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

231–240 of 304 posts

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

#231

Post by esseph »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #134
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.

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.

Dip, yes. Although I knew guys that swallowed the dip spit (insane).

The Snus saliva (actual snus) just gets swallowed. Same with Zyn and others.

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

#232

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #203
cm2012 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't recall Hicks saying that people who do bait-and-switch tactics (which i also agree are bad) should kill themselves. I recall him saying all marketers and advertisers should kill themselves.

Most marketing these days is that kind of pernicious Mad Men style feelings-based marketing. If ads were informational, like “here is a new product you might like from the makers of this other product you already use,” that would be different.

[deleted]

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

#233

Post by esseph »

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.

I used to have a high school teacher that would make half a cup of coffee in the morning and then "sip" it throughout the day (to spit in).

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

#234

Post by vel0city »

mystraline wrote: post #60
cm2012 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These two categories are massively different. Tobacco, you could make the case that you're just hurting people. Industrial food conglomerates are necessary to feed the world. People would die without them. They also make plenty of nutritious food. When people eat non-nutritious food it's not because the conglomerates are pushing it on them. It's because they choose it.

> When people eat non-nutritious food it's not because the conglomerates are pushing it on them. It's because they choose it. Ah yes, the capitalist trick of blaming the consumer for structural failings. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-... - food desert map. Especially in food deserts, sometimes the only places to buy food are from gas stations. Guess what they serve? Toxic shit that someh…

I'm not against state-run groceries, one of the best grocers in this country is operated by the federal government. Food deserts are a problem, and we already have tools to solve them.

But you're putting far too much weight on food deserts on "why do Americans eat so much junk food". 6% of Americans live in food deserts. I imagine way more than 6% of Americans regularly eat junk food.

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

#235

Post by gwbas1c »

mapt wrote: post #208
gwbas1c wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I wouldn't assume that any nicotine delivery system is safe. IE, e-cigarettes used to be promoted as safe, until the popcorn lung incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchiolitis_obliterans#E-cig... (TLDR, some e-cigarettes used diacetyl as a flavoring, which is safe to eat but very toxic to inhale.) (Kinda stinks because nicotine is a cool drug.)

The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes, which are an illegal but widespread cottage (garage) industry where one summer, one of the thousands of manufacturer-enthusiasts made a forum post about the innovation of maybe using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. Experiments were performed, positive results were obtained, and products went out to distributors. The hazard to heavy user…

> The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes

Not true, see the above link.

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

#236

Post by moritzwarhier »

cm2012 wrote: post #197
moritzwarhier wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimizing for food that costs the least in ingredients, at the same time is provenly unhealthy, and has addictive properties, is a totally valid strategy for a free market but it's far from "feeding the world". And better accessibility of unhealthy food in comparison to healthy food is a reality for many people, especially when they cannot outsource the act of buying and preparing food to others, including family, o…

Every kind of food is currently being made: healthy fresh food, processed foods of various types at all different price ranges. People have options to buy what they want and that's a good thing.

Of course!

But the availability of these options when you're say, doing lunch break in a particular city, is not unlimited.

I explicitly said that I'm not for a government dictate on what food should be made.

I did not add any suggestion on how to deal with the problem, but my statement said that maximizing profits on food can be exploitative.

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

#237

Post by enragedcacti »

svpk wrote: post #119
oytis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? If we make the same processes commonly available to use at home, will these foods become less harmful? I know there is science around it, but the very concept looks very unscientific, it's almost like talking about "unnatural food"

The idea is that you could ban any set of "unhealthy" inputs and give the big food companies some time and they'll come out with something just as unhealthy that complies with your rules. The underlying issue is some mix of what industrial processes make possible combined with food scientist working with taste test panels to hyper optimize food. When you spend all this time and effort trying to create a snack where p…

If the goal is to regulate unhealthy foods then it does kind of have to be perfect (very low false-positives). UPFs as they are defined include baby formula, many frozen meals regardless of macros, soy/almond milk, instant oatmeal, pasta sauce, flavored yogurt, etc.

Invariably when someone says something like "UPF is a pretty reliable heuristic" its because they are massively underestimating what counts as UPF and using a "I know it when I see it" approach, which, yeah of course it seems reliable if you start with the precondition that UPFs are unhealthy.

If it's just guidance and not for regulation, well, you have similar problems in the opposite direction. prepackaged whole grain bread is UPF the same as Wonder Bread w/ 2.5g added sugar per slice. It's easy to say "just buy fresh bread" but when that collides with the reality of a busy schedule then UPF designations become next to useless. The undeniable value that preservatives have for healthy and unhealthy products alike mean that anyone using actual UPF as their heuristic will be completely rudderless.

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

#238

Post by margalabargala »

breezybottom wrote: post #198
margalabargala wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes among large groups of people there are varying opinions, you'll see this more as you grow up. The american right wing is one such group.

So it's not as simple as "questioning bad science makes you a conservative". Glad we agree.

Absolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America.

The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.

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

#239

Post by margalabargala »

pessimizer wrote: post #224
margalabargala wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Certainly your first sentence is true. And you're right; what you said you think I said, communicates almost nothing. If it were what I were saying, it would be an argument for ignorance.

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

#240

Post by win311fwg »

voakbasda wrote: post #156
9rx wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is meaningless to the general population. No term is meaningless to an individual or small groups of people, obviously. That goes without saying.

Ignorance of a concept does not make it meaningless.

Truer words have never been spoken. Now set forth unto the world and transcend your ignorance to learn is meant by "meaningless". The discussion taking place will make more sense to you when you return.
Post reply on HN