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

181–190 of 304 posts

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

#181

Post by drum55 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #161
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s basically a wildcard, “ultra processed food” is a classification of nothing and everything. There’s nothing inherently bad about processing food, lots of food is terrible for you but that’s unrelated entirely.

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

#182

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

enragedcacti wrote: post #161
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is 2 ways to have that discussion:

1. Ultra processed food is a media hype -> totally dismiss it

2. Ultra processed food is often used without proper classification and would be more useful to have well defined sub categories

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

#183

Post by photochemsyn »

There are two driving factors behind ultra-processed food tech: shelf life and addictive potential. Shelf life extension is easier to understand:

Preservatives targeting mold/bacteria growth: potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, calcium propionate, sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate, sulfites.

Antioxidants targeting oil and fat rancidness: BHA, BHT, TBHQ, propyl gallate, tocopherols, ascorbic acid.

Water/activity texture systems (practically restricting water availability for chemical and biological processes): glycerin, sorbitol, corn syrup, maltodextrin, modified starch, gums, polyols.

Acidity systems (also flavor, but restricts some microbial growth): citric acid, phosphoric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, fumaric acid, sodium citrate.

Stabilizer/emulsifier systems(physical appearance, prevents oil separation): mono- and diglycerides, polysorbates, lecithin, DATEM, SSL, carrageenan, xanthan gum, cellulose gum, modified food starch.

As far as modern scientific medical knowledge, this impacts your gut microbiome negatively, puts added burdens on your liver and kidneys, and that’s just the obvious immediate effects. This is just the shelf life component - the synthetic flavor/texture modification chemistry designed to enhance addictive potential is equally complicated.

Suggested warning label: “‘Food’ corporations will happily shorten your life and ruin your health if it means more profits.”

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

#184

Post by Theodores »

AngryData wrote: post #4

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.

The story is an embroidered myth based on a sprinkling of facts. This is my understanding and I eat no processed food!

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

#185

Post by breezybottom »

jmye wrote: post #164
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.

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 mo…

[flagged]

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

#186

Post by drum55 »

smallerfish wrote: post #83
breezybottom wrote: post #6

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

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…

The idea that you could buy any food that doesn’t fit that definition is silly, all foods have additives that’s why you can buy them and they last for more than 60 seconds on a shelf, all foods are processed because we don’t eat raw seeds as the majority of our staple diet. You have to come up with a definition of what “process” is good and bad, and what about them is “bad” before making statements like that.

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

#187

Post by margalabargala »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #165
margalabargala wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're so close.

All you're missing is "and quantity of processing is correlated with being unhealthy, making it a useful metric".

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

#188

Post by treis »

forlorn_mammoth wrote: post #140
treis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All fresh food does not have to disclose ingredients

I'm picturing a banana with a label on it that says: Ingredients: banana Servings: 1 Serving Size: 1 banana

An amusing thought but I mean the potato salad deli stuff. Anything prepared on site (in a store or restaurant) doesn't need to disclose ingredients. There's no special exception for bread.

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

#189

Post by SXX »

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
Whatever people were eating even 200 years ago have literally nothing to do with fruits and veggies we have now after selection and artificial evolution usually via radioactive exposure because GM is baaad.

Also people wasn't all that much healthier and neither they lived so long.

  > but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.
Chemical composition have nothing to do with it. Too much of sugar or salt or some other things is the problem though.

But you can as well get the same health problems from eating too much fruits. E.g grapes and mangoes have more sugar than coca cola.

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

#190

Post by wordpad »

forlorn_mammoth wrote: post #140
treis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All fresh food does not have to disclose ingredients

I'm picturing a banana with a label on it that says: Ingredients: banana Servings: 1 Serving Size: 1 banana

Sounds dumb, but then also if something unexpectedly had a list of 20 ingredients you might reconsider buying it
Post reply on HN