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

#241

Post by the__alchemist » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:14 PM UTC

enragedcacti wrote: post #222

the__alchemist wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't buy it. If there are time-available constraints, do grocery delivery instead of takeaway, or buy good stuff instead of bottom-feeder stuff at the store. There are so many low/no-prep food options. I think the "Most people are too poor to eat things other than fast foot and flavor-blast Syrup chips" is a lie.

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

#242

Post by embedding-shape » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:16 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #188

forlorn_mammoth wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There's no special exception for bread.

Personally, I prefer my bread to not have plastic labels on it. Besides on the bread itself, where would you even put such a label? The sleve-bags for bread are used for more than just one specific bread, so can't put them there either...

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

#243

Post by singularity2001 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:18 PM UTC

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #113

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.

> 95% of marketing needs to be banned. I could get behind this.

some of the greatest ideas are proposed in a ridiculed manner first

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

#244

Post by vel0city » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #122

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.

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.

Are Pringles in a can really that much more unhealthy for me than if I make the potato paste at home, fry them in oil at home, and toss them in lots of salts and seasonings at home?

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

#245

Post by enragedcacti » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

the__alchemist wrote: post #241

enragedcacti wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't buy it. If there are time-available constraints, do grocery delivery instead of takeaway, or buy good stuff instead of bottom-feeder stuff at the store. There are so many low/no-prep food options. I think the "Most people are too poor to eat things other than fast foot and flavor-blast Syrup chips" is a lie.

I'm glad we are finally getting some good, solid guidance around UPFs. Hey everyone, just buy "good stuff"!

while it is quite funny how you turned around my "just spend way more money" advice as an actual suggestion, it really isn't particularly helpful because UPFs are a much, much broader category than "flavor-blasted" type products. A huge number of low/no-prep options are UPF, you just don't think so because they don't scan as unhealthy. It gets us back to the main problem that it's all basically just vibes, which is why you don't see the issue that your honest-to-god advice was to just buy good stuff instead of buying bad stuff. Why not just cut to the chase and have an Ultra-Bad Foods categorization?

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

#246

Post by the__alchemist » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:44 PM UTC

enragedcacti wrote: post #245

the__alchemist wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy it. If there are time-available constraints, do grocery delivery instead of takeaway, or buy good stuff instead of bottom-feeder stuff at the store. There are so many low/no-prep food options. I think the "Most people are too poor to eat things other than fast foot and flavor-blast Syrup chips" is a lie.

I'm glad we are finally getting some good, solid guidance around UPFs. Hey everyone, just buy "good stuff"! while it is quite funny how you turned around my "just spend way more money" advice as an actual suggestion, it really isn't particularly helpful because UPFs are a much, much broader category than "flavor-blasted" type products. A huge number of low/no-prep options are UPF, you just don't think so because they…

You cast doubt on using categorization because it has ambiguity. I think this is misleading and dishonest, which is why I am being direct. It is FUD.

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

#247

Post by spacebacon » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:51 PM UTC

stef25 wrote: post #200

spacebacon wrote: post #8

They learned addiction and exploited sugar, fat, and salt with the rest of them.

You can look at these kind of foods like illegal drugs. Not biggie in moderation but if you overdo it then here come serious health problems. I'm 100% convinced that people who are morbidly obese not getting a second serving or not getting those extra nuggets is as hard as a drug addict not picking up a needle or straw or a lighter. You fucked up. EDIT take the cost on society and obesity must be more expensive than…

It’s a convincing argument.

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

#248

Post by AngryData » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

cluckindan wrote: post #11

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.

It’s more than marketing, they’re applying cigarette processing principles to food processing: choosing specific flavor chemicals and additives to produce maximum addiction within the varied neurophysiological profiles of different consumer cohorts They’re essentially engineering food to produce subtly mind-altering effects.

I mean that would seem to apply to nearly all packaged foods that aren't plain bagged fruits and vegetables. If you sell food, you want it to taste good and want people to want to eat more of it. Whether its doritos, chili dogs, apple pie, bread, jam, or whatever else. Nobody makes a mix of peanut butter, finds it bland and unappealing, but then doesn't change either the ingredient proportions, ingredient sources, or add in other flavors or spices or sugars to make it more appealing.

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

#249

Post by win311fwg » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:55 PM UTC

toasty228 wrote: post #71

jsharpe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's incomplete. Any explanation of nutrition that doesn't include mention of at least calories, macronutrients and micronutrients isn't useful for understanding what's actually going on or being able to make an effective nutrition plan.

There are hundreds and hundreds of studies linking ultra processed food to all kind of health issues, and not a single one linking ultra processed food to any kind of benefits, not a single one praising their nutritious values. The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience, better margins for the producers, etc.

> praising their nutritious values [...] The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience

Availability is the most important value of nutrition, above all else. I expect your comment was made having more nuance, but that just highlights the importance of a clear definition. Without it we are left to guess at what it is you mean.

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

#250

Post by bondarchuk » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #226

bondarchuk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

So basically you're saying businesses have a right to sell peoples' attention. Of course for every seller there's a buyer but I do kinda see that how this framing would make a difference, ethically, for some.