Impact of Food Regulation on Chronic Disease

Strict governmental regulation of food safety and marketing could reduce the incidence of chronic diseases in the population by up to 70%. The contamination of food by bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and mycotoxins are a major concern in many countries. Shelf-life of various food products need to be tested to prevent LPS and mycotoxin contamination in food to prevent various chronic diseases. 

RELEVANT REFERENCES

1.                  Overnutrition Determines LPS Regulation of Mycotoxin Induced Neurotoxicity in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Int J Mol Sci.2015;16(12): 29554–29573.

2.                  Functional Foods and Active molecules with relevance to Health and Chronic disease: Editorial. Functional Foods in Health and Disease 2017; 7(10): 833-836.

3.                  Bacterial Lipopolysaccharides and Neuron Toxicity in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Neurology Research and Surgery. 2018; 1(1): 1-3.

4.                  Sharma, A and IJ Martins. The role of Microbiota in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Scientific Nutritional Health. 7.7 (2023): 108-118.

5.                  Food Quality and Advances in Pharmacological Management Prevent Mitochondrial Apoptosis and Epilepsy Induced Stroke. Research and Reveiws: Neuroscience. 2018;2:7-9.

6.                  Food quality induces a miscible disease with relevance to Alzheimer’s disease and Neurological diseases.  J Food Research, vol. 5, pp.45-52, 2016.

Minimal effect.  Food "safety" regulation is more likely to impact acute illnesses.  Marketing regulation may give the consumer more information about those aspects which do lead to chronic conditions.  Personally, I'm going to eat those Oreos, regardless of labeling.  I'll wash them down with skim milk to feel better about myself.

Answer: It hinges on cultural considerations.

While firm government regulation of food safety and advertising can in fact curb the incidence of chronic conditions—like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer—its reach is, to a great degree, subject to cultural, socioeconomic, and behavioral factors of a population.

For most developing countries, up to 70% is required, this is because most persons in the food distribution chain lack basic and/or advance education, the implication is that if the government fails in the area of strict regulation and marketing, the effect has been fatal in most cases.

perhaps it is difficult to quantify. Regulation on food safety and marketing may have effect on the incidence of certain chronic diseases having causal association with food and food quality. 

I believe the effect would be minimal. Chronic disease, at least the part influenced by diet, reflects everything a person consumes. Excess fat and salt combined with low fiber consumption isn't limited to a single food. Additionally, there's a huge socioeconomic overlay that no regulation is going to address. 

See comments from Andrew Drewnowski (Director, Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington) in this webinar from the European Food Information Council
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9zUFisG3g 

“None of the studies … which talk about ultra-processed foods and ill health have taken food prices, diet cost, or socioeconomic status and purchasing power of families into account. Nobody talks about that.” 2:23:25

“Higher percentage of energy intake from ultraprocessed foods is definitely linked to lower incomes. Lower income groups have health problems. Are those due to ultra-processed foods? Are those due to added calories, fat, sugar, and salt? Or are they caused by not having health insurance? You tell me.” 2:29:17

 Around 50%: As highly processed foods and excessive sugar consumption are among the main causes of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, strict regulation of food safety and marketing could significantly reduce these conditions. The health of populations has markedly improved in countries that implement stricter food laws (such as those limiting trans fats, taxing sugary drinks, and banning advertising aimed at children). Socioeconomic gaps, lifestyle choices, and cultural influences also affect outcomes, so regulation alone cannot solve the problem, but it can reduce it by about half.

About 70% - in both communicable and non-communicable chronic diseases. Starting with well known agents such as cigarettes - why are they still on the market? To products such as sugar, salt, and fats. There are talks but actions are so slow!!! 
   

In my opinion it helps ti decreases up 70 percent is the right answer because if the government should work on the project like filtered water it helps people to decreases their disease upto 70 percent it takes the major role in human health and also the kye part of human life.If the government investment is to provide the people to clean drinking water then it decreases lots of cronies disease.Also the government should baned the unhealthy food like junk food it  also helps the people to decreases some of chronic diseases

 Food regulation can strongly influence chronic disease patterns. From my perspective, two areas matter most: what the food industry is allowed to sell and how the consumer sees it. 
Bans on harmful ingredients such as trans fats have already lowered cardiovascular risk in many countries. Similarly, salt and sugar reduction programs directly improve blood pressure and glucose control at the population level. On the consumer side, front-of-pack nutrition labels help people make quicker and healthier choices, which in turn affects long-term diabetes and obesity trends. 
Agricultural policy also has indirect but important effects. When subsidies favor calorie-dense processed foods rather than fruits and vegetables, the food environment encourages poor diet quality. Shifting incentives toward healthier staples can reduce the burden of metabolic disease. 
Overall, regulation is not just about preventing acute food safety problems. Well-designed policies shape eating habits and can reduce the prevalence of diabetes and related chronic conditions over time. 

I cannot give an exact number, but in my opinion, it is much lower than the effect of education and increasing public awareness about the risks of certain foods on chronic diseases. I am not sure what you mean by cultural factors, but they are also dependent on the level of education and awareness. Governmental rules only have a significant effect when community wants and admits them.

Strict government rules on food safety and marketing can help reduce chronic diseases like diabetes and heart problems, especially by limiting unhealthy ingredients and misleading marketing promotions. However, the impact depends on people’s eating habits, awareness, and culture. In some countries, it could reduce disease by up to 70%, but in others, the effect may be less. So, cultural factors play a big role.