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

Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

ajph.aphapublications.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 304 posts

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#151

Post by toasty228 »

9rx wrote: post #143
toasty228 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ultra-processed is a meaningless You'd find plenty of definitions if you looked for them > generally processed food lasts longer, is less perishable, often cheaper, etc. Go ahead and list the negatives too lmao... what do you think the additives meant to prevent living organism from developing on the food do in your gut for example ? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/ Ultra processed food benefit co…

> You'd find plenty of definitions Exactly. Terms that are meaningful have one generally accepted definition. When everyone and their brother are coming up with their own pet definitions, that is when a term is considered meaningless.

Oh there is a very well defined and accepted definition in science, but for some reasons geniuses on this forum, and online in general, like to pull their best "ackchyually" broscience definitions.

btw feel free to open a dictionary and discover that a lot of words have multiple definitions, it doesn't mean they're meaningless...

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#152

Post by port11 »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #90
Forgeties79 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you do an incredibly painful graft right? I have a buddy who had to do that in college and man it seemed incredibly unpleasant. They harvested the skin from the roof of his mouth IIRC Edit: yikes sounds like it gets worse and might not even work

My dentist has been peddling this procedure to me for years. It sounds incredibly invasive and painful and they don’t even promise it’ll cover 100% of the recession, nor that it won’t recede again unless one goes for an even more invasive jaw realignment which involves, I shit you not, intentionally fracturing the palate bone to make more space to align the teeth. That was the “let me stop you right there” moment. (N…

What you’re describing sounds terrible in isolation, but usually these measures are only done if truly needed — at least in Europe?

I passed on the jaw realignment surgery, knowing that the consequences are more bone wear over time and that I’ll never fully recover usage on the left side of my mouth.

None of the dentists/orthos/surgeons involved said I *had* to do it, there is a trade off. Breaking your jaw might weaken it down the line, but bone wear along the tooth line isn’t great either. It’s a tough call.

Grafting is another thing I’ve been postponing, but now the proximity to my roots is getting painful as sensitivity piles up.

Again: this is all optional and full of trade-offs. Sibling comment suggesting you change dentists is not doing a fair assessment of the situation.

People with bad teeth, on average, die younger and have worse diets.

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#153

Post by [deleted] »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #122
breezybottom wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a clear distinction at all, since now you have to define "industrial". Why would mixing with an industrial blender lead to unhealthier food than a kitchen blender? Why would flour made with a gristmill be less healthy than a mortar and pestle? There's no theoretical basis.

You're just playing the semantics game for the sake of being contrarian. If you really think Oreos, Pringles, and Lunchables aren't ultra-processed and extremely unhealthy, there's no point in having a discussion.

[deleted]

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#154

Post by throwoutway »

mpalczewski wrote: post #116
jjice wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangential but similar nonsensical secrecy for consumables: alcohol not requiring a nutrition label always irks me.

One beer company tried to do it. But because beer has vitamins in it, they were prohibited from doing it as it might have made the beer seem healthy.

Ingredeant lists != nutrition chart

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#156

Post by voakbasda »

9rx wrote: post #132
nickserv wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely not a meaningless term, it's a classification in the Nova standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification And regarding health risks, please ask your doctor about your consumption. You may be surprised.

It is meaningless to the general population. No term is meaningless to an individual or small groups of people, obviously. That goes without saying.

Ignorance of a concept does not make it meaningless.

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#157

Post by 9rx »

toasty228 wrote: post #151
9rx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd find plenty of definitions Exactly. Terms that are meaningful have one generally accepted definition. When everyone and their brother are coming up with their own pet definitions, that is when a term is considered meaningless.

Oh there is a very well defined and accepted definition in science, but for some reasons geniuses on this forum, and online in general, like to pull their best "ackchyually" broscience definitions. btw feel free to open a dictionary and discover that a lot of words have multiple definitions, it doesn't mean they're meaningless...

"Meaningless" doesn't mean everyone fails to find meaning, it means that there is no general consensus on what it means. As you pointed out before, everyone holds their own pet definition. It means something to most everyone, but there isn't a shared understanding of what it means across the general population.

While it is true that words often have multiple meanings while remaining meaningful, they do not have multiple meanings within the same context as is the case here. I am surprised that wasn't obvious to you. Hey, on the bright side, at least you got to learn something new today.

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#158

Post by treis »

xg15 wrote: post #99
cm2012 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes not gonna pull it but there's data that shows calories got meaningfully cheaper and easier to access in the United States and more plentiful from the 1980s to the 2020s.

That shift might have been plausible if it happened in the 40s or 50s when the economy switched from war to consumption - but in the 80s? What kind of massive breakthrough in food production happened there that we mysteriously never heard of?

Food as a % of income declined dramatically. This chart has it at 18% in 1960 declining to ~10% today.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2020/november/average-s...

There were a ton of programs after WWII to improve the nutrition of the country. This largely meant raising calories to prevent malnutrition. And the 80s are as good a point as any other to where that succeeded.

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#159

Post by cm2012 »

bondarchuk wrote: post #136
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in part. By definition, the conglomerates have many parts. Some of those are not objectively bad. 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.

By and large most people don't see any problem with marketing, they will actually get a little bit mad at the suggestion it should be abolished, evidently it fulfills some kind of need for them. All these kinds of questions you're asking come from a specific way of looking at things that is just not how most normal people look at the world. I'm not saying this out of misanthropy or some kind of wake-up-sheeple attitu…

My Theory: Advertising is a lot like capitalism itself. Both ads and capitalism are messy and have some externalized harms, but are better than the alternatives.

In the "advertising led" model of customer discovery, businesses advertise to essentially tell the market that they exist and provide a service. They do so by paying for advertising space across various mediums. This includes everything from their store signage to Craigslist ads, to TV and sophisticated digital advertising.

Most modern advertising is an auction where businesses compete to serve their message to customers the algorithms think are most likely to be interested.

This function - of matching users that might be interested in products to businesses providing products - is at this point hugely scaled.

People who want to ban ads will usually give the alternative of a reviewed directory of products and services for each category. That, they say, would be the ideal method of product discovery, along with word of mouth.

However, that runs immediately into the same problem that communism has historically. Who actually controls these directories, which would be a huge source of power for society? I posit that that it is impossible to centralize this effectively, and that the most likely most effective method for idea and product dispersal is something close to modern marketing and advertising.

Re: Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies

#160

Post by cm2012 »

gaiagraphia wrote: post #127
cm2012 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know its just a joke, but Bill Hicks also constantly marketed himself and branded himself as an anti-marketing comedian. In his mind it was okay to promote yourself as a comedian but not promote your own business.

There's a different between 'promotion' and 'bait and switch'. There's also the matter of the externalities of the products you're promoting. If Hicks marketed his shows as life-changing experiences which'll give you a bigger dick, then just ran normal stand-up, it'd be right to criticise him. Just as it's right to criticise companies who claim to sell 'food', show ads of nice happy, healthy families, and throw buzzw…

I didn't recall Hicks saying that people who do bait-and-switch tactics (which i also agree are bad) should kill themselves. I recall him saying all marketers and advertisers should kill themselves.
Post reply on HN