Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition • Hacker News Board

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#101

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

tobyhede wrote: post #98

dragontamer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Are there bad foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Frosted Flakes) * Are there good foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Grain Berry) * Are there good foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Brown Rice) * Are the bad foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Pork Belly) If "ultraprocessed" fails to distinguish good from bad, then the word itself is worthless.

The second ingredient of Grain Berry cereal is sugar.

The first ingredient of Lard is... Lard. Which is "non-processed" by this strange designation.

Would you say that Lard is more, or less healthy than a high-fiber cereal?

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#102

Post by an_opabinia » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #12

This statistic from the article is mind-boggling: > Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Note that they aren't just referring to processed foods. They classify ultra-processed foods as a step beyond what we typically think of as processed foods: > Ultra-processed foods and beverages ca…

Ultraprocessed is a counter marketing term from the meat and dairy lobby. It is authored in opposition to things like Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat. Nobody uses this term organically, look in Google Trends yourself. It is an obvious and conspicuous marker of a campaign, exactly equivalent to something like “drinkability,” an Anheuser Busch marketing term.

This is a market that traditionally derives most of its profits from a close relationship with the government, for subsidies (the #1 source of profit for farms, maybe for the whole agricultural sector) and health guidelines (the cheapest, and therefore highest RoI advertising). Beyond Meat enjoys none of these advantages and its equities wildly outperformed e.g. Tyson.

I am not saying that marketing does not play a role in health outcomes. Just that the nutrition discourse is overwhelmingly marketing budget driven, that actual nutritionists struggle against consumers immensely, and that once you’ve heard one ad campaign you easily become jaded of all of them. Well meaning people get coopted by all of this.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#103

Post by chubot » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #90

scruple wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, and I agree with everything you've said, especially anecdotally that oils in particular have more to do with nutritional health than processed foods... But, my original point was that oil _is_ highly processed.

> But, my original point was that oil _is_ highly processed. You're not familiar with this new "unprocessed" vs "processed" vs "ultraprocessed" designation then. https://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/... Oils are a "Group 2", low-processed food. Page 5: > Group 2 items are rarely consumed in the absence of group 1 foods. Examples are salt mined or from seawater; sugar and molasses obtained from…

vegetable oils crushed from olives or seeds; butter and lard obtained from milk and pork; and starches extracted from corn and other plants

The distinction is accurate: These are unprocessed oils, and there is a big difference between them and the processed oil that fast food is fried in, and that industrial cooking uses.

The same plaintains fried in ultraprocessed vs. unprocessed Oils is going to be worse for you. See for example "The Dental Diet" for its effects on your teeth, but there are other nutritional reasons as well. (Anecdotally, I think lack of nutrients in the fat makes you hungrier; it makes it "addictive". If you cooked in real fats, you feel sated with very few fried plaintains.)

The way I think of this is: "Food is not a linear combination of macronutrients". All fats aren't equivalent; some fats are very good for you. Again Pollan's books are very good on this subject.

I'm not very familiar with the ingredients in Filipino cooking, but since it was an American colony in 1898, I would guess the habits are strongly influenced by industrial cooking (spam being popular, etc.) It's a mix of local ingredients and cheap ingredients bought from Western corporations.

You can see it in a Chinese-American family pretty clearly: the grandparents eat fatty cuts of meat (but small portions), fish heads, etc. and live until 100 years old. The parents are mixed -- they eat some traditional foods (fish and vegetables), but cook with American vegetable oil instead of soybean oil, and got addicted to McDonald's in the 80's. They have more health problems in their 60's and 70's a result (hypertension, heart disease), and they're not going to live until 100. Even without obesity, they still have these problems. Their kids are fatter than both generations, and as a result less healthy, at least without a change in diet in adulthood, etc.

I suspect it's clearer in the Chinese case because there was less western influence (fewer occupying armies and less trade). Whenever Western processed food companies take hold in a foreign market, the health of the population suffers. This is well known. And I would guess it happened earlier and to a greater degree in the Phillipines than in other countries.

I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but it seems suspicious, and some Googling reveals that people are studying that issue. That is, because of history you may not remember what is "traditional", but I can more or less see what was traditional (non-Western) from my grandparents born in 1916.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#104

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:25 PM UTC

Just by comparing photos and videos from the 1980s to the situation in the streets now, it is painfully obvious that we (and by "we" I mean at least half of humanity) have a serious obesity and metabolic syndrome problem.

It is breathtaking how civilized nations silently accept such an enormous slide in quality of life, when other, much smaller problems lead to civic unrest, political discussions and overhaul of old structures and laws.

Bad nutrition kills way more people than violence, drugs, air pollution etc. ... together, and makes even more people miserable for decades before they finally die.

And yet, crickets. Even nations where one would actually expect some serious pushback (such as Scandinavian countries) can't be bothered with much more than half-arsed measures.

I am 42. My "kids these days"... complaint is that "kids these days are horribly fat". Compared to the 1990s, yeah, fitness of the young generation has gone down significantly.

It is not their fault, but their parents' and schools', but the consequences are the same; a lifetime spent in frustrating struggle with weight gain and chronic diseases.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#105

Post by tolbish » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #26

mike00632 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breakfast: Cereal and milk. My favorite cereal is Trix. Lunch: Sandwich made of bread, bologna, cheese, mustard. Coca-cola or chocolate milk to drink. Dinner: TV dinner, perhaps a Lean Cuisine or Pizza rolls. Mountain Dew or Kool Aid to drink. This was a typical day of food for me as a child and through being a teenager.

Is this really what you ate like on a day to day basis? Not snarky or anything, just genuinely shocked and curious

They also probably had several processed snacks throughout the day like chips and oreos.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#106

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #97

dragontamer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If half of our food is ultraprocessed, then that's a problem with the definition of ultraprocessed. Breakfast cereal is "ultraprocessed" by the definition of the article. But Grain Berry cereal is going to be grossly different from a nutritional perspective than Frosted Flakes. For both to be lumped into the same category of "ultraprocessed" is a bit ridiculous. ----------- Its not like "processing" makes something m…

> Its not like "processing" makes something more or less poisonous I completely agree with this. There's nothing inherent to processing food that makes it less healthy. In fact it could potentially make it even more healthy, e.g. adding fiber or protein to a starch. Heck, even just like at the original processing technique. Cooked vegetables are more nutritious than raw vegetables. But the reality is that 99% of proc…

My issue with this "processing" designation is that its meaningless once we enter practice.

> But the reality is that 99% of processing is directed at making foods hyper-palatable, calorically dense, and easy to digest. Because that's what consumers crave.

Yes, people want unhealthy foods.

You can buy a perfectly organic, fully unprocessed meal from Panda Express. Its called rice stir-fry, and as long as you hold back the soy sauce its "unprocessed".

---------------

A friend of mine went vegetarian for better health. He ended up eating potato chips and gaining weight. Yes, there's a general "vegetables are usually better for you than meat", but, there's no guarantee that following such vague advice helps anyone.

You need to think harder, and eat smarter than that if you want a better diet. This "unprocessed vs ultraprocessed" designation is too vague, too unhelpful. It will just cause people to eat Panda Express all day every day.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#107

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #90

scruple wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, and I agree with everything you've said, especially anecdotally that oils in particular have more to do with nutritional health than processed foods... But, my original point was that oil _is_ highly processed.

> But, my original point was that oil _is_ highly processed. You're not familiar with this new "unprocessed" vs "processed" vs "ultraprocessed" designation then. https://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/... Oils are a "Group 2", low-processed food. Page 5: > Group 2 items are rarely consumed in the absence of group 1 foods. Examples are salt mined or from seawater; sugar and molasses obtained from…

[deleted]

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#108

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #50

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #12

This statistic from the article is mind-boggling: > Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Note that they aren't just referring to processed foods. They classify ultra-processed foods as a step beyond what we typically think of as processed foods: > Ultra-processed foods and beverages ca…

>, but in my experience most people prefer these foods because they think it's more convenient. [...] Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store. It's amazing how many people don't know how easy and cheap it can be to prepare simple crock pot or stir-fry meals that are healthy and delicious. I'm a strict health food eater but I have to be realistic and concede t…

[deleted]

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#109

Post by dcolkitt » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #106

dcolkitt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its not like "processing" makes something more or less poisonous I completely agree with this. There's nothing inherent to processing food that makes it less healthy. In fact it could potentially make it even more healthy, e.g. adding fiber or protein to a starch. Heck, even just like at the original processing technique. Cooked vegetables are more nutritious than raw vegetables. But the reality is that 99% of proc…

My issue with this "processing" designation is that its meaningless once we enter practice. > But the reality is that 99% of processing is directed at making foods hyper-palatable, calorically dense, and easy to digest. Because that's what consumers crave. Yes, people want unhealthy foods. You can buy a perfectly organic, fully unprocessed meal from Panda Express. Its called rice stir-fry, and as long as you hold bac…

> You can buy a perfectly organic, fully unprocessed meal from Panda Express. Its called rice stir-fry,

Butter, sesame/vegetable oil and white rice are all processed foods. An unprocessed version would consist of brown rice, eggs, and the chopped veggies. Which would be an improvement on 95% of the typical meals Americans consume.

I do get your point though. There's an aspect of Goodhart's law here. When we come up with some sort of diet management heuristic, over time our personal habits and eventually the market will find exploits. We'll look for the most unhealthy/tasty food that complies with the ostensible rules of the diet.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#110

Post by sumtechguy » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #23

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the best way to stop consuming highly processed foods is to write down your calories consumption. No limits, no shame, no pressure - just write it down. To me it was a revelation.

A friend of mine had a personal trainer that would make him send a photo of everything he ate. I thought that was a good idea.

Accountability goes a long way for some people.

My way is to eat less items with extra sugar in it. Oh boy do they hide that stuff in about a dozen different ways. Especially HFCS and 'apple/pear juice'. Then I track what I eat and try to hit my numbers. Someone I know is hitting nearly 40 pounds in a year with that method. Plus the accountability helped them stick to it.