The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there should be a warning label on the side of a lays package with somebody who's morbidly obese who has erectile dysfunction sleep apnea and perhaps other issues including diabetes because those Foods lead to those States and we're not being honest about that with consumers we do it on the side of cigarettes I think this is exactly the same thing with regard to junk foods
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there should absolutely be a warning label on the side of a lay package that says this food contributes to obesity diabetes low libido erectile dysfunction later in life and a picture of someone getting dialysis or a picture of someone having their foot amputated because they have diabetes and a bad infection that should be on the side of a lzed potato chip bag just like it's on the side of a cigarette package right am I right this needs warning labels too
but you can pick up a package of La chips or other processed foods and there's no warning label on there that says this food will make you hungry or this food will make you obese this food may lead to diabetes and dialysis or limb amputation