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

How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 387 posts

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#191

Post by nradov »

benrutter wrote: post #167
tptacek wrote: post #93

This all has very big "uncured bacon" energy to me (if you didn't already know: there's no such thing; vendors of uncured bacon performatively drive the same chemical nitrite reaction using vegetable extracts). For example: yogurt becomes a UPF simply by dint of adding carrageenan, which is on the order of calling dashi a UPF because of the kombu. It's not that there isn't a very legitimate issue underneath all this:…

> It's just that "UPF" isn't the right metric for isolating those foods I've heard this criticism a fair bit, and I sort of agree. The only thing is, what is the right metric? And if we don't have one, and know these foods are causing harm, should we just use UPF as a term anyway?

There is perhaps some rough correlation but as soon as you define an objective metric then consumer packaged foods companies will figure out a way to game the metric by engineering foods to get good scores and be highly palatable while still not being very healthy. Another way of thinking about it might be ultra-formulated versus ultra-processed: what matters is the contents rather than how you got there.

https://peterattiamd.com/davidallison3/

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#192

Post by kulahan »

t-writescode wrote: post #175
kulahan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely nothing I've seen anywhere justifies the idea that access to food is the problem. In most cultures, you don't need cooking classes because the food is ingrained into their culture, and recipes are passed down. Americans have a much weaker link to their heritage. You might know a few dishes, but in my experience, absolutely nobody knows how to cook. By cook, I don't mean "can add one box of prepared goods t…

Look up food deserts. Access is absolutely a problem.

I know - the extreme majority of them are in rural areas where you'd have to drive a couple hours to get to a grocery store. My MIL lives in one.

Guess how they get most food? All that super-cheap rural land.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#193

Post by jmathai »

supportengineer wrote: post #102
arrozconcosas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They exist but are a small minority of the shelf. You have to really look for them.

This begs the question - is it reasonable for the consumer to put in a little work - reading labels and doing research outside of the grocery store? I find that you do the research once, and then you know what to buy next time.

The amount of work the consumer puts in is matched by food makers. You'll see the deceptive marketing on so many foods. "No sugar added" no longer means no added sweetening agent. It means that sugar was replaced by alternative sweeteners.

It's exhausting being a consumer these days.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#194

Post by kulahan »

vector_spaces wrote: post #132
kulahan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at your source, it seems as though food deserts exist almost exclusively when you're very far from civilization. In which case you can just grow the food.

It actually says right at the top that overwhelmingly they are in urban areas

It doesn't, actually. It says most people who are in food deserts are in urban areas. The vast majority of food deserts, however, are absolutely not in urban areas.

Even if it were true, it still only affects 13 million people. There are 330 million in the US, so it's a non-issue with regard to our obesity problem.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#195

Post by OJFord »

yesb wrote: post #91
secabeen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Greek Yogurt is not the same as Yogurt, it's a different product. Those two items are not "essentially the same thing". Also, low/zero-fat yogurts dominate the market in the US. Plain Whole-Milk traditional yogurt is more available now than it was a decade or two ago, but it's still nowhere as common as the high-sugar flavored ones.

It's the same thing with the additional step of straining out some whey

In Europe it's also Greek (as in, literally from Greece) milk, or else labelled 'Greek-style'.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#196

Post by nradov »

Scarblac wrote: post #187
benrutter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just that "UPF" isn't the right metric for isolating those foods I've heard this criticism a fair bit, and I sort of agree. The only thing is, what is the right metric? And if we don't have one, and know these foods are causing harm, should we just use UPF as a term anyway?

The thing is that, although the list used (the "Nova classification") is obviously somewhat arbitrary, the fact that everybody uses it makes research results comparable to each other.

Comparable how? If I compare one meaningless number to another meaningless number on the same scale then I can see which one is larger, but I won't learn anything scientifically valuable or practically useful.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#197

Post by Scarblac »

supportengineer wrote: post #102
arrozconcosas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They exist but are a small minority of the shelf. You have to really look for them.

This begs the question - is it reasonable for the consumer to put in a little work - reading labels and doing research outside of the grocery store? I find that you do the research once, and then you know what to buy next time.

Well, the supermarkets know know what the effect of their product placement is. If they change it, the customer buys different things, on average.

So, we can say it's reasonable for people to do some research and pick the yoghurt they consider best, but we know most people don't do that. And that supermarkets prefer to give the best spots to sugary yoghurts.

What's wrong with doing the research once for the average person and then regulating the supermarkets so they give those the eye level space? People can still make different choices if they want.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#198

Post by psunavy03 »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #177
stronglikedan wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: I fucking love beets. (and bacon. but not together. yuck)

A burger with the lot here in Australia will have beets and bacon. And an egg, probably pineapple too. Lettuce, tomato, cheese. hmm.. I know what I want for lunch today.

I could understand the beetroot when I was Down Under, but the pineapple just had me go "?" similarly to when I was served eggs, pasta, and mushrooms for breakfast.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#199

Post by OJFord »

vel0city wrote: post #87
Jensson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when I visited USA I was shocked to find lots of larger "grocery stores" didn't even stock the basics. In Europe that isn't a thing, everything larger than a regular room has fresh vegetables and meat and other staples, even in immigrant areas. Sure it might be possible to find that in USA as well, but its so much harder as not every store has it.

What kind of "basics" did you find missing in actual grocery stores, and what were the actual stores in question?

Not GP, but I can offer: real cheese (not squares of individually wrapped plastic, nor grated and mixed with whatever to prevent caking), Walmart.

Re: How America got hooked on ultraprocessed foods

#200

Post by Scarblac »

nradov wrote: post #196
Scarblac wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that, although the list used (the "Nova classification") is obviously somewhat arbitrary, the fact that everybody uses it makes research results comparable to each other.

Comparable how? If I compare one meaningless number to another meaningless number on the same scale then I can see which one is larger, but I won't learn anything scientifically valuable or practically useful.

Meaningless how? A lot of significant effects were found, it can't be entirely meaningless.
Post reply on HN