The agency wants to lower how much salt we consume over the next three years to an average of 2,750 milligrams per day. That’s still above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday laid out fresh goals to cut sodium levels in packaged and processed foods  by about 20%, after its prior efforts to address a growing epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases showed early signs of success.

The FDA in October 2021 had set guidelines to trim sodium levels in foods ranging from potato chips to hamburgers in a bid to prevent excessive intake of salt that can trigger high blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

The agency is now seeking voluntary curbs from packaged-food makers such as PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Campbell Soup. The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    yea, the whole “everything is bad for you if you do enough of it to kill yourself!” is a pretty common response. and yes, that’s true. there IS a threshold for everything. one cigarette won’t kill you either.

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      one cigarette won’t kill you either.

      Interesting. The fearmongers at school told us it could.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.

      Sugar is arguably good for you in moderation. We evolved to seek out sugar in the form of fruits, berries, etc. Quick energy, fast acting carbohydrates etc.

      Can’t think of how this translates to a single cigarette lol.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        We evolved to seek out sugar because it is energy dense in a time when food wasn’t plentiful

        Today we have more food than we know what to do with

        • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Agree 100%. And arguably “in moderation” is much lower than people might want it to be. Plus most of this stuff is processed with high fructose corn syrup trash.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              HFCS is literally just liquid sugar.

              HFCS isn’t even just one product. There are different blends that are all HFCS. At the extreme, HFCS-90, is far FAR different than table sugar. HFCS-55 is close to table sugar (which would be numbered “50” if table sugar used that same numbering scheme), and there’s HFCS-42 which is farther away from table sugar.

              The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) have been successful in rebranding HFCS under a bunch of different names so you don’t know it anymore. Current labeling has HFCS-90 (the worst kind) simply called “Fructose” on ingredient labels now. source

              source2 which is a bit more sketchy to me

              edit: corrected first source link

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          As in, not selling drinks and snacks that are like 30% sugar

          On the flip side, those snacks and drinks are ideal for athletes.

          I wouldn’t want to stop having those foods available, simply because the majority of the population are idiots when it comes to fueling their bodies.

          People need to have some self control, ffs.

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.

        why not? if you’re going by “too much of anything is bad for you,” then doesn’t it follow that “NOT too much of anything isn’t necessarily bad for you”?

        so yea, one soda won’t kill you = true. also one cigarette won’t kill you = true.

        what i’m getting at is that your “argument” isn’t one