Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 345 posts

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

#271

Post by coffeecat »

chubot wrote: post #143
dragontamer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It seems like you think that Lard is axiomatically unhealthy, which may have been a common view 20 years ago, but no longer is. Lard doesn't contain trans fats, which is what fast food is full of. Lard is a time-tested animal product that has been used by many long-lived civilizations. "trans fats" wasn't a thing until ~20 years ago, so basically science is catching up with the implicit knowledge people have had for…

> Lard doesn't contain trans fats, which is what fast food is full of.

The FDA has banned partially hydrogenated oils (artificial trans-fat) in the US. The phase-out process won't be 100% complete until January 1 (certain specifically exempted products containing trace amounts can still be sold until then), but for the vast majority of PHO-containing foods, 2018 was the last year that they could be manufactured and 2019 was the last year that they could be sold (in the US).

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

#272

Post by phonypc »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #254
phonypc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of hot pockets, but what exactly is the point here? That the list of ingredients is long? Most of the list is regular food ingredients or vitamins/minerals added to the "enriched flour". The stabilizers and emulsifiers with scary chemical names are present in tiny amounts regulated by various health departments. If hot pockets are unhealthy, it's because of the qualities they might share with a homemade me…

> If hot pockets are unhealthy, it's because of the qualities they might share with a homemade meat pie Sorry to pick on you, but this confusion that a Hot Pocket is the same as a homemade meat pie is a great demonstration of the food corporations' capture of nutritional intuition and discourse. The public has been convinced that there's nothing concerning about increasingly replacing, for example, a nutritious, real…

I'm not confused about hot pockets being the same as honest meat pies. Insofar as they're even in the same category, hot pockets are a pretty sad alternative.

My point was that their nutritional value rests on the same qualities as any other food. Overabundance or lack of certain nutrients. Say lack of fibre, or too much saturated fat.

Excepting certain unequivocally harmful ingredients like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (which could just as easily be added to homemade meat pies in the form of shortening), I don't think the number of ingredients or processing steps will materially affects the nutritional value of a food independent of its nutrient quantities.

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

#273

Post by bumby »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #267
bumby wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can understand the utility part of the argument.

But human beings have an innate drive for fairness in society. People will actually work against their self interest if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

The counterpoint is that the “small part of the problem” logic works both ways. If it’s such a small part, it shouldn’t matter if it gets taxed. Taxing would have little impact on the consumption dynamics while having a much larger impact on the perception of fairness

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

#274

Post by bumby »

bonoboTP wrote: post #270
bumby wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I know you say it in jest, but poorly administered regulation can be worse than no regulation at all. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or something to that effect.

I’m not against the idea of taxation, I just think it should be done equitably and properly thought out, not haphazardly applied in a reactionary manner.

It’s like the idea of regulating check cashing places. I concede that they can often have predatory practices and deserve to be regulated. However, people who advocate completely banning them don’t necessarily realize they can also provide a valuable service and lifeline to poor communities.

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

#275

Post by Aerroon »

bonoboTP wrote: post #268
Aerroon wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I think so too, but that's just my perspective. I'm from a former Soviet Union country and grew up after its collapse. Perhaps the (relative to the US) poverty we had ended up being treated differently from the poverty that's in the US? Eg we were poor enough that fast food wasn't abundantly available. Maybe once we're as rich as the US is right now we will have the same problem as the US does with poverty and fast food.

That being said, shen people are really poor they still get by. They will find a way. 200 years ago almost everyone (excluding nobility) lived on about $2-3 a day in 1990s money. That's like two coffees at a coffee shop. People just lived differently and usually worse lives. Also, coffee shops weren't really a thing here until about the last decade or so. You could buy coffee at gas stations, but there weren't these fancy coffee shops.

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

#276

Post by nickff »

tartoran wrote: post #241
nickff wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can walk into Chipotle, order a burrito, and be out in less than 5 minutes with a delicious meal and no clean-up (maybe 10 if there's a lineup). It takes me much longer to cook the chicken and rice, even if the 'prep' is done, and I still have to clean up! I have what I'd consider a healthy diet, and I've been avoiding restaurant and prepared meals throughout the pandemic, but cooking everything has been a huge tim…

Cook food for a couple of days and time per meal will decrease. It takes a bit of getting used to it but once you find the gist of it it really works out

As mentioned above, I cook every meal I eat these days (averaging take-out once every 6-8 weeks). Chipotle is still much faster. Cooking chicken takes a minimum of ten minutes, rice is longer, even assuming no prep time and no clean-up.

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

#277

Post by titzer »

an_opabinia wrote: post #102
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 pr…

You know, it's completely possible that there are multiple bad guys.

There are a lot reasons to hate the meat lobby and factory farming, but sticking up for industrial labs cranking out the most addictive chemicals that they can legally push on us is completely unnecessary.

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

#278

Post by titzer »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #163
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…

Can't believe no one has quoted Michael Pollan yet, but his 7 rules still ring true (see #4 for your question): 1. Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says. 2. Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or in…

> 2. Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.

That's dumb. I struggled with "Quinoa."

> 4. Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.

That's dumb. Twinkies go bad and popping corn doesn't.

> 5. It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says.

That's dumb. Leaving a meal hungry just means you'll snack later. Eat fewer, large meals, and nothing in between.

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

#279

Post by matheusmoreira »

nxc18 wrote: post #246
01100011 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

45 here. Here's what I've noticed since the 80s: - More wealth and more choices now. - More eating out now. Meals are bigger, sweeter, richer, etc. - Less activity now. When I was a kid, video games were just getting started and most folks didn't own computers. TV & media was less engaging. Food addiction seems more... refined these days. There is a lot less fat shaming too, although I'm not suggesting we bring it ba…

Re: fat shaming, this is horribly misunderstood by people who have never struggled with obesity. When you are obese, you are fat shamed by yourself, every day of your life, every time you look in the mirror and what you see doesn’t reflect who you think you are. There is an incredible amount of societal baggage in being fat - the stereotype is that fat people are lazy, stupid, and incompetent. I know better, but even…

> Fat acceptance is bullshit, being fat is unhealthy.

Fat acceptance is about ending the disrespect leveled at fat people by society as a whole. Like many other groups, the obese are "acceptable targets" for all sorts of mockery and hate. Changing that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of fat people seem to have somehow deluded themselves into thinking being obese is healthy. This is of course absolutely false but these people keep posting baseless statements in an effort to remove the negativity associated with obesity. They turned fat acceptance into active promotion of obesity...

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

#280

Post by pseudalopex »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #166
01100011 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

45 here. Here's what I've noticed since the 80s: - More wealth and more choices now. - More eating out now. Meals are bigger, sweeter, richer, etc. - Less activity now. When I was a kid, video games were just getting started and most folks didn't own computers. TV & media was less engaging. Food addiction seems more... refined these days. There is a lot less fat shaming too, although I'm not suggesting we bring it ba…

I don't think its the food, I feel its several cultural shifts: - The tamping down of phy ed classes and general removal of exercise from elementary schools with more of an emphasis on learning. If you are not ok shape in middle school, it leads to learning issues. One problem begets the other - Shifts in parenting. When I grew up in the 1980's, our family ALWAYS ate dinner at home, together as a family. My mom got h…

What is a nuclear family to you? The normal definition is parents and children. Even if their schedules are too full.
Post reply on HN