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.
One wonders if adding fluoride to our water since the 50’s was wise, for while reducing cavities, has clear implications for the explosion in the dx of ADHD.
Under the guidance of this phenomenally unique and gifted leader, our President will clear the path for the revolution longed for by fair minded people around the world for 50 years. He is a genius.
Biden and Obama passed the buck, as they did with immigration reform. They were too wishy- washy to destroy Iran despite the certainty that a thermonuclear weapon was within their reach soon.
Well the Democratic nanny state has recently switched their position from we want to save you from yourself to we will help you kill yourself with their assisted suicide laws aimed at reducing citizens on government insurance and subsidies medical costs so they can give free medical care to illegals. In light of that is all makes sense.
The Democrats hate US citizens, and love illegals.
The question is- has the human body adapted to the foods being eaten. Refined sugars is new to the body and no, the body hasn’t adapted. It’s a seldom lying indulged treat. Unfortunately most of our foods today are sugar and salt with little nutrition. People are ingesting calories to burn but not much else. The response of this person is “make me”. It’s teenager talk.
Educate the population and there are plenty of studies already done. Contact the American Dental Society or any other medical grouping. A simple warning on the label or knowledge of grams of sugar per day and what the product contains is reasonable. Refined sugar in excess is harmful. Educate the population and they’ll make the right choice.
^^^ infrequently indulged…word press doesn’t like seldomly.
Of of is there 😏 somewhere.
Agree with PT.
Tom Cotton just stated on Fox that Iran has been an imminent threat for 47 years, and the president was correct to act now.
Clearly Tom does not understand big boy words like “imminent”.
imminent (adj): about to happen very soon or is likely to occur at any moment
Nothing can be imminent for 47 years.
It has been imminent in that Iran has been quietly sneaking nuke-building and planning to strike at the U.S. “enemy” at the right moment, for the last 47 years, pretending to be complying with treaty deals. Just as Trump and the U.S. did not know exactly when we would preemptively strike. But Trump beat them to the punch!
So, you do not understand the meaning of the word “imminent” either.
Figures.
Must be the defective education that characterizes the MAGA cult.
If you had any intelligence or education at all you would not be a victim of a cult.
MAGA cult blah blah blah. You commies are all the same, all trash talk name calling and no substance. The undeniable reality is that Iran is ruled by “Twelvers” – a genocidal death cult that thinks the 12th Imam will emerge from hiding as soon as they engulf the world in full-scale global war and carnage. Their main obstacles are the US and Israel. That’s why all their chants are “death to America, death to Israel.” People like that can’t be deterred with MAD (mutually assured destruction). Their own destruction is what they want, as it is a segue to the emergence of the Mahdi and worldwide bliss in their false eschatology. There is no deterrence cure for a regime like that, only an annihilation cure. You disdain the very actions that will save your sorry a–.
Not to mention that they’ve been bragging to Witkoff that they have enough enriched uranium for 11 Hiroshima bombs. Is that “imminent” enough for you, moron?
@ 3:15 and 4:21:
Perhaps you are confusing the word “imminent” with “exigent.”
ATS the meaning of imminent is not relevant. Though you err in presuming the most common meaning is NOT the only meaning.
What was imminent was the opportunity to most easily do something about a CERTAIN global threat that would be far harder and more costly to deal with later.
I would further note – this is NOT a MAGA thing.
The parties, the country, americans are divided over this with little regard to political ideology.
Many ferverent MAGA are opposed to this.
Your cult nonsense displays incredible ignorance about US politics, and particularly MAGA. If being in a cult means following a charasmatic leader off a cliff – that CLEARLY is not MAGA,
Regardless, the politics of this do not matter right now. Theey will not matter until this is over and the cost and benefits cn be accurately measured.
if This turns into another Iraq – Trump and republicans are toast.
If a friendly regime takes over Iran – Ttrump and republicans may sweep 2026 particularly if the economy does well.
The most likely outcome will be neither – but we shall see.
But trying to engage in idiotic political word games right now is stupid.
The meaning of imminent is of no consequence to the future – either politically or globally.
Israel conducted its June 7, 1981 strike with F-15 and F16 aircraft of U.S. origin, passing enroute secretly and without permission through Saudi airspace. The attack was timed to occur before the reactor became operational to avoid, the Israelis said, the danger of radiation contamination during or after the attack.
The Israeli’s live with the imminent threat of nuclear conflagration every minute of every day.
imminent /ĭm′ə-nənt/ adjective
Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous
American Heritage Dictionary
Etymology
From the present participle of Latin imminēre (“to overhang”), from mineō (“to project, overhang”), related to minae (English menace) and mons (English mount).
i.e looming danger.
Synonyms: near, coming, close, approaching
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has been “imminent” for far more than 47 years.
Those of you on the left have demanded that we spend Trillions just to mitigate it, not even to stop it.
The most common meaning of imminent is likely soon. That is not the only meaning.
But the meaning of imminent is unimportant.
As is your false conclusion that no threat from Iran was imminent.
At various times directly or indirectly Iran has threatened and carried out threats against other countries.
It is clear from the targetting of missles and drones that Iran intended at some point to strike nearly ever nation in the mideast.
In the past they have done so without warning or whenever they even felt threatened.
Are you sure Iran was not about to target the entire mideast ?
But even that does not matter – whether they were about to attack the entire mideast they ABSOLUTELY sought to have the entire mideast affraid they would be hit if they did not give Iran whatever they wanted.
Was Iran imminently threatening the US with nuclear weapons ? No.
Was Iran imminently threatening the peace and stability of the Mideast ? Absolutely. Was Iran imminently threatening US national security ? Absolutely.
I was extremely skeptical about Bushing premptive war doctrine.
The fact is that in 2003 Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and was doing nothing consequential to get nuclear weapons.
They did use US supplied chemical weapons against their own people. And they had a decade before invaded a neighbor.
But there was no real evidence they were much of a threat in 2003.
Iran has also attacked its own people, and invaded neighbors in the past.
Further they were openly seeking nuclear weapons and they were openly building offensive weapons to attack neighbors and eventually the whole world.
Iraq was accused of participating in international terrorism – but that was False. Iran openly supports terrorists.
Whatever Justification Bush CLAIMED to have to invade Iraq – Trump has PROVEN to have regarding Iran today.
Now we should not have invaded Iraq.
But knowing what we should do with respect to Iran is a more difficult question.
If Trump did nothing in June 2025 – Iran would have nuclear weapons NOW, and it is only a matter of time before they would have mated them to IRBMs and then have developed ICBD’s and mater them to those. Further, Whatever capability Iran has had – it has USED.
If Trump did nothing now, sometime in the next 5 years – all the same things that were imminent in 2025 would become reality.
One way or another Iran was going to have to be dealt with.
In January it became clear that th Ayatolah’s grip on power was as weak as it has ever been. But it hs also become clear that without outside assistance The Ayatollahs were never going to be deposed.
It became obvious that we were the closest were were ever going to get to the Ayatolah’s being driven from power. We were the closest we were ever going to get to the possibility of Ending the threat and instability posed by Iran. But that if we did nothing that moment would pass.
Trump has chosen to try to make something of that moment.
You can challenge that decision – but atleast do so using REAL facts. If we did nothing now, the likelyhood of being able to do something later when the threat was not imminent, but certain, was huge and the probability of success later was small.
We have destroyed Iran’s navy and air force. We have sealed off their ability to receive supplies. They cannot replace their inferior weaponry. We will mop up the rest, having removed their “theocracy” and the hundreds of thousands who were brave enough to risk their lives to protest the brutal, repressive, 5th century styled reign of terror, will regain control of their country.
Under the guidance of this phenomenally unique leader, our President will clear the path for the revolution longed for by fair minded people around the world for 50 years. He is a genius.
And he is enhancing and increasing munitions replacement manufacturing as we write.
Dig it.
Which is why we destroyed the Germans, the Japanese, and gave the soviet union all they required to battle the Nazis successfully and how we could afford to fund the Marshall Plan with 13 billion dollars to rebuild Europe. America is the greatest economic miracle the world has ever seen. We built 85,000 aircraft in ’43 compared to Germany’s 35,000. We built over 100,000 tanks compared to Germany’s 19,000.
Which explains why millions of people risk everything to come here. And, we are a land of laws and a very safe place to invest money. As Judge Judy says, when a litigant describes the benefits she receives as a disabled American, “This is some county.”
Breaking News: Trump just fired Ice Barbie and named Markwayne Mullens to replace her, effective March 31st. We have to wonder what the straw was that broke the camel’s back–the luxury flying love cabin paid for by taxpayers with the bedroom in back or the ad campaign featuring ICE Barbie made up like a cowgirl? We sure as h3ll know it wasn’t killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or the abuse of peaceful protesters, or even the scandal about vastly overpaying above market value for the purchase of abandoned warehouses to convert them ito ICE concentration camps.
According to the NY Post, Trump is allegedly “furious” over Noem saying he approved the $220 Million ad campaign featuring her. He denies it. It is hard to defend this, really.
Hey Markwayne Mullin, if you’re taking Kristi Noem’s job, the first thing I suggest you do is to wash the sheets on that damn luxury jet
You kidding?
First thing Markwayne will be doing is sniffing those sheets
Just the sheets?
That entire plane requires a disinfectant debridement and a black light inspection of all surfaces.
Just making a suggestion.
And throw away any blanket you find.
I heard she’s taking her blankie with her.
Good. Now fire Nancy P. She flew from DC to Calif night after night. Enjoyed the booze too
DEPORTATION NATION!
WINNING!
poor gigi, she seems to have a real problem with women, always looking at their appearance and giving them nicknames like “bottle blondie” and “ice barbie. Since gigi had to ask her doctor about her weight, we can only guess why she is always criticizing the appearance of other women.
After 122+ comments, this discussion still comes down to a very simple answer.
Either the companies have evaluated the safety of their formulations at those sugar levels, or they rely on the publicly available research and GRAS determinations already established by the FDA.
Both are perfectly plausible answers. But either way, the response would have taken far less time than the debate surrounding the question.
GRAS status applies to ingredients individually, not necessarily to the final formulations sold to consumers. A baked potato, butter, salt, and cheese are all GRAS ingredients, but putting a pound of butter on that potato would not suddenly make the meal healthy.
That may be part of what Kennedy is trying to highlight. There can be a gap between the GRAS status of individual ingredients and the health implications of the final products created from them. If so, the question is not really about whether sugar itself is legal or labeled. It is whether the current regulatory framework fully addresses the health effects of extreme formulations that combine otherwise approved ingredients.
Olly, after 122+ comments, it’s impressive how you can acknowledge the answer while still missing the point.
You just admitted the answer is ‘they rely on the FDA’s GRAS determinations.’ That’s it. That is the entire legal and scientific basis for food safety in this country.
There is no ‘gap’ to investigate because a coffee shop isn’t a pharmacy—they don’t perform clinical trials on ‘formulations’ of legal food.
Your baked potato analogy is perfect for proving my point, not yours: If I put a pound of butter on a potato, it’s ‘unhealthy,’ but it isn’t illegal or unregulated. The safety of the butter is established (GRAS), and the nutritional impact is transparent (the label).
The ‘health implications’ of a choice belong to the person eating the potato, not a government-mandated ‘safety study’ from the potato farmer. If Kennedy wants to change the regulatory framework to limit portion sizes or sugar ratios, he has a legal process for that. Asking for ‘data’ that doesn’t exist to ‘highlight’ a point we can all see on the menu isn’t oversight—it’s just theatre.
But hey, if you want to wait for a 40-page safety analysis before you decide if a pound of butter is a bad idea, that’s your prerogative. The rest of us just read the label.
georgie didn’t even know what GRAS was before today. And copy-catting Olly’s opening sentence is a rebuttal tactic the georgie also picked up recently on this blog. poor georgie. not an original thought in his head.
OLLY,
I have a few diabetics in the family. A 115g of sugar would put them into a diabetic coma. Dont need to read the GRAS to know that. Unfortunately for us, i.e. America, what was once a rarity, type two diabetes is skyrocketing and not just among adults but children as our obesity epidemic continues. That level of sugar just might be fueling it and not just in a coffee but across the board in all processed or ultra-processed food stuff.
Our species has survived for over 200,000 years eating what ever is available. There is no perfect diet for everyone. Evolution will have its way. All this obsessing over food and diet is about money and ego.
Upstate, I tend to look at issues through a systems lens and ask what the underlying causes are. Few would argue that the country isn’t facing serious and worsening health problems, particularly regarding obesity and diabetes.
From that perspective, Kennedy’s inquiry may simply be part of examining the system as a whole. If we want to understand how we arrived at these outcomes, it makes sense to look at the role of ultra-processed foods, sugar levels in beverages, consumer behavior, and the regulatory framework surrounding them.
In that sense, this question about sugar levels in certain drinks may be only one piece of a much larger system that deserves examination if we are serious about identifying root causes. Interestingly, the level of pushback against even asking the question may itself reveal something about how resistant the system can be to that kind of inquiry.
OLLY,
Well said. As we have seen today, ask the question and we have wild assertions of government over reach that would require a federal permit and a 40 page paper to read about, before eating a BLT.
In Europe certain food and bev industries, they have something akin to guilds that dictate quality standards in things like wine, cheese, bread, beer, Charcuterie etc. That is how and why they do not have things like highly processed food stuff.
That would be part of the base system I think we need examining.
Once, I was in the check out line and a young couple with their baby in front of me was trying to buy cheese using WIC. When the cashire informed them they could not buy the single slice cheese, they did not understand. They thought it was cheese. Under WIC rules, cheese had to contain 50% or more milk. The cheese they were trying to buy was highly processed food stuff, containing more than 50% vegetable oil. That part of the system worked as it should to make sure the child and mother were getting real food.
@OLLY
Whether or not I agree or disagree (and in this instance I do not disagree with him, we should examine nutrients, and that is vs. the outright ban that was proposed several years ago, by yes, the modern left, they really do think we are stupid. I do not agree on bans, just guidance, and trust me – 90% of the people are lacking that in 2026), the dems quite literally held the exact opposite stance on this, and not long ago. Really, quite literally.
It is beyond absurd, they are clowns, everyone sees they are clowns, and for things to have come to this point is pretty much just shameful. The modern left is that clown show – but by all means, keep,’voting blue, no matter who.’, sheep. At least have the decency to acknowledge you are nothing more than generationally programmed sheep. and no, nobody wants to eat mutton.
James, If you agree that guidance is better than bans, then you should actually be defending the current system. We already have federal guidance—it’s called the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. It requires every gram of sugar to be disclosed so that the ‘90% of people’ you mentioned have the exact information they need to make a choice.
The reason this is being called out as a ‘clown show’ isn’t about ‘voting blue’; it’s about regulatory consistency. If the information is already on the label, asking a company to provide ‘safety data’ for a legal ingredient isn’t guidance—it’s harassment. Whether it’s a Democrat proposing a ban or a Republican-appointed Secretary demanding redundant data, both are forms of government overreach that treat the consumer like they can’t read a menu.
The most ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-freedom’ stance is to let the FDA set the safety standards, let the companies provide the labels, and let the citizens decide what to put in their own bodies without a federal official ‘needling’ their local coffee shop.
The ‘clown show’ isn’t about which party is in power; it’s about a government that suddenly acts like the Nutrition Facts label it mandated doesn’t exist. Demanding ‘safety data’ for a substance that has its own dedicated line on every FDA-approved label is redundant at best and regulatory theater at worst. If we want people to be less ‘sheep-like,’ we should probably start by expecting them to read the labels we already fought to give them. It’s just…common sense.
James,
Any guidance by the government should be taken with a grain of salt, no pun intended. Guidelines based off studies or evidence, okay. But at the end of the day or at the checkout line, it is the choice by Americans.
But asking how did a company come to a conclusion that, that level of sugar in a coffee is not some grand conspiracy to take away American’s right to stuff their face the way the MA governor or some here are reacting. Some idiot tried to make a snarky comment about needing a federal permit and a 40 page lecture to eat a BLT.
Heck, wasnt there a soda tax in some WA or OR county? And IIRC it was a Democrat lead tax.
Interesting development with regard to the war in the Middle East.
Right now the US is using $4 million Patriot missiles to shoot down $20,000 Iranian Shaheed missiles, and is rapidly running out of Patriots.
Apparently the Trump administration has asked Zelensky for help in how to use cheap off the shelf drones to destroy Iran’s missiles, and Zelensky has announced that he is more than willing to provide that help.
Here is Zelensky’s statement:
We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against “shaheds” in the Middle East region. I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security. Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people. Glory to Ukraine!
Imagine that.
It’s almost as if we can be safer by relying on allies.
Who knew ????
Is Zelensky demanding US mineral rights in return for this assistance???
Zelensky is a statesman.
Trump is an 80 year old mob boss with dementia, yelling at the TV.
Zelensky is a sitcom actor whose only qualification to be president was playing one on TV. The US equivalent would be to elect Martin Sheen President, and Julia-Louis Dreyfus Veep.
Then he suspended all elections for the duration of the war, making him hard to replace.
OT
Per the 9th Amendment, Americans enjoy the natural, God-given, and constitutional freedom of education, that is, to choose the provider of education for their children, which may not be denied by states.
Per the 14th Amendment, American persons may not be discriminated against by being compelled to pay for the education of the children of other persons through taxation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brief for Petitioners: Equal Protection Forbids Penalizing the Exercise of Fundamental Parental Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Ninth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secure the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The State may not condition the exercise of that right on the surrender of equal treatment. By compelling all parents to fund public schools through taxation, yet conferring the full benefit of that funding only upon those who utilize the government system, the State imposes a unique and unequal financial burden on parents who lawfully choose private education. Because the Constitution forbids penalizing the exercise of a fundamental right or discriminating among similarly situated citizens without sufficient justification, such a scheme cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
___________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Democrats and Iranian Islamists / IRGC members are cut from the same cloth: all talk, fail to show up for duty.
The Iran war has been a stunning aerial success
“Israeli intelligence sources suggest there are signs of Iranian soldiers, police officers and IRGC members failing to show up for duty.”
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/03/04/the-iran-war-has-been-a-stunning-aerial-success
Uncle Roger rates cheapest woman ever.
youtube.com/watch?v=jcQ8_mX9juI&themeRefresh=1
Unhealthy foods are not only “individual choice.” Not when federal and state taxpayers foot the bills for the poor health of others – from Medicaid, to favorable/supported prescription drug prices for those who fail to care for their health (but not for those with other conditions unrelated to their choices), to food stamps, to school lunches, to supporting hospitals and clinics, etc. To paraphrase: food choices have consequences.
thetennants1970:
Amen.
Turley’s acting like Gov. Healey is the one overreacting, but she’s just following the Massachusetts tradition of throwing fits over government interference with beverages. You’d think a legal scholar would appreciate the irony of a federal official trying to ‘tax’ our patience with redundant data requests. If RFK Jr. wants to change the definition of sugar safety, he has a legal rulemaking process for that. Until then, maybe Turley can explain where in the Constitution it says the HHS Secretary gets to be the ‘Barista-in-Chief. Wow.
First Government should stay out of this entirely.
While I applaud Kennedy’s efforts to undo past government advocacy and even regulation that shilled or even FORCED bad foods on us.
I am as opposed to having HHS under Kennedy tell us what is good for us as I was when it was an owned subsidiary of big food.
Let private companies tell us what they think is good for us, and then use torts to sue their ass off when they lie.
But my libertarian preferences are just not going to become reality.
If we MUST have government tell us what is good for us, the least we can hope for is that government is not going to lie.
I thrust HHS under Kennedy to not lie to us, more than any previous director in its existance
Kennedy shilling for Truth in advertising while Healey shills for big food is hillarious.
I do not want Government even telling us what is healthy – that is our job, and too the extent that food producers provide us information – they are liable for the information they provide,.
But just as I do not want Kennedy Telling us what is good for us, Heally as Government should not be trying to tell us he is wrong.
Getting Government out means OUT. It means NO ROLE AT ALL for government.
The libertarian – and correct position is that those who try to sell us products – cars, food, drugs, are responsible for the representations they make to get us to buy their products.
That is exactly how a free market works. People will make choices – by the better product, or buy the cheaper product, and those choices will push producers to provide better products cheaper.
But for that to work – we must be able to trust the information we receive that allows us to judge FOR US which product meets our needs more.
Producers are NOT obligated to tell us anything about their products, but they are responsible for what they do tell us.
We do NOT want Government telling us what is good or bad for us – because those in govenrment Telling us are always responding to some outside influence, and because unlikely producers we can not sue government for deceiving us.
I am very very glad that Kennedy i disempowering producers ability to manipulate HHS.
But I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that government can and should provide us with information about products.
That is true – whether it is Kennedy trying to get Producers to inform us that Coffee with 115g of sugar is not healthy, or Healey trying to tell us otherwise.
John Say, You say government should stay out ‘entirely,’ but then you applaud Kennedy for using his federal office to demand ‘safety data.’ You can’t have it both ways. A Secretary of HHS using the ‘bully pulpit’ to target specific companies is the definition of government involvement. If you truly wanted government out, you would oppose Kennedy’s interference just as much as you oppose ‘Big Food’s’ influence.
You suggest we should rely on torts and lawsuits, but for a lawsuit to work, a company has to actually lie. Dunkin’ and Starbucks aren’t lying—they are legally required to tell you exactly how much sugar is in the drink. If the label says 115g of sugar and you drink it anyway, there is no ‘lie’ to sue over. You are advocating for a legal remedy to a problem that transparency has already solved.
John, You say producers are ‘not obligated to tell us anything,’ but then you support Kennedy’s attempt to force them to provide ‘safety data.’ That is a direct contradiction of the free-market principle you just cited. If a company provides the grams of sugar (as they do), they have fulfilled their responsibility. Forcing them to conduct ‘safety analysis’ to justify a legal ingredient is the opposite of a free market—it’s state-mandated scientific justification
You are correct to note that we can’t sue the government for lying to us. That is exactly why we should be suspect of a Secretary who uses his office to imply a product is “unsafe” without actually changing the FDA’s legal safety standards. If RFK is wrong, or if his ‘safety data’ requests are just a political tactic, the companies—and the consumers—have no recourse. That’s why Healey is right: the government should stick to the law, not personal crusades.
X
Once again John Say’s mental illness is on full display.
As you note, he consistently makes absurd diametrically contradictory statements in one breath, and sees no problem with believing both contradictory statements.
He would have us believe that he wants the government to stay out, while simultaneously praising Kennedy for demanding interfering with demands for data.
He believes producers are not obligated to tell us anything, but believes Kennedy should force them to do so.
This is the completely irrational, disorganized thinking of someone who is profoundly mentally ill.
Anonymous, Watching someone argue that “government should stay out entirely” in one sentence, while cheering for a federal secretary to “needle” private companies in the next, is a world-class exercise in logic-twisting. It is essentially saying, “I want a totally free market, as long as the government uses its massive regulatory power to bully the companies I don’t like.”
He claims producers “aren’t obligated to tell us anything,” yet he’s currently the lead cheerleader for a government mandate to force them to explain themselves. You can’t be “very, very glad” about federal interference and call yourself a libertarian in the same breath. It is a total circus of contradictory beliefs, and yup, it is as irrational as it gets. You can’t sit on both sides of that fence without the logic splitting right down the middle.
According to the Article Kennedy is NOT trying to change the rules. He is asking beverage producers to EXPLAIN their own compliance with existing rules.
Existing rules require establishing the actual food safety of many foods, Kennedy is not even changing the process, he is just asking producers to explain how they concluded that Coffee with 115g of sugar is good.
Again my preference is to get government out of it entirely. And for consumers – through buying choices and through tort claims to hold producers accountable for their claims.
John Say,
“ According to the Article Kennedy is NOT trying to change the rules. He is asking beverage producers to EXPLAIN their own compliance with existing rules.”
The idea that this is just a ‘compliance check’ is a misunderstanding of how food law works. Under existing rules, compliance for a company like Starbucks or Dunkin’ consists of two things: using FDA-approved ingredients and accurately labeling the sugar count. They are already 100% in compliance with those rules.
What Kennedy is asking for isn’t an ‘explanation of compliance’—it’s a new demand for scientific justification. There is no existing federal rule that requires a coffee shop to conduct clinical safety trials on a latte. By demanding ‘safety data’ for a substance the FDA has already deemed GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) for decades, he isn’t checking the old rules; he is effectively inventing new ones through regulatory pressure.
If a Secretary ‘requests’ data that the law doesn’t require you to have, and then uses your lack of that data to publicly shame your brand, that isn’t ‘oversight.’ It’s a strategic bypass of the formal rulemaking process to force a change in the market without actually passing a law. If the goal is to change the ‘rules’ on sugar, the HHS needs to follow the legal process to revoke its safety status, not demand that private businesses do the government’s research for them.
It’s a hilarious legal paradox: The FDA is the agency that officially declared sugar to be ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ (GRAS), yet now the HHS Secretary is asking private companies to provide the scientific data proving the FDA wasn’t wrong.
It’s basically the government saying, ‘We told you this was safe for 50 years, but now we’ve lost our notes. Can you go hire some scientists and do our job for us so we can decide whether to sue you?’
If a teacher loses your homework and then gives you a failing grade because you can’t produce their copy, you’d call that a scam. When the government does it to a coffee shop, apparently some people call it ‘transparency.
The expectation is that the FDA will only allow foods and beverages that are good for is to reach the market.
A bottle of Coke was 6.5 oz till 1955. Only 76 calories’ worth of sugar. Nor you can buy a two-liter bottle.
X – please cite – either in the article – or from any other source Where Kennedy is seeking to change the rules in this particular instance ?
My reading is that Kennedy and HHS are asking beverage producers to explain how THEY reached the conclusion that prior HHS delegated to them, that their products were safe.
Is Sec. Kennedy doing this with a twinkle in his eye needling producers to explain how they concluded that 115g of sugar in a beverage was safe ?
Sure.
I am sure Kennedy is working to change lots of Regulations.
But this particular issue is NOT one of those.
Kennedy is merely putting producers on the hot seat asking them to explain a conclusion that on its face seems implausible.
John Say, you’re mistaken about the ‘existing rules.’ Under current FDA law, companies using GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) ingredients like sugar are not required to conduct or provide independent safety studies for their specific recipes.
By demanding ‘safety data’ that the law doesn’t require them to have, Kennedy isn’t checking compliance—he’s creating a new, unlegislated mandate. If he wants to challenge the safety of 115g of sugar, the legal process is to have the FDA revoke its GRAS status via the Administrative Procedure Act.
Instead, he’s bypassing the science-based rulemaking process to publicly ‘needle’ businesses for not having data they were never legally obligated to produce. That’s not oversight; it’s a regulatory shakedown masquerading as a question.
JFK is being deliberately misleading and simply gaslighting with falsehoods, and unfortunately Turley and the rest of the MAGA mob fall for it hook, line and sinker.
JFK claims that in Europe there are only 400 legal ingredients. This is completely false. JFK has been deliberately misrepresenting this claim for years.
The European data he refers to does not include INGREDIENTS. The 400 or so items are ADDITIVES, such as stabilizers, coloring agents, preservatives and artificial sweeteners that are not considered to be foods.
The Europeans specifically state that this list is ADDITIVES and NOT INGREDIENTS. There are tens of thousands of INGREDIENTS allowable in Europe. Ingredients are simply basic food items such as flour, sugar, butter, eggs, milk, cheese and so on, and are not on the list.
With a brief moment of rational thought any sane, rational individual would realize that there are far more than 400 allowable ingredients in the European food supply.
Unfortunately, sane and rational thought is rarely found on this worthless blog.
Anonynous, it’s “RFK jr.” But otherwise your point is well taken.
Actually he is off point.
The issue here is that HHS in the past has delegated the determination of whether something is safe to producers.
Sec. Kennedy i merely asking how they reached conclusions that do not appear to make sense.
Debates over what is an ingredient as opposed to what is an additive are an unrelated tangent.
Further what is the difference between an ingredient and an additive ?
People drink coffee black without sugar – does that mean cream and sugar are an additive or an ingredient ?
Many foods have lots of salt in them – salt not only is a spice, but it also retards the processes that cause food to go bad,
Is salt an ingredient or an additive ?
I like my steak seared on the outside and bloody on the inside – burning the outside of a steak is known to create small amounts of carcinegens,
but those come from burning the meat and fat – are they an ingredient ? An Addiitive ?
John Say
You are insane.
There is NO debate over what is an additive and what is an ingredient. Both are very clearly defined without ambiguity.
Your completely irrational and incoherent rant is completely without meaning.
You are gaslighting, deflecting and obfuscating just like Kennedy.
The facts are that Kennedy is LYING when he says that Europe allows only 400 ingredients.
THAT IS FALSE, IT IS AN OUTRIGHT, PROVABLE LIE.
Kennedy is a LIAR.
Nothing he says about anything can be trusted.
His brain has been eaten by worms.
John, to address your points directly: the distinction between an ingredient and an additive isn’t a ‘tangent’—in federal law (21 CFR 170.3), it is the entire basis of food safety.
You claim Kennedy is simply asking how companies reached the ‘conclusion’ that high sugar levels are safe. The reality is that the companies didn’t make that conclusion—the FDA did decades ago when it classified sugar as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). Under 21 CFR 170.30, companies using GRAS ingredients are legally exempt from conducting or providing independent safety studies. By ‘requesting’ data the law does not require them to have, Kennedy isn’t checking compliance; he is attempting a regulatory shakedown to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act.
Your steak and salt examples actually prove my point: we don’t ask steakhouses for ‘safety data’ on seared crusts or salt levels because those are legal, transparently labeled food components. Just like in my diabetic example,the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act already provides 100% of the data needed to make a choice. If the sugar count is on the menu, the ‘truth’ is already out there.
If the government now believes the FDA’s own safety standards for sugar are wrong, the burden of proof is on the HHS to provide the science and change the law. Asking a donut shop to do the government’s scientific research for them—and then ‘needling’ them for not having it—is a political performance, not a search for transparency. Supporting this ‘government by intimidation’ while claiming to want government ‘OUT’ is a total contradiction.”
John Say,
In regards to salt: Both.
Salt is a mineral we need to maintain homeostasis.
It is also a preservative.
As to the rest of your comment, re: Kennedy asking how did those companies come to those conclusions. Yes. By what metric did they use to determine that? I do think it could be subjective as some may like a lot of sugar or salt while others may not. So, in their determinations is that an average? We have seen some restaurants do test runs in certain locations and then either conduct a survey or monitor sales as indications to continue the sales and make them regional or to stop.
The insanity of Kennedy’s claim that only 400 ingredients are allowed in Europe is completely obvious to any rational thinking person.
There are hundreds of fruits and vegetables alone that are used as ingredients.
There are hundreds of different spices that can be used as ingredients.
I wonder if Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey is going to denounce this announcement, Medical schools commit to RFK Jr. plan to boost nutrition education
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/4481158/medical-schools-commit-rfk-jr-plan-boost-nutrition-education/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
MEGA 🤝 MAHA@EDSecMcMahon & @SecKennedy are teaming up to ensure the next generation of doctors understand nutrition and how it impacts health. pic.twitter.com/AFEV86gPwl
— U.S. Department of Education (@usedgov) March 5, 2026
Healey and her cult Democrats should be encouraged to consume all of the unhealthy food they like. It will accelerate their death exponentially and rid the nation of their ilk. Win win.