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

271–280 of 304 posts

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

#271

Post by breezybottom »

margalabargala wrote: post #238
breezybottom wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.

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

#272

Post by margalabargala »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #259
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".

Where am I missing that from? The linked Wikipedia article explicitly states that it’s not designed for this. How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats? Or high salt? Or high sugar? Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy?

You're missing that from the conversation, where myself and others have stated it repeatedly, not from the wikipedia page.

> How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats?

Yes.

> Or high salt?

Yes, that too.

> Or high sugar?

Yes, very much this.

> Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy?

Also true. For example: while preservatives like sodium benzoate are not used in unhealthy quantities in any individual item of food, a diet high in ultraprocessed foods can consume unsafe levels.

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

#273

Post by f33d5173 »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #36
frameset wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a meaningless word, and like my sibling poster I do wonder if that sentence is astroturfed by the junk food corpos. The [NOVA classification]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification ) has definitions for various levels of food processing.

From the wikipedia page: > The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling. > Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease. So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think…

"health" as quantity of nutrients doesn't really make sense. pretty much everything we eat is good in some quantities, and bad in others. so there's no nutrient that you can name that makes food unhealthy (there are some like trans fats i guess, but mostly). then what makes some food "healthy" and other food "unhealthy"? there is actually a simple answer to this question: foods which lead you to overeat them are unhealthy, foods which don't aren't. so then the relation between ultra processing and health become obvious. processing is expensive. the reason companies do so much of it is to get people to eat more of their food. food that has been ultra processed is pretty much guaranteed to cause over eating and hence be unhealthy. food that has not been processed usually will only lead you to eat a healthy amount. so "ultraprocessed" is pretty much the same as "unhealthy". furthermore, as above, defining "unhealthy" directly is tricky, because it doesn't directly map to the nutrient content of food. so a good proxy metric, like "ultraproccessed", is useful.

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

#274

Post by bondarchuk »

cm2012 wrote: post #254
bondarchuk wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

basically agreed with some minor quibbles. Just want to say I enormously enjoyed this respectful discussion with you.

Likewise, appreciate it.

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

#275

Post by _aavaa_ »

margalabargala wrote: post #272
_aavaa_ wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where am I missing that from? The linked Wikipedia article explicitly states that it’s not designed for this. How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats? Or high salt? Or high sugar? Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy?

You're missing that from the conversation, where myself and others have stated it repeatedly, not from the wikipedia page. > How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats? Yes. > Or high salt? Yes, that too. > Or high sugar? Yes, very much this. > Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy? Also true. For example: while preservatives like sodium benzoate are not used in unhealthy quantities in any indiv…

Sure my point is that what we’re actually talking about is the ingredients themselves, not how they’re processed. Except it’s through this roundabout way; if your worry is sodium benzoate, it doesn’t matter if the food was extruded, deep fried, or emulsified, all that matters is if it has sodium benzoate.

And we don’t need a proxy for that. We need proper labelling of ingredients.

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

#276

Post by _aavaa_ »

f33d5173 wrote: post #273
_aavaa_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the wikipedia page: > The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling. > Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease. So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think…

"health" as quantity of nutrients doesn't really make sense. pretty much everything we eat is good in some quantities, and bad in others. so there's no nutrient that you can name that makes food unhealthy (there are some like trans fats i guess, but mostly). then what makes some food "healthy" and other food "unhealthy"? there is actually a simple answer to this question: foods which lead you to overeat them are unhe…

But your definition of processed foods has now shifted to being one of hyperpalitability and likelihood of overeating.

Those are two completely different categories. The first is, ostensibly, about the processing done to the ingredients to make the final product. The second is about the outcome that the product has on those consuming it.

If you remove the overconsumption angle, what is left of processed foods? And if processed is used as a proxy for overconsumption, why have this proxy at all, just talk about overconsumption (and the negative impacts of that) directly.

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

#277

Post by margalabargala »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #275
margalabargala wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing that from the conversation, where myself and others have stated it repeatedly, not from the wikipedia page. > How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats? Yes. > Or high salt? Yes, that too. > Or high sugar? Yes, very much this. > Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy? Also true. For example: while preservatives like sodium benzoate are not used in unhealthy quantities in any indiv…

Sure my point is that what we’re actually talking about is the ingredients themselves, not how they’re processed. Except it’s through this roundabout way; if your worry is sodium benzoate, it doesn’t matter if the food was extruded, deep fried, or emulsified, all that matters is if it has sodium benzoate. And we don’t need a proxy for that. We need proper labelling of ingredients.

> if your worry is sodium benzoate, it doesn’t matter if the food was extruded, deep fried, or emulsified, all that matters is if it has sodium benzoate.

Sure, but my worry isn't just sodium benzoate. It's also deep frying, or lots of sugar, or just being vacuously caloric while not providing saiety.

There are a lot of different things done to foods that tend to make them variously unhealthy to consume in quantity, a problem not shared by, say, cucumber or carrots. "Ultra-processed" is a useful linguistic catch all for these.

Some people lack the language skills to deal with terms that are not rigorously defined from a scientific sense, which honestly speaks to a failure of the education system rather than the term being a problem.

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

#278

Post by margalabargala »

breezybottom wrote: post #271
margalabargala wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.

It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.

The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.

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

#279

Post by lesostep »

ipsento606 wrote: post #131
seethishat wrote: post #53

The newer synthetic nicotine pouches (Zyn, On, Velo) are everywhere in the USA and are being used by kids as young as 13. They are ruining the gut health of an entire generation of kids. Edit: Both boys and girls are dependent on these things now and they seem socially acceptable (no smoke, no spit, just swallow the chemical nicotine). Get ready for a huge wave of GI problems due to this.

Source for the claim that nicotine use "ruins" gut health? My understanding is that the relationship between nicotine and gut health (indeed, overall health) is much more complex and nuanced than that. I know that nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis symptoms for many sufferers. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8895249/#s4 A quote: Of all the diseases summarized here concerning systemic inflam…

>> Source for the claim that nicotine use "ruins" gut health?

Not gut health specifically, but we run the tests on taking nicotine orally for nicotine sprays. It's definitely makes ulcers more likely to happen in short term usage.

What's even worse, it definitely fucks up your neuromodulators, which is very bad for children and young adults. That's a well known fact, it's why it's addictive, and that's why quitting it will make you have very bad mood swings.

The body adjusts to the dopamine spikes by lowering dopamine, and if it happens during brain development, it's just not good. Any addiction during brain development is not good, but especially a chemical one. Kids need to learn what their emotions are and how to control them before they can control them by chewing. Kids usually do it through teens and up to early adulthood.

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

#280

Post by herbst »

picofarad wrote: post #117
herbst wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are pissed because they don't want to accept that a) most of supermarkets food is bad and b) you need to cook yourself in order to eat properly.

We call it shopping around the outside of the supermarket, and it's how you find the food that won't kill you I'm 46. I'm obese, but in otherwise perfect health by every biological marker and test that they can run. Blood pressure is normal. Cholesterol is great. Glucose is great. A1c test is fine. Liver and kidney functions are fine. Everything's fine. The key is, eat things from the outside ring of the store, not t…

That's an interesting POV. I'd have to check if my local supermarkets also have an inner circle.

For me it's mostly avoiding supermarkets alltogether except for specific (fresh) things and buy everything else online, from the producer or farmer whenever I can.

Post reply on HN