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

291–300 of 304 posts

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

#291

Post by toasty228 »

SXX wrote: post #189
toasty228 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ackchyually everything is made of things, checkmate ok, well continue eating dog shit products designed by megacorps for the sole purpose of profit maximisation then, what do you want me to tell you? We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.

> We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem Whatever people were eating even 200 years ago have literally nothing to do with fruits and veggies we have now after selection and artificial evolution usually via radioactive exposure because GM is baaad. Also people wasn't all that much healthier and neither they lived so long. > but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all…

> Whatever people were eating even 200 years ago have literally nothing to do with fruits and veggies we have now after selection and artificial evolution usually via radioactive exposure because GM is baaad.

You sure about that?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10969708/

> In the last sixty years, there has been an alarming decline in food quality and a decrease in a wide variety of nutritionally essential minerals and nutraceutical compounds in imperative fruits, vegetables, and food crops.

> Chemical composition have nothing to do with it. Too much of sugar or salt or some other things is the problem though.

No shit sherlock, the very exact things ultra processed food are riddled with, I'm truly shocked

This thread is full of people listing all the arguments against ultra processed food while failing to connect the dots to the conclusion, it's very perplexing

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

#292

Post by Forgeties79 »

jjice wrote: post #50
flossly wrote: post #46

Tobacco, wine and fresh bread are usually few of the consumables that in many western countries do not have to disclose their ingredients. Why do we allow this? Just behave like all others. Now we want to push for smoke-free societies: but non of ways to achieve this even dares to talk about "just make tobacco giants list all the ingredients/additives".

Tangential but similar nonsensical secrecy for consumables: alcohol not requiring a nutrition label always irks me.

Seriously though! It makes no sense.

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

#293

Post by Forgeties79 »

jfengel wrote: post #267
triceratops wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a made-up Internet fact or urban legend.

It used to be true. It changed about a decade ago.

I think they mean the “it would come across as healthy” thing

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

#294

Post by hnhn34 »

lesostep wrote: post #279
ipsento606 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> What's even worse, it definitely fucks up your neuromodulators

fwiw despite decades of research into nicotine, we have very little data on how bad it actually is at low dosages and via delivery methods other than tobbacco. The vast majority of research on nicotine by itself is in the context of smoking cessation. A lot of the risks people warn about wrt nicotine (dopamine spikes, vasoconstriction, dependence, etc.) is also present in any stimulant, including ADHD medication and even coffee. Also, again, very limited research on this, but some of it suggests nicotine could be helpful for ADHD.

That said, none of this really detract from your point about risks in children, and the trendy delivery methods like vapes and pouches seem to be extremely addictive.

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

#295

Post by Hnrobert42 »

breezybottom wrote: post #35
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this objection a lot, even from folks I respect. Its ubiquity makes me wonder it is astroturfed. The definition I have heard is "food made with ingredients or processes not commonly used in ghome Unfortunately, when I looked to leading scientific orgs, they are dithering on releasing formal definitions, but all say something like what I'd heard. Conflicting information doesn't mean an abysmal situation. I'…

Yes, you got me, I get paid $50 Soros bucks for every snarky post. It couldn't possibly be that "not commonly used in the home" is a vague and unhelpful definition, which varies across time and cultures. Or that these researchers still haven't explained the theoretical basis linking all these wildly different "UPF"s to the negative health consequences they're supposed to explain.

No. I didn't think you were an astroturfer. I wonder where you derived this objection.

Also, good luck with your bottom. Perhaps look into your consumption of UPFs. ;-)

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

#296

Post by breezybottom »

toasty228 wrote: post #290
Shog9 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustenance is a health benefit. Shelf life is a health benefit. Convenience is a health benefit. If you have options when choosing food, a framework that helps you choose the better option is useful. The history of food production is mostly centered around developing options that provide, as a baseline, the three advantages you casually dismiss.

> Shelf life is a health benefit. Then why don't we pickle or ferment things anymore ? Ah right because it's not as profitable. Listening to you guys it seems like Americans in the 80s were starving and we should praise microwave meals for saving us from extinction.

Microwave meals go back to the 1950s. If anything the standard American diet was worse in the 1980s. The idea of "health food" was only starting to go mainstream.

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

#297

Post by breezybottom »

margalabargala wrote: post #287
breezybottom wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.

I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of. The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will b…

I don't care if it's useful to you, you're obviously not a scientist. I am, and such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

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

#298

Post by margalabargala »

breezybottom wrote: post #297
margalabargala wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of. The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will b…

I don't care if it's useful to you, you're obviously not a scientist. I am, and such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

We've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though.

I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor.

> I don't care if it's useful to you

> such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.

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

#299

Post by SXX »

toasty228 wrote: post #291
SXX wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem Whatever people were eating even 200 years ago have literally nothing to do with fruits and veggies we have now after selection and artificial evolution usually via radioactive exposure because GM is baaad. Also people wasn't all that much healthier and neither they lived so long. > but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all…

> Whatever people were eating even 200 years ago have literally nothing to do with fruits and veggies we have now after selection and artificial evolution usually via radioactive exposure because GM is baaad. You sure about that? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10969708/ > In the last sixty years, there has been an alarming decline in food quality and a decrease in a wide variety of nutritionally essential m…

> No shit sherlock, the very exact things ultra processed food are riddled with, I'm truly shocked

My whole point is that foods don't have to be ultra processed to be shit to your health. You can make shitty unhealthy food either way.

You can just eat too much of dried mangos or raisins and it's gonna be more unhealthy than McDonald's burger with cola.

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

#300

Post by 9rx »

toasty228 wrote: post #289
9rx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Meaningless" doesn't mean everyone fails to find meaning, it means that there is no general consensus on what it means. As you pointed out before, everyone holds their own pet definition. It means something to most everyone, but there isn't a shared understanding of what it means across the general population. While it is true that words often have multiple meanings while remaining meaningful, they do not have multi…

> everyone holds their own pet definition. I guess climate change doesn't exist either then. If by everyone you mean everyone except science, then sure, but that's why we have the scientific consensus...

"Climate change" may very well be meaningless. It was, after all, adopted for use in public messaging due to its predecessor, "global warming", never transcending meaninglessness, so there is precedent for the general population failing to find convergence in a shared understanding. If they couldn't grasp the intent beyond "global warming", it is equally likely they haven't been able to grasp the intent behind "climate change".

But it is a term that definitely exists. We can find it used often in the literature. Hell, we can find one of those instances in your very own comment... How on earth did you reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist? You didn't give that one any thought at all, did you?

Post reply on HN