When asked what their solutions are, responder… <checks notes> got defensive and lashed out at a straw man instead of just answering the question. Then makes vague hand-waving gestures at irrelevant tangents.

So far, I’m hearing nothing that’s better than the one I offered - let the food scientists sort this out. They actually know what they’re talking about.

This is the problem with current discourse. When the only acceptable-to-you solution requires massive structural changes to the fundamental building blocks of society, you aren’t living in the real world. Realistic solutions start from where we are and take incremental steps. If you can’t come up with a better way to define this problem to the point that you resort to irrationality and fairy tales, that’s a you problem.

Nobody said bans were correct. But just because they aren’t right doesn’t make your ludicrous opinions any better. Yes, we’d all love shorter work weeks. Let’s see you come up with a realistic plan to actually implement that in your own lifetime. In this geopolitical climate. Good fucking luck, space cadet.

Targeting “ultra-processed foods” is a stupid way to accomplish that.

Then let’s hear your genius, sure-fire, guaranteed-to-work idea that’s been built on high-quality research and rigorous data collection methodology.

You clearly don’t know how ridiculously stupid the entire food labeling regulations process is. All because CEOs refuse to do reasonable, rational things that are better for human beings than their stock price.

The problem here isn’t the regulations. The problem is the failure to recognize that every regulation is written in somebody’s blood. So, how many people is the “right” number of people who need to die of preventable causes before we conclusively say “maximizing addictive properties in food” is no longer a business practice we’re willing to accept as a nation? Do 100 people need to die? Thousands? Do you need to see millions of dead bodies piled up end-over-end like cord wood before you recognize that, gosh golly gee, maybe we should listen to scientific opinions over corporatist scumbag opinions?

Learn about how the human body processes carbohydrates. Then learn about what a truly “normal” amount of carbohydrates for a human to consume on a daily, weekly, annual basis is. Finally, compare that amount of “normal” carbs to the amount in a single bowl of Cheerios. Subtract the dietary fiber involved if you need precision. But the basic comparison is so obviously skewed that the dietary fiber part of the calculation is barely more than a rounding error.

Cheerios don’t need “banning” for any of the reasons we prohibit or control the sale of truly hazardous or life-threatening materials. Nobody said that is what is needed. Overconsumption of carb-heavy foods like Cheerios are bad for our health on a time scale measured in years or decades. Drinking drano is bad for your health on a time scale measured in seconds. Don’t get it twisted. Nobody’s treating eating cheerios like drinking drano. Insinuating such a thing is happening is simply incorrect and not a valid argument.

Humans need to eat more green things and eat less carbs. We need companies that serve human needs to truly serve the real human needs, not lie about the exploitable bugs in human cognition, pretend they’re “needs”, and try to say there’s nothing wrong with encouraging people to over-consume to the point of morbid obesity just to pump the shareholders’ stocks a few cents higher.

That’s the basic message. Humanity is more important than profit margins.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand neuroscience.

If you think Russia is the beneficiary here, you aren’t paying close enough attention to China.

It is normal if you have Alzheimer’s or dementia.