"Any consensus beyond that, however, instantly evaporates when it comes time to take any form of action, because action requires some kind of consistent application of ideology or knowledge. People can't agree with each other about what food is relatively "healthy" or "unhealthy"-nor, in many cases, can researchers or scientists. We know that "junk food" is bad, but we drown in semantic shades of gray in the attempt to decide what does or does not qualify as junk food in the first place."
"as it attempts to take some of the world's largest producers of supermarket staple foods and drinks to task for the slew of negative health consequences associated with ultra-processed foods. It's the first suit of its kind, but by no means will be the last. You can't help but naturally assume that this is a Sisyphean task, except in this case it's like if Sisyphus first had to make millions of people agree on a definition for "boulder" before he's allowed to start rolling it."
Broad public agreement exists that diets should not rely on junk food and children should have healthier meals, but durable consensus collapses when specific policy action is required. Disagreement persists over what qualifies as "healthy" versus "unhealthy," complicating regulation and research. San Francisco filed a landmark lawsuit against major food and beverage companies alleging harms from ultra-processed foods. The lawsuit invokes California's Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, which provides a legal definition of ultra-processed foods and aims to restrict the most problematic products from school lunches and meals. The case is the first of its kind and may set precedents.
Read at Jezebel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]