Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#2I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means of delivery makes a huge difference on how immediately gratifying and habit-forming they are.
I think we should make regulation that enforces stronger separation between food and beverages that we consume as part of a healthy diet, and candy and psychoactive substances that we consume for fun. We should acknowledge that a significant and growing fraction of the population are forced to actively fight their inner voices telling them to consume these things whenever they go to a supermarket, which they have to because we all need to eat. Alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed foods have no place in food stores, but should be confined to dedicated outlets.
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#3It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrates spiking my blood sugar and driving up my cholesterol. I dumped all the processed foods, went whole-foods, Mediterranean Diet, pescatarian, and blew my doctor's mind when all my tests came back healthy.
We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#4It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrat…
What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#5I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means…
On a similar note, I find it fascinating how many people feel fruit juice smoothies are healthy. I mean, as a small kid, my grandparents would tell me fruit juice should be really limited, like half a cup a few times a week. To people downing 30oz/1L fruit smoothies daily. A lot of times it comes down to dosage.
edit: example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#6I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]:
"An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds."
But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet:
"industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years);
"edible substance" - check! (very edible, yum-yum)
"derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." - check! (what isn't)
.. so it's an UPF and should get a warning label?
If they want to start passing the laws related to UPF, I'd like to see a good clear definition first.
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#7Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad.
Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#8Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?
We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as:
Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#9I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means…
I, too, am nervous of banning things, but we need to take a holistic evidence-based view. As part of this, we should be looking at the hidden subsidies that support UPF manufacturing and enable such products to be, in many cases, wildly cheaper than healthier alternatives
Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
#10Imagine a future where all food stores have 3 sections:
- The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten.
- The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc.
- The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative impact on microbiome, indefinite shelf-life, >50% calories are refined sugar.