Live data from Hacker News

Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

economist.com

1–10 of 437 posts

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#5
Don't they add food coloring from ground bugs sometimes. In case of sausage they add preservatives to make it last longer. Actual poison if you were just to eat a lot of it. Generally companies are liable if they make you sick right after eating their product. So they do everything they can to prevent that. Nobody is going to held liable if they give you cancer 10 years down the line. Super hard to prove. So not a worry for them. Backlash after the failed covid vaccine makes some reform more likely now.

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#6
Why do we need these kinds of sensationalist names for things? Why is it so important that they be "ultra-processed" foods? Can't they just be "overprocessed" or perhaps use some other more neutral term?

It's like the 90s when everything had to be "EXTREME!!"

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#7

Why do we need these kinds of sensationalist names for things? Why is it so important that they be "ultra-processed" foods? Can't they just be "overprocessed" or perhaps use some other more neutral term? It's like the 90s when everything had to be "EXTREME!!"

I think it's partly due to the people (this site is full of them) that would read any other term and go "what is processing? Cooking and cutting is processing hurr durr"
Post reply on HN