Is that supposed to be a rebuttal, or did your “6 years of history” not include how to structure an argument?

I told you it’d be simple to find something your country did worse than the USA, and I found five plausible examples, including one of the glaring eurozone issues I’d suggested before. I’m actually surprised that “slavery” and “LGBTQ rights” are plausibly on there.

I would hope that a learned historian such as yourself would know better than to assume that their country is uniqjely benevolent, but people who know that usually don’t start mounting off about foreign countries and then start sputtering when someone points out their own country’s failings.

Was your educational study an academic focus or just the primary education propaganda that every industrialized country in the world feeds their citizens?

You’re right, it’s hard to find distinct history for a middle European country that was a footnote for most of your small and young country’s history.

But the internet provides.

Even if we exclude both your country’s precursor states and the various wrongs attributsble to the European Union you were substantially responsible for, Belgium:

• has a literal king
• didnt ban slavery until decades after the USA
• lagged similarly in gay rights (albeit you’re easily on par with the bluest stars in the USA)
• let your king annex part of a foreign continent as a subservient colony (and kept that colony until the 1960s!)

And, while I’m neither a lawyer nor sufficiently fluent in French or German to read your laws directly, it sure as fuck looks like you’ve got the same sort of repressive defamation laws that let JK Rowling bully Amnesry UK into apolgizjng for accuratky describing her.

http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/belgium/

Based on your country’s recent “hard-right” swing, you might acthally see your own neo-autocrat soon, who would absolutely weaponize those laws if they haven’t already started.

If truth and honesty are not both separately prefect defenses to accusations of defamation, you don’t have free speech in the ways that actually matter.

I tend to speculate negatively when people hurl unfounded insults without disclosing the reason for their perspective.

I encouraged people to not assume that their local regulation’s are “better than the USA” because the same greed that causes so much waste in the USA is also present in literally every human country. And you decided that this meant my country doesn’t have consumer protection of any kind.

If it makes you feel better, tell me what country you are from and I’ll take the time to look for an appropriate example of your country fucking up in a way that wouldn’t happen in the USA.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

I bet you’d also argue that there is “free speech” in the UK, where a billionaire can still literally sue someone into poverty for accurately describing them. Or the same in Germany, where an advocate against the Palestinian genocide was arrested for “denying Israel”

Unless your country has specific laws to the contrary or is too poor/civilized to have this sort of “lazy parent” food, presume that any of the factory-made shelf-stable food in your grocery aisle is as bad as the equivalent sold in the USA.

(And find out of your country’s food laws are actually better than the USA, or just “feel” better because the same exact product can just list fewer ingredients )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

“New classification”, not “new system”. The rest of your inference agrees with my understanding.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that calorie counts by themselves are the key to health. Excess.fats, too many bad fats, too much sodium, and too little protein or vitamins will also lead to poor health.

But 170 calories with 2.5 grams of saturated fat and 19 grams of sugar wouldn’t suddenly be healthier if it came from a home-made honey and butter cake instead of a factory. Although the later might be more satisfying and thus encourage me to eat only one instead of two.

In the United States anything meant for human consumption either has a health department regularly inspecting the kitchen where it is prepared for immediate consumption or is sold with labelling that conveys a nutritional profile and ingredient list.

The label is clearer now than it was when I was a child, and there is movement now to put the most relevant information on the front of the package.

Just looking at the first four packages in my dining room,.without getting the glasses I need for vision, I can tell you that “Stewart’s black cherry soda” is 160 calories for bottle, "Vernors black cherry* is 150 per can and a “hostess cup cake” is 170. All of which are high calorie treats I don’t mind since the kids are away.

So, no, not a secret. Provided for you at point of sale, in fact. (And for many chain restaurants and eaters, the same top-line numbers are available from their website.)

I probably wouldn’t mind the ubiquitous use of the “new system” from the University of São Paulo if I didn’t keep seeing it used incorrectly, with its added category treated as causal of poor health instead of correlated with poor health.

Americans aren’t overweight because of the “ultra-processed” portion of our high-calorie high-salt diet. Americans are overweight because our diet is high-calorie and high-salt!

It’s entirely possible to have a healthy diet that consists only of “Nova” category 4 foods. And entirely possible to have an unhealthy diet that consists only of “unprocessed” category 1 and “ingredient” category 2 foods.

(And unless it’s a damn acronym, “nova” should not be capitalized!)

Let me see if I can translate this article to a less trendy version:

.About 80% of the packaged foods marketed for children between 6 and 30 months include ingredients only used when creating packaged food at scale. Half of these either contained more fat, sugar, and salt than the WHO recommends or did not abide by the WHO’s advice to eliminate food coloring.