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

Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#21

Post by _DeadFred_ »

ideonexus wrote: post #13
nickff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?

Just a few examples: 1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores. 2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily satu…

Try making socca chickpea flour pizzas. So quick to make, so much good stuff (protein, resistant starch, fiber). You can get organic chickpea flour from the bulk bin for cheap too.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#22

Post by theteapot »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #19
theteapot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Are they made from brown rice and keep the bran and germ portions or from heavily processed white rice? Are they made from whole grain flour or processed white flower?

I think you call instant noodles "Ramen" in US. Never heard of rice instant noodles before .. Typically [1]:

> Noodle production starts with dissolving the salt, starch, and flavoring in water to form a mixture that is then added to the flour. The dough is then left for a period of time to mature, then for even distribution of the ingredients and hydration of the particles in the dough, it is kneaded. After it is kneaded, the dough is made into two sheets compounded into one single noodle belt by being put through two rotating rollers. This process is repeated to develop gluten more easily as the sheet is folded and passed through the rollers several times. This will create the stringy and chewy texture found in instant noodles.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_noodles#Production

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#23

Post by turtlebits »

theteapot wrote: post #11
zug_zug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Absolutely, have you ever looked at the number of ingredients in instant noodles?

I've started to looked at packaged food ingredients and now avoid foods with added phosphates and nitrates.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#24

Post by turtlebits »

theamk wrote: post #6

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made onl…

Personally, my family avoids foods with hydrogenated ingredients, and added phosphates, nitrites or sulfites.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#25

Post by neuralRiot »

Tagbert wrote: post #7

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

Foods should have a “health score rating” similar to cars safety score.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#26

Post by jay_kyburz »

stavros wrote: post #15
nickff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?

If your food comes with a label, it's not healthy.

I have some concerns about what our farmers are doing to our fruit and vegetables as well.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#27

Post by Exuma »

zug_zug wrote: post #8
Tagbert wrote: post #7

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

Is that protein isolate different than my isolated whey protein workout shake

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#28

Post by zero-sharp »

Tagbert wrote: post #7

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less.

Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take?

I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of those instances in the past where we created harm by exposing ourselves to something novel, prior to it being understood scientifically. I don't think exercising caution is unscientific.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#29

Post by filoleg »

zero-sharp wrote: post #28
Tagbert wrote: post #7

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less. Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take? I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of…

You aren’t addresing the problem posed by the grandparent comment.

You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#30

Post by _DeadFred_ »

theteapot wrote: post #22
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they made from brown rice and keep the bran and germ portions or from heavily processed white rice? Are they made from whole grain flour or processed white flower?

I think you call instant noodles "Ramen" in US. Never heard of rice instant noodles before .. Typically [1]: > Noodle production starts with dissolving the salt, starch, and flavoring in water to form a mixture that is then added to the flour. The dough is then left for a period of time to mature, then for even distribution of the ingredients and hydration of the particles in the dough, it is kneaded. After it is kne…

I guess I assumed people would consider ramen a highly processed food. USA instant ramen also often comes pre-fried.

In the USA there's 'just soak in hot water' rice noodle packs though I normally use the soak in hot water mung bean noodles. Both of which would be considered highly processed.

Post reply on HN