[CaptainMarvel]

You need to look at the real incentives in a system, not pick out what you would like to happen.

Large multi-national profit-focused companies are responsible for your food. (To be more precise, something like 60% of calories consumed by western nations is produced by a small number of international companies... I think my point is clear enough.)

Their overriding goal is to make money. It is not to make healthy food.

They do not comprehensively test new ultra-processed ingredients before using them in foods. This is partly why there is a cycle of "oh no, X is bad for you" and "don't worry, we can fix all of this by using Y" and "oh no, Y is bad for you". The test is live, on everyone, happening right now.

There are no general regulations preventing them to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of "food", so long as they are not obviously killing people. There are many "slightly bad" side effects of this that will pass unnoticed until investigated with great effort and cost.

That's what this review is.

You are finding out now, after the fact.

Don't misjudge the cause though. It's not the ingredients. It's the system that underpins the entire (food) industry.

[ImHereToVote]

This sort of thinking risks putting doubt in the medical industry that we rely on for our safety. This is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to abysmal Covid booster numbers.

[addicted]

When did McDonalds and General Mills become part of the medical industry?

[ImHereToVote]

They both follow safety standards we as a democracy have voted are best for our health via non partisan and objective health authorities.

[captainbland]

You are making a hasty generalisation. Foods are not nearly as well controlled as medications, and even then vaccines only represent a subset of medications. Where food is sold, known human carcinogens are freely accessible on the open market and are very popular. Processed meats like bacon, ham, etc. are listed known human carcinogens but persist despite health concerns because of their popularity.

Some medications are also human carcinogens but tend to only be accessible through a doctor where the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks in a professional capacity. It's not like you can just go out and buy a box of azathioprine because you feel like your immune system is being a bit overdramatic lately.

According to the WHO, there is increasing evidence that aspartame may be carcinogenic, a sweetener which has been on the market for decades at this point. Here in the UK even, government interventions to reduce sugar in products have even encouraged manufacturers to include this in even more products.

The real problem is that discovering health risks is a hard problem which often don't appear for decades.

[ImHereToVote]

I think you mean that the motives of the food industry isn't in the health of the consumers, but rather the profit of the stock holders and the practitioners of food science.

As opposed to the medical industry which has the health of the consumers at it's heart. Which is manifest that so few medical companies have been issued multimillion fines for malpractice. Like we see so few companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Phizer having record breaking fines levied against them. I mean GSK didn't get a whopping 3 billion fine or something. Hmm, you know what. I think you have convinced me. Thank you.