Ultra-processed foods in the global food system: The role of tobacco companies • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by ilovetux » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #126

ilovetux wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if we were just talking about the abstract idea of marketing. But like everything else, the devil is in the details. The marketing industry in the US is built not only to get the word out about your product, but also to gatekeep who can compete in our free market. With marketing being so pervasive as to monetize the entire internet it effectively levies a tax on every business that wants to com…

Really? How much did Tesla spend on marketing?

Fair enough, I suppose.

While Tesla has (in some years) avoided traditional marketing, the ceo is known for spending ridiculous amounts of money on publicity stunts like having a submarine shipped to a cave and buying Twitter to boost public perception of his companies.

I think this is the exception that proves the rule.

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

#212

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

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.

That sounds like a made-up Internet fact or urban legend.

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

#213

Post by bondarchuk » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #207

bondarchuk wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who want to ban ads will usually give the alternative of a reviewed directory of products and services for each category. I don't know about this. The idea that it should be centrally reviewed and managed is somewhat of a strawman as far as I'm concerned. Once you outlaw third-party advertising you would naturally expect such directories to spring up (much like specialized business publications that are actu…

How will the directories get their names out and compete if they're not allowed to promote themselves? If you remove approved commercial options for promoting yourself, like advertisements, then most of the other options left for promotion are essentially spam. If your answer is word of mouth, that's naïve. I've worked with over 100 startups at very various stages of marketing in the last 15 years. Word of mouth is f…

I don't know man. I just think somehow we'll manage. For example if a group of friends all feel a desperate need to find out about new products they could start a non-profit organization that will search out the new products and directories detective style. And public business directories exist in most places because they are required by law.

The deeper point is that pro-advertising people always frame it like advertising is something people want and that benefits them, but this is just a fig-leaf for the underlying ideology that businesses have the fundamental right to buy peoples' attention for money. The directories idea is mostly just a way to call this bluff, essentially saying "if people wanted to be advertised to they'd go out of their way to get it". Then the underlying ideology comes out.

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

#214

Post by DanielHB » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #175

DanielHB wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snus (tobacco pouches you put under your gums) is super popular in Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus It is basically the same thing but not synthetic. Supposedly nicotin pouches are not as harmful because they do not have tobacco leaves. I am a bit ambivalent about it, on one hand people don't smoke as much because snus which means I don't get as much second hand smoke. On the other hand it is WAY easier for…

Exactly what I'm talking about, just didn't want to name it by name as people have a lot of preconceived notions about it that pops up as soon as you say "snus", for some reason.

I never heard about it causing GI problems, but snus definitely causes major teeth and gum problems. The guy I mentioned had his gums receded completely, he once showed it to me. It was very bizarre.

Also see this other comment on this thread about this issue:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411778

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

#215

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

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.

Swedish Snus has been around a long time, isn't linked to cancer at all, and has no bad effect on your teeth and gums. Snus is actually associated with vast drops in cancer rates, because it usually replaces smoking. Snus is also no-spit - I think the difference between it and chewing tobaccos is that they are roasted and that snus is steamed. Makes a huge difference healthwise.

I don't have anything to say about the synthetic stuff, I'm not familiar. It's a bizarre industry that cropped up during a period where snus was trying to get into the market and the tobacco companies were trying to keep them out.

Somehow, cigarette companies lobbied to get snus caught up in cigarette taxes, even without the actual health risk. They were only even required to put the weakest possible warning on the package, because the health effects of snus have been well-studied and they're not associated with anything serious, except for nicotine addiction itself (which makes it a good substitute for smoking.)

The big US cigarette companies marketed a few horrible "snus" lines, with the marketing and goal that they would be a replacement product for when a smoker couldn't take a smoke break, and they were weak. I assume these synthetic lines developed to avoid taxes in some way by pretending to be a sort of medical product rather than a tobacco product, like a nicotine gum.

Snus is actually a better Nicorette, I suspected that the nicotene replacement industry had something to do with the sabotage of snus. Snus is cheap, free of health consequences, and doesn't lead you to associate something as addictive as chewing with nicotine consumption. Snus just quietly sits behind your lip, the minis are undetectable by the people you're interacting with, and they smell nice so they don't ruin your breath. Why would you choose a more expensive synthetic alternative?

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

#216

Post by loloquwowndueo » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:22 PM UTC

port11 wrote: post #152

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wea…

> usually these measures are only done if truly needed — at least in Europe?

I’m not in Europe :)

Nah my dude, my dentist peddles all sorts of ridiculous unnecessary treatments. Invisalign? I’m 50, I don’t give a shit about how my teeth look, just want them not to fall off all at once. Invisalign is a subscription for your teeth. No thanks.

I stay with this dentist because they are friendly, technically competent and a 5-minute walk from home. Literally the only downside is the FUD to get me to go for those treatments but it’s just steeling myself to say “no thanks” every 6 months.

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

#217

Post by loloquwowndueo » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

ptaffs wrote: post #110

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

i had this suggested to me by a locum dentist, and i agree. This is totally off topic and going further so but if you didn't already, you should change your dentist.

Thanks but I won’t. My dentist is fine otherwise, I can say “no”, they’re ok with me saying “no”.

We get along great and I find that’s both hard to find and super important - no better way of putting off dentist visits than having a dentist you dread seeing every 6 months.

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

#218

Post by flossly » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #121

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".

All fresh food does not have to disclose ingredients

Yes! They should provide a list of all chemicals used to grow it, both in spray and in soil and in wash.

So you get for a banana:

Ingredients: banana,

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

#219

Post by flossly » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #167

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.

This is discussed many times. How to stop smoking in youngsters by XYZ.

But never: just force them to transparently list the junk they --currently secretly-- put in.

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

#220

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #182

enragedcacti wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

These are both absolutely the wrong ways to look at it.

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

Don't let the media decide what you think, whether you want to go against them or you want to support them. Your faith or distrust in some media organization or segment has no effect on the truth value of some statement being made. They are adding commentary.

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

Don't come up with words and then struggle to define them, or worse, argue with people about their definitions. Language is a tool. Discuss actual things, and use words to label those actual things. If they do not offer a definition for "ulta-processed food," do not help them. It is not up to you to come up with categories of food to fit the case they are making about "ultra-processed food." It is up to them to associate their health theories with the food they are trying to classify within them, both statistically and with guesses about the mechanisms.

Don't feel like because one can have a discussion that it makes sense to have one. If I make up a word, you shouldn't waste time debating its meaning, you should just ask me to give you a clear definition of how I'm using it.