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

51–60 of 64 posts

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

#51

Post by soared »

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…

I agree in some regard - I do wish there were restrictions as protein bars, snacks, beef, processed chicken, etc are not healthy. But it’s different for everyone what is healthy - IE I need a ton of simple carbs for long bike rides and missing those would cause issues. Some people don’t need those though and I don’t trust consumers (or agencies) to make good decisions.

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

#52

Post by soared »

zug_zug wrote: post #10

Imagine a future where all food stores have 3 sections: - The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten. - The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc. - The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative imp…

Calories can have value by themselves. I don’t recall the phrasing but something like Eat Enough, not too much, then look for variety.

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

#53

Post by dragontamer »

zug_zug wrote: post #48
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…

> 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."

Lays Potato chips are made up of only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt.

Its as simple as you're going to get. I get that you're trying to make "Ultraprocessed" actually encapsulate "unhealthy foods", but there's no colorings here.

Its just carbs, oil, and salt. Of which many Breads have a similar set of ingredients. Your typical Pesto or other "healthy and organic" dips have more processing than Lay's Potato Chips.

That's the thing. I know that Ultraprocessed is just a word tossed around with no definition. Its just everything "wrong" with today's food that rallies up a crowd, but no one has ever actually defined "Ultraprocessed" in a way that matches what normal people understand as "healthy" vs "unhealthy".

In any case, I'm actually for things like increased soda-taxes and other penalties to provably unhealthy foods. But we need to get the definition correct, and "Ultraprocessed" is such a bad baseline for discussion.

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

#54

Post by msteffen »

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…

I wrote a top-level comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168) before I read yours, but from Tulleken’s book, my understanding is the difference basically comes down to “would you ever make this in your kitchen, or no?”

I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.

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

#55

Post by pornel »

NoPicklez wrote: post #49
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 und…

It's a shame it's just based on correlation with many additives/processes together, and individual contributing factors weren't singled out.

The mechanically-separated pink sludge McNuggets may be ultra processed, but I'd like to know if I put a chicken in a blender myself, is it going to be "processed" too. Or maybe the problem is not processing, but just HFCS additives?

As a whole the definition is too close to "natural" fallacy to me.

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

#56

Post by filoleg »

zero-sharp wrote: post #39
filoleg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I said, it's not binary. The UPF category can be too broad to the point of it being meaningless. Somebody else in the comment chain mentioned creating a score instead. The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be t…

Thanks for elaborating on your point, because I actually agree with it more after this.

> The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount

Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).

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

#57

Post by alan-hn »

dragontamer wrote: post #44
milchek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, D…

More processing usually equates to more refining which means removal of micro nutrients. So yes, while five guys fries will make you fat if you eat too many they at least contain the normal micro nutrients of potatoes without added preservatives that may cause other problems

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

#58

Post by alan-hn »

dragontamer wrote: post #53
zug_zug wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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." Lays Potato chips are made up of only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt. Its as simple as you're going to get. I get that you're trying to make "Ultraprocessed" actually encapsulate "unhealthy foods", but the…

How long do you think humans have been cooking food

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

#59

Post by alan-hn »

Exuma wrote: post #27
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…

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

No, but I think protein isolate does have a use in the context of athletes

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

#60

Post by dragontamer »

alan-hn wrote: post #57
dragontamer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, D…

More processing usually equates to more refining which means removal of micro nutrients. So yes, while five guys fries will make you fat if you eat too many they at least contain the normal micro nutrients of potatoes without added preservatives that may cause other problems

Are you saying French Fries (Simply cut Potatoes, oil + salt) are healthier for you than Pasta? (Ground grain, dried, wet, combined with Eggs, dried again, combined with various sauces made from oils, often dried herbs and other such ingredients)

Because Pasta is a hell of a lot more "processed" than a typical French Fry

Post reply on HN