Bobby, this kid would be really pissed if they could read (graphs).
I'm not from the US so care little for the constitution. What is in the constitution and what is right are two different things.
But juice resembles fruit more than sweetened drinks... So clearly better then.
You mean the price a smoothie drops? No. Does that or sweetener drinks give people more money in their wallet? No.
"A plausible explanation as to why fruit juices may lead to different health effects from those of sugar-sweetened beverages is that fruit juices are a source of various bioactive compounds, such as vitamins (vitamin C, folate, etc.), minerals (mostly potassium), and antioxidants [73], while sugar-sweetened beverages generally have none. Antioxidants were shown to decrease oxidative stress [91], which plays an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, and dyslipidemia [92]."
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/5/1006
Please don't spout opinions not based in fact.
There is more to fruit juice than just sugar.
Yes it is, and it's solved not by soft drinks but making healthy food more accessible even to the most financially streched families. Shit food is always cheaper than healthy food. Yet they'll push to the corporations preferred and most profitable artificial sweeteners.
The hive view here is the rather not so nuanced sugar = bad, artificial sweeteners = great". Reminds me why I don't miss reddit. It was the same in the pro-nuclear stance which had been astroturfed to the point that "nuclear > wind and solar". Weirdly surreal and disturbing.
I get surprised when anticapitalists start doing the work of corporations.
So you in favour of governments taking actions that remove products from the market and remove the choice from people? You like artificial sweeteners so everyone should have them?
Breathing contaminated air is a concern and does need to be addressed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Whatabouttery isn't helpful here. "If you aren't concerned by pollution, you shouldn't be concerned by sweeteners. Or... We could be concerned about both.
Downplaying risks to plant seeds of doubt has been successful in tobacco, fossil fuels etc. It is why industry invests in partial "science". Parroting those lines doesn't make society better off.
Many industries are casting doubt on polluting behaviour with the "conclusively prove the link or it's speculation" argument. It's why the Precautionary Principle is important.
Perfectly safe, yo...
"IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer).".
Industry astroturfing and funding partial "science" has been highly successful.
It's not weird if that's what you like. It makes me feel ill and triggers the gag reflex.
I wonder if my point is allowed, the fast food industries heavy investment in partial "science" and astroturfing has been very successful.
view more: next ›
Sounds like Rockstar paid tiktokers to push hype lines.
Lonely men who are likely the demographic being offered less loneliness when in reality. It's just a dumb game with hookers that was once about cars.