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

221–230 of 304 posts

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

#221

Post by GeoAtreides »

mapt wrote: post #196
seethishat wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Spitting was necessary because swallowing tobacco represents an immediate, acute food poisoning issue due to the other chemicals present. It's also all sorts of cancerous, including to the mouth, also due to those other chemicals. We developed, in Snus, an apparently cancer-free chewing tobacco. We developed, in Zyn, a cancer-free, hygienic chewing tobacco with fewer GI issues. We developed, in e-cigarettes / vapes,…

It's comments like this that makes HN what it is. I am absolutely in awe and I applaud you good sir, this is truly a masterpiece.

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

#222

Post by enragedcacti »

the__alchemist wrote: post #194
breezybottom wrote: post #6

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

This is akin to pitbulls and porn: You know it when you see it, despite the existence of ambiguous cases. I bring this up because your call to specifics is useuful in general. In this case: There are gray areas, but in most cases, it's a useful heuristic. If your food comes in a bright-colored box, advertises as containing "Real [cheese|fruit|etc]" and or is branded with the word "flavor", "Ultra-processed" is a usef…

You'd love my new food category. It's called Ultra-Priced Foods, and it argues that the more expensive something is, the better it is for you. Sure, there might be some exceptions, but overall price is a quite effective proxy for high quality ingredients.

Oh, you don't have unlimited money? Some people don't have unlimited time or capability to prepare home-cooked meals constantly. It would behoove anti-UPF advocates to design a system that more accurately describes nutritional value of "UPFs" so people can make informed decisions within the constraints of their life.

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

#223

Post by vel0city »

embedding-shape wrote: post #172
throwaway173738 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You customarily spit out that saliva that’s been in contact with your dip. Swallowing it is way worse for you. When I framed houses the guys that chewed would leave a little trail of brown spots everywhere.

> You customarily spit out that saliva that’s been in contact with your dip I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere/for everyone, it's really not common in Sweden to walk around spitting just because you have tobacco under your lip, as people sit in offices and stuff with this in their mouth, can't really go around a spit indoors.

I can't speak for Sweden (I've never been), but typically all the people I've known in the US who dip regularly can be found with some kind of fast food cup they carry around with them as their "dip cup". It'll look like they're just taking a swig of some random drink, but in reality they're spitting.

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

#224

Post by pessimizer »

margalabargala wrote: post #187
_aavaa_ wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What it sounds like you're saying is that it is possible for processing to make a product unhealthy, and unlikely for processing to make a product more healthy.

What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.

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

#225

Post by embedding-shape »

vel0city wrote: post #223
embedding-shape wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You customarily spit out that saliva that’s been in contact with your dip I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere/for everyone, it's really not common in Sweden to walk around spitting just because you have tobacco under your lip, as people sit in offices and stuff with this in their mouth, can't really go around a spit indoors.

I can't speak for Sweden (I've never been), but typically all the people I've known in the US who dip regularly can be found with some kind of fast food cup they carry around with them as their "dip cup". It'll look like they're just taking a swig of some random drink, but in reality they're spitting.

Yeah, that used to be common in the rural/country-side maybe 30 years ago or so in Sweden, you'll see zero people walking around in offices spitting in cups in Sweden today, although tons of people use (synthetic and non-synthetic) snus all the time.

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

#226

Post by cm2012 »

bondarchuk wrote: post #213
cm2012 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 advert…

It's not that businesses have a fundamental right to buy people's attention. It's that people have a right to sell ad space that they own to other people to show messages on if they want to. I dont think its right to tell (example fake website) plumbersupport.com that they cant accept $500 from a plumbing saas product to put a banner ad on their site because advertising is bad.

This kind of situation is win-win-win.

The plumbing website makes money from the ad - supporting their operations so plumbers can keep a good source of plumbing educational content.

The SaaS company gets to put their product in front of users to look at and consider buying.

The users get to see a potential product with no obligation that they may have not ever heard of before.

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

#228

Post by vel0city »

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...

> Oh there is a very well defined and accepted definition in science

What is this singular, well-defined, and widely accepted definition in science for "ultra-processed food"?

Are glazed donuts ultra-processed foods?

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

#229

Post by hackingonempty »

macNchz wrote: post #48
nubinetwork wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard people say that even bread is ultra processed... I guess we're supposed to go back to eating twigs and berries.

Most of the packaged pre-sliced bread in the bread aisle (as opposed to the bakery area) of American supermarkets is full of ingredients not traditionally used in bread, or used in food at all until recent decades. Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed.

> Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed.

Cake and cookies are bread and made with the same ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, sugar, salt, herbs.

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

#230

Post by Forgeties79 »

newaccountman2 wrote: post #86
red-iron-pine wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he's a comedian; his entire job is standing up in front of people and saying shit and having a message. thats... the point. it's not nameless widgets or whitelabel switches where you can just ignore it.

> having a message I don't think most comedians really have any cogent "message", nor do I think that's part of the job

Then I don’t think you really understand comedy to be honest.

That’s a very reductive view of comedy, essentially “just a joke with no relevant context or layers allowed,” which rubs against the entire history of the art form. No working comic would agree with you.

Put another way: Not everyone is looking to do revolutionary commentary, but good luck finding a comic with no commentary at all.

Post reply on HN