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

41–50 of 64 posts

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

#41

Post by why_at »

riku_iki wrote: post #34
why_at wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. Defining what counts as an ultra-processed food is challenging, and the actual causal link to health outcomes is far from clear. This article from Science-Based Medicine makes a good case against this kind of thing.[0] What can we actually do to make people eat healthier though? Rising obesity rates are one of those societal problems where I'm n…

> I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors. Say I am choosing between two types of ham.

>Say I am choosing between two types of ham.

I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this would help you with ham though. Probably either all ham counts as ultra processed, or none of it does. (My money is on the former)

If it was based on the number of ingredients, maybe there would be some case where one ham has an additional flavoring or something that puts it over the limit. But how likely is it that the extra ingredients would have a significant effect? Probably not much compared to the ham itself, plus the salt or whatever that's in it.

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

#42

Post by theteapot »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #30
theteapot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Process doesn't sound much different to some other types of pasta and bread. So I guess bread and pasta are UPF too? I think I'm safe with my Ramen ... Main thing that worries me is unintended contamination from cooking process and packaging TBH.

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

#43

Post by milchek »

dragontamer wrote: post #31
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…

> "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" Okay. So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice? > 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 culinary use (such as…

Not here to argue your point, just to note that McDonalds fries are not as natural as people think, ie. most people assume they’re just potatoes fried in some oil.

“French Fries Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [wheat And Milk Derivatives]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (maintain Color), Salt. natural Beef Flavor Contains Hydrolyzed Wheat And Hydrolyzed Milk As Starting Ingredients. Contains: Wheat, Milk.”

Source: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/small-french-frie...

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

#44

Post by dragontamer »

milchek wrote: post #43
dragontamer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" Okay. So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice? > 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 culinary use (such as…

Not here to argue your point, just to note that McDonalds fries are not as natural as people think, ie. most people assume they’re just potatoes fried in some oil. “French Fries Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [wheat And Milk Derivatives] ), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (maintain Color), Salt. natural Beef Flavor Contains Hy…

Fair.

I guess replace my earlier comment with Five Guys fries then. https://www.fiveguys.com/-/media/public-site/files/allergen-...

> Five Guys Style [Fries]: Potatoes, Refined Peanut Oil, Salt

Its gonna make you fat and clog your arteries either way.

----------

My point is that "processing" food doesn't seem to make it more, or less, healthy. The amount of "processing" that Pasta has (Dry the Flour, Wet the Flour, Dry the Pasta, Wet the Pasta/Boil it, and sometimes further Drying+Wetting steps after that) is one of those running jokes in culinary circles.

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

#45

Post by msteffen »

dragontamer wrote: post #31
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…

> "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" Okay. So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice? > 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 culinary use (such as…

I posted my own understanding above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168) but since those are good examples, my understanding is:

Lay’s potato chips: not UPF

McDonald’s fries: UPF due to the presence of beef flavor, hydrogenated oils, and other similar ingredients.

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

#46

Post by riku_iki »

why_at wrote: post #41
riku_iki wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors. Say I am choosing between two types of ham.

>Say I am choosing between two types of ham. I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this would help you with ham though. Probably either all ham counts as ultra processed, or none of it does. (My money is on the former) If it was based on the number of ingredients, maybe there would be some case where one ham has an additional flavoring or something that puts it over the limit. But how likely is it that the e…

I am not expert, but first google link says that simplest curing process is to brine it for 3 days in salted water and then bake, I don't think it will be counted as ultra-processed: https://www.homesicktexan.com/how-to-cure-ham/

But I think corps likely apply tons of chemicals to extend shelf life, make process faster and improve taste.

From another hand, I had no idea what is the process until I just googled. And I buy many types of food, and don't have chance to do my research, so labeling would be superhelpful.

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

#47

Post by NoPicklez »

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…

Everytime a discussion around UPF comes up, there is the question about the definition and people do often get lost in the detail.

There are some very good definitions and approaches to UPF's, like many have said the NOVA classification has a good definition and classification matrix.

However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions.

In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form.

In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.

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

#48

Post by zug_zug »

dragontamer wrote: post #31
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…

> "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" Okay. So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice? > 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 culinary use (such as…

> So are we ready to ban bread?

You're arguing in bad faith. Nobody said banning, the article said that there should be warning labels.

So yes, people should be aware that when they get a wonderbread sandwhich it has more sugar added to it than a dumdum lollipop. Some other breads are much less processed though.

> So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?

"Potato chips are made through processes like frying, adding artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives. They are designed to be convenient and hyper-palatable, fitting the definition of ultra-processed foods."

What I am saying is that stores should delineate products that are solely a source of calories from those that meet our nutritional needs. A red/yellow/green system would be useful. Or warning labels.

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

#49

Post by NoPicklez »

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?

Everytime a discussion around UPF comes up, there is the question about the definition and people do often get lost in the detail. There are some very good definitions and approaches to defining UPF's, like many have said the NOVA classification has a good definition and classification matrix.

However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions.

It's not so much if something is a UPF or not, but its to what degree is that particular food processed and is it so processed that it is considered a UPF.

I'd recommend reading the labels here https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

There is so much nuance in here, yes drinking lots of coke which is considered a UPF is bad for you and there's plenty of studies to show that. However like many things its the dose that makes the poison, which is also true of many foods considered processed or not.

Studies are showing that introducing things like dyes and other colours, colour stabilizers; flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners; and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants are introducing unhealthy outcomes

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

#50

Post by _DeadFred_ »

theteapot wrote: post #42
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Process doesn't sound much different to some other types of pasta and bread. So I guess bread and pasta are UPF too? I think I'm safe with my Ramen ... Main thing that worries me is unintended contamination from cooking process and packaging TBH.

It's considered processed when the bran and germ layers are removed and you are left consuming only a small part of the original foodstuff (with all the fiber and most nutrition removed). Most instant ramen is also fried, which then adds a lot of trans fats that would have never been part of historical food (trans fats are industrially created fats that taste really good but the main consideration for manufacturers is they have a long shelf life and are cheap to manufacture).

I think a problem being shown in is we are so many layers deep into processing it's confusing what is being discussed.

I'd really try not to eat individually packaged ramen that's for sure, especially cup-o-soup style where you then add the layer of cooking in the cheapest container made for shipping and cost savings more than it's qualities as a safe cooking surface.

Post reply on HN