31–40 of 304 posts
And this is different from all other marketing how? If tobacco style marketing is a problem that needs to be solved, then 95% of marketing needs to be banned.
Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. The state of nutrition science is abysmal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn’t. The advice on nutrition is abundantly clear and has been for a long time: eat food, mostly plants, not too much. That science has pushed GRAS as “food” is abysmal. Lots of you have just been punked.
> eat food, mostly plants, not too much. If the state of physics was "stuff falls, heat sticks around, light goes fast" I think it'd be fair to describe that as "abysmal".
Health/nutrition is a spectrum but no one will tell you to eat a bag of chips a day and rinse your mouth with coke
Logistics is logistics, the expeeience should be pretty transferrable, especially if no cold chain is involved. So good for them I guess?
> Regulation of the multiple addictive products that tobacco companies have disseminated to markets globally may be needed to protect public health.
That seems less about logistics and more about manipulating the content of food, perhaps to encourage some low-level of dependence. People eventually came to expect this from tobacco products, I think many would be surprised to see this kind of thing from Oreos or potato chips.
Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. The state of nutrition science is abysmal.
I've heard this objection a lot, even from folks I respect. Its ubiquity makes me wonder it is astroturfed. The definition I have heard is "food made with ingredients or processes not commonly used in ghome Unfortunately, when I looked to leading scientific orgs, they are dithering on releasing formal definitions, but all say something like what I'd heard. Conflicting information doesn't mean an abysmal situation. I'…
Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. The state of nutrition science is abysmal.
It isn't a meaningless word, and like my sibling poster I do wonder if that sentence is astroturfed by the junk food corpos. The [NOVA classification]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification ) has definitions for various levels of food processing.
> The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling.
> Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease.
So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think it means.
And this is different from all other marketing how? If tobacco style marketing is a problem that needs to be solved, then 95% of marketing needs to be banned.
It's astonishing to me that advertising and marketing is accepted as normal. The majority of B2C marketing is designed to manipulate people's emotions so that they act against their interests, in order to make you money. It's really disgusting.
And in doing so you can see that what you're saying is actually not true. Look up any random advertiser and you'll see that it's pretty uncommon for ads to be based around insecurity. Almost always it's on banal product features. The insecurity-focused ads do exist but they tend to be focused on a few broad lowest hanging fruit ad categories.
I wonder about the folks who work for tobacco and industrial food conglomerates. Are they not aware of the part they play? Do they rationalize it somehow? Do they just not care? Did they end up there through mergers? Cynical arguments are facile. I'm not interested in hearing that people are dumb or evil. I am genuinely curious how these companies attract talent.
I wonder about the folks who work for tobacco and industrial food conglomerates. Are they not aware of the part they play? Do they rationalize it somehow? Do they just not care? Did they end up there through mergers? Cynical arguments are facile. I'm not interested in hearing that people are dumb or evil. I am genuinely curious how these companies attract talent.
These two categories are massively different. Tobacco, you could make the case that you're just hurting people. Industrial food conglomerates are necessary to feed the world. People would die without them. They also make plenty of nutritious food. When people eat non-nutritious food it's not because the conglomerates are pushing it on them. It's because they choose it.
I also agree that people have choices.
I disagree that it is simply people choice it. When large corporations perform research to find hyperpalatable foods, spend billions on marketing, and capture regulatory apparatus to lock in their dominant position, it absolutely is that they are pushing it on people.
I wonder about the folks who work for tobacco and industrial food conglomerates. Are they not aware of the part they play? Do they rationalize it somehow? Do they just not care? Did they end up there through mergers? Cynical arguments are facile. I'm not interested in hearing that people are dumb or evil. I am genuinely curious how these companies attract talent.
Consider the half of the US population that doesn't vote, not only do they not vote... but most of the time it's not even a system that they think about at all. There are a number of people who barely even know who the candidates in any given election are. You can live your entire life within a very narrow line of sight.