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

161–170 of 304 posts

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

#161

Post by enragedcacti »

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.

Immediately backing off to "I know it when I see it" really doesn't help your case that UPF is the right way to categorize unhealthy foods

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

#162

Post by breezybottom »

toasty228 wrote: post #142
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://preview.redd.it/yodjulpnhclf1.jpeg?width=1240&format... this is the chemical composition of a strawberry my phd-less grandfather will have to now avoid his favourite dessert :(

> ackchyually everything is made of things, checkmate ok, well continue eating dog shit products designed by megacorps for the sole purpose of profit maximisation then, what do you want me to tell you? We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.

>We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem

That's impressive considering humans have existed for about 300,000 years. Also famine and starvation was a fact of life for much of the population until recently, but I guess that's not a real problem.

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

#163

Post by groundzeros2015 »

breezybottom wrote: post #51
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #23

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.

People who work at McDonalds generally aren't there because they turned down a high paying job at the UN.

McDonalds hate is forced. I bet they (corporate) do it because they grew up eating it and had a good time.

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

#164

Post by jmye »

breezybottom wrote: post #92
smallerfish wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless. "Processed" means that ingredients had to be manipulated to produce the food (e.g. most recipes). Most of what you make at home is "processed". "Ultra-processed" means food produced using industrial processing, using additives (perhaps not typically considered "food" in an of themselves) for emulsifying, flavor, shelf stability & preservation, color, etc. That's a clear distinction. Whether or n…

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.

Any good faith reply would take, as clear, that the issue is not with using a big mixer and that that is not what anyone, on earth, means when they talk about "industrial processing" or "using additives (perhaps not typically considered "food" in an of themselves) for emulsifying, flavor, shelf stability & preservation, color, etc.".

Parsing words seems super intellectual when you're 12 years old arguing with your mom about bed time, but it gets pretty boring pretty quickly after that. Something to consider.

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

#165

Post by _aavaa_ »

margalabargala wrote: post #85
_aavaa_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the wikipedia page: > 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…

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between "tends to be unhealthy" and "is always 100% unhealthy"? Do you not understand how the classification is useful even if it contains exceptions?

I understand the difference.

Do you understand that the classification is not based on healthy/unhealthy but based on how much “processing” was done to the food?

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

#167

Post by thinkingtoilet »

flossly wrote: post #46

Tobacco, wine and fresh bread are usually few of the consumables that in many western countries do not have to disclose their ingredients. Why do we allow this? Just behave like all others. Now we want to push for smoke-free societies: but non of ways to achieve this even dares to talk about "just make tobacco giants list all the ingredients/additives".

I don't think anyone is under the delusion that cigarettes are healthy for you. Everyone knows they cause multiple cancers. That's part of the appeal. It shows how 'tough' and 'cool' the user is. No matter what you do, there will always be a reactionary group of people doing the opposite of what they are told.

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

#168

Post by SXX »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #123
toasty228 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supermarket breads are trash, the first thing I found in wallmart's website: > Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium…

https://preview.redd.it/yodjulpnhclf1.jpeg?width=1240&format... this is the chemical composition of a strawberry my phd-less grandfather will have to now avoid his favourite dessert :(

Btw, related video that I always send when someone worrying about chemical composition of foods.

NileRed - Turning paint thinner into cherry soda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIVkBs7oWDI

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

#169

Post by groundzeros2015 »

toasty228 wrote: post #27
breezybottom wrote: post #6

Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. The state of nutrition science is abysmal.

> Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. Yes, and cigarettes cure cancer amirite ? We all know what they mean by ultra processed food, it's 75% of your supermarkets. 45% of the US is obese, the rest is overweight, food is one of the main factor in the top 2 leading causes of death in the US, if you can't see the problem you're blind There is a very good definition on wikipedia btw, and yes…

The scientifically measurable problem is the amount of calories people are eating, with low exercise, not that there are toxic ingredients or “bad foods”.

This is primarily a marketing distinction which appeals to natural sensibilities.

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

#170

Post by embedding-shape »

seethishat wrote: post #137
embedding-shape wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your problem with them that they're synthetic, or that it's nicotine? Pouched tobacco like that been used for decades in some places in the world, or even without pouches, just making your own ball and sticking the tobacco under your lip. I'm not sure these countries have a higher rate of GI/gut problems than other places, which kind of would invalidate your entire argument here.

My problem is it is an experiment (synthetic nicotine that is socially acceptable) and kids are addicted to it. It's like candy. No one knows or complains because the users are not generating smoke, vapor or spit. They just swallow the synthetic nicotine. Yes, people have used tobacco products for a long time. However, they have not sucked on them like candy and swallowed the contents 16 hours a day. They spit, exhal…

> However, they have not sucked on them like candy and swallowed the contents 16 hours a day.

Again, maybe not where you are, but there are definitively countries where both adults and children have tabacco under their lip for most of their waking hours, with no spitting or exhalation involved, as they're inside school/offices, can't really just spit there, even the non-synthetic stuff, as that's relatively new.

Zyn is specifically synthetic isn't it? You still seem to be mostly focused on synthetic nicotine, but the same behavior been observed for many, many decades with non-synthetics too.

Post reply on HN