up with politicians who are good and bad.