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

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

#261

Post by bumby » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 2:57 AM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #221

bumby wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza The argument against this is that it becomes a regressive tax scheme. Many in the lower income strata disproportionately eat these foods because they are convenient and relatively cheap. A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. Talk to chefs at high-end restaurants and you’ll see how much fat is inherent in (or gets added to…

If poor people eat so much of it that they get fat, then at a higher price point they will only afford less of the same stuff and thus get less fat.

So why doesn’t the same logic extend to non-poor people?

Again, the issue isn’t with the intent, it’s with the execution. No need to apply it in a manner that disproportionately affects that subset of the population, especially when there are significant other systemic factors that contribute to that consumption.

“Fat and sugar is bad” is quite different than “fat and sugar eaten by poor people is bad”

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

#262

Post by Aerroon » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 2:58 AM UTC

froasty wrote: post #44

notdang wrote: post #13

The article states that : 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. I've never lived for more than 1-2 months in any of these "high income countries". What does it mean to consume "ultra-processed" food? Can someone give an example how the daily dietary intake can be 50% processed foods? Wh…

For breakfast you could have a Pop Tart, a jam-filled pastry: Ingredients: ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN B1 [THIAMIN MONONITRATE], VITAMIN B2 [RIBOFLAVIN], FOLIC ACID), CORN SYRUP, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, DEXTROSE, SOYBEAN AND PALM OIL (WITH TBHQ FOR FRESHNESS), CRACKER MEAL, CONTAINS TWO PERCENT OR LESS OF WHEAT STARCH, SALT, DRIED STRAWBERRIES, DRIED PEARS, DRIED APPLES, LEAVENING (BA…

These aren't good examples though. You don't necessarily put all of those things into said muffins. Just the basic ingredients translate into a long list of things, because natural food contains a lot of different nutrients in them.

An apple by itself contains many different things.[0] I really encourage you to look at it. And an apple is just one simple ingredient.

[0] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/n...

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

#263

Post by Aerroon » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:05 AM UTC

aitchnyu wrote: post #18

They had me. I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars! I also assumed the public knows sodas contain a nauseating amount of sugar. How will this "research" benefit Coca Cola as a soda company?

>I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars!

Because it's true. People don't want it to be true though. While there are some extra steps involved it does come down to the simple energy balance model. What's different about eating different foods is that they can change how we behave and feel. Eating some foods can leave you craving for more, while others won't. Fundamentally though, you're not going to gain weight on a calorie deficit.

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

#264

Post by Scheherazade » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:09 AM UTC

Damorian wrote: post #193

Miraste wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the US and recently tried to find bread--standard, sliced bread--without sugar in it at my local store. They don't have any. The lowest I could find was a gram of sugar per slice!

I bake various types of bread on a weekly basis, and have never seen a recipe that doesn't require sugar or honey. I'm pretty confident it's needed to fuel the yeast for the rising process vs the flour alone.

It’s quite frightening that you’ve never heard of sourdough bread given your baking experience. And as the other replies allude to, it’s quite common historically and in other places. Are baking books edited to exclude that knowledge in America? It really brings to mind the possibility.

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

#265

Post by bonoboTP » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:10 AM UTC

program_whiz wrote: post #169

Ok sorry to rant but the HN community lectures about processed food are misguided. As always, people trot out the "just eat less, its simple calories" and "stop eating junk food stupid Americans". This rests on the critical fallacy that those who do not have a weight problem are smarter, more active, or somehow make better choices. Do you really believe its that simple? This is a bit like the software devs who always…

You can't by raw meat and a sack of potatoes in rural America? Or loose tomatoes and apples? Or dried beans?

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

#266

Post by bonoboTP » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:12 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #261

bonoboTP wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If poor people eat so much of it that they get fat, then at a higher price point they will only afford less of the same stuff and thus get less fat.

So why doesn’t the same logic extend to non-poor people? Again, the issue isn’t with the intent, it’s with the execution. No need to apply it in a manner that disproportionately affects that subset of the population, especially when there are significant other systemic factors that contribute to that consumption. “Fat and sugar is bad” is quite different than “fat and sugar eaten by poor people is bad”

Rich people already have their ways of maintaining their health and are fitter in general.

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

#267

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:13 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #205

chithanh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO found that the consumption of sugary soda declines when it is taxed[1]. > A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. The goal is to decrease the consumption. [1] https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal...

That’s a given. Increase the cost of anything and you’ll decrease the consumption (in general, exceptions exist). My point is that the discussion is centered around only taxing the sugar/fat disproportionately consumed by those in the lower economic strata, meaning it becomes a de facto regressive tax. Like I said above, I’m not against the idea. I’m against the way the implementation is typically discussed. Tax it,…

High-end restaurants are such a microscopic part of the problem that this isn't really a point worth fighting over.

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

#268

Post by bonoboTP » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:16 AM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #252

bonoboTP wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barely getting by in America means being rich for much of the world including many European countries. How is it that the economics works out so differently in, say, Eastern Europe where poor people's best choice is to buy staples in bulk and cook and can't afford packaged convenience food and eating out? It's because American people's time is priced much higher and they earn much more overall.

When I was a kid, eating at McDonald's was considered to be like going to a restaurant. A moderately fancy one at that. The limiting factor was cost. It's not the case anymore. While McDonald's is still certainly more expensive than food people regularly eat, but the gap seems to be closing. People just aren't satisfied with eating basically potatoes and sometimes some meat. They make fancier meals, but this increase…

Seems like people are having more disposable income and higher standards for quality of experiences.

That hardly matches the narrative that this is caused by people barely getting by and being poor.

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

#269

Post by bumby » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:17 AM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #266

bumby wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why doesn’t the same logic extend to non-poor people? Again, the issue isn’t with the intent, it’s with the execution. No need to apply it in a manner that disproportionately affects that subset of the population, especially when there are significant other systemic factors that contribute to that consumption. “Fat and sugar is bad” is quite different than “fat and sugar eaten by poor people is bad”

Rich people already have their ways of maintaining their health and are fitter in general.

I can’t quite follow your logic. Is it that poor people should pay more because they don’t have the tools and resources to maintain their health?

I.e., there’s a greater risk that their lifestyle leads to bad health outcomes that society will have to pay for?

If so, what other groups does this extend to that should be taxed? Should video games get a “health tax” because gamers tend to have a more sedentary lifestyle?

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

#270

Post by bonoboTP » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #269

bonoboTP wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich people already have their ways of maintaining their health and are fitter in general.

I can’t quite follow your logic. Is it that poor people should pay more because they don’t have the tools and resources to maintain their health? I.e., there’s a greater risk that their lifestyle leads to bad health outcomes that society will have to pay for? If so, what other groups does this extend to that should be taxed? Should video games get a “health tax” because gamers tend to have a more sedentary lifestyle?

Yes, the same logic could be extended to tax sedentary entertainment products.

Or just let it take its course... Hail freedom! (for corporate marketing and optimizing addiction potential of all products) Boo regulation, that's anti-competitive and communist!