Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says (theguardian.com) 299
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables, and require far tighter regulation, according to a new report. The Guardian: UPFs and cigarettes are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, researchers from three US universities said, pointing to the parallels in widespread health harms that link both.
UPFs, which are widely available worldwide, are food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using emulsifiers or artificial colouring and flavours. The category includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits. There are similarities in the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, and in manufacturers' efforts to optimise the "doses" of products and how quickly they act on reward pathways in the body, according to the paper from researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University.
They draw on data from the fields of addiction science, nutrition and public health history to make their comparisons, published on 3 February in the healthcare journal the Milbank Quarterly. The authors suggest that marketing claims on the products, such as being "low fat" or "sugar free," are "health washing" that can stall regulation, akin to the advertising of cigarette filters in the 1950s as protective innovations that "in practice offered little meaningful benefit."
UPFs, which are widely available worldwide, are food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using emulsifiers or artificial colouring and flavours. The category includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits. There are similarities in the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, and in manufacturers' efforts to optimise the "doses" of products and how quickly they act on reward pathways in the body, according to the paper from researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University.
They draw on data from the fields of addiction science, nutrition and public health history to make their comparisons, published on 3 February in the healthcare journal the Milbank Quarterly. The authors suggest that marketing claims on the products, such as being "low fat" or "sugar free," are "health washing" that can stall regulation, akin to the advertising of cigarette filters in the 1950s as protective innovations that "in practice offered little meaningful benefit."
This is how they kill the poor (Score:2, Interesting)
Make real food expensive, then take away the cheap food.
Re: (Score:3)
"They"?
Re: (Score:2)
The War Pigs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can still buy cigarettes, and while there was once an attempt to ban alcoholic beverages, that didn't last. So, the most likely outcome is a big ugly warning label on the package that says in so many words "THIS SHIT BE UNHEALTHY, YO".
Which of course, people will just ignore just as they do the warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. Because ultimately, if you wanna put garbage in your body, that really should be your choice so long as you're fully informed.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
You can still buy cigarettes, and while there was once an attempt to ban alcoholic beverages, that didn't last. So, the most likely outcome is a big ugly warning label on the package that says in so many words "THIS SHIT BE UNHEALTHY, YO".
Which of course, people will just ignore just as they do the warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. Because ultimately, if you wanna put garbage in your body, that really should be your choice so long as you're fully informed.
And so long as your subsequent health problems are not a burden on anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
You can still buy cigarettes, and while there was once an attempt to ban alcoholic beverages, that didn't last. So, the most likely outcome is a big ugly warning label on the package that says in so many words "THIS SHIT BE UNHEALTHY, YO".
Which of course, people will just ignore just as they do the warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. Because ultimately, if you wanna put garbage in your body, that really should be your choice so long as you're fully informed.
And so long as your subsequent health problems are not a burden on anyone else?
The US health care system spends way more per person than any other developed country, around double the amount for most developed countries. Whether that money goes through Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurance, those that are healthier subsidize those that are less healthy. We're talking many thousands of dollars per person in effective subsidies. This was true for cigarettes, and its true for junk food (and for insufficient exercise).
Re: This is how they kill the poor (Score:3)
That's a good story, yet people still go bankrupt regularly trying to stay alive. Perhaps the money is mostly going to the wrong people.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that "ultra-processed food" is not a synonym for "junk food". It's a massive category that contains most things that people eat. Baby food is "ultraprocessed". A granola bar containing only four raw grains / nuts and whey powder is "ultraprocessed". Store wholegrain bread is "ultraprocessed". Vitamins are "ultraprocessed". But homemade cake isn't ultraprocessed. Homemade doughnuts are not ultraprocessed. Cream and coconut oil and lard aren't ultraprocessed. It's a dumb category. Yes, the average of the "ultraprocessed" category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that's like saying that because the mean lifespan in Colorado is longer than the mean lifespan in New Mexico, then you should treat moving across the border like a death sentence and act like everyone in New Mexico will live shorter than everyone in Colorado - rather than looking at individual causitive factors.
It's not "processing" that makes food bad - it's individual things. Preserved meats are bad because of nitrates/nitrites (cooked in fat). Smoked meats are harmful because carcinogenic compounds produced by smoking. Product loaded with sugar or salt to preserve them or appeal more to consumers are harmful because of that sugar or salt. High carb foods are bad because they're high carb. Etc. It's individual causes that should be examined individually that determine whether a food is net harmful, not whether it's "ultraprocessed", and these causes remain harmful whether the food is "ultraprocessed" or not. Whey doesn't go from healthy to harmful just because you powder it. Whole wheat bread doesn't become less healthy than cake just because it's designed to last longer on a store shelf. Etc. We need to be focusing on specific causes and specific healthy eating behaviors (for example: eating more vegetables, more fibre, etc).
What I hate most about the "ultraprocessed" category is that it's a backdoor for woo to sneak into nutrition. By pretending that it's "processing in general" that's the problem, rather than specific causes, it inherently poses an alternative that anything "natural" is good (which it absolutely is not), and in turn pushes for things like organic food, fad diets, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
> "You made a bad decision. Go die quietly somewhere out of the way."
It is impossible to know why you got cancer. It could be the school lunch served to you when you were in middle school or a the cold cuts your grandparent's generation ate their entire life but just happened to give you stomach cancer.
Re: This is how they kill the poor (Score:2)
It could be... The Sun. (Which, unfortunately, is a hard thing to regulate.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only you and I know how poignant this comment is.
--
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. - Buddha
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
But when a life-long smoker gets lung cancer or an obese person gets type 2 diabetes, it's pretty clear what the cause is.
Re:No Jesus was NOT as socialist (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus was NOT a socialist. Socialism (and Communism) are systems of GOVERMENT that take goods from some individuals to give to others, by force if necessary.
Not actually true. That is the definition of state socialism [wikipedia.org], which is the variety of socialism that we see at the country-scale in the 20th century, but, no, it's just one type of socialism. Take a look at Bakunin or Kropotkin for some varieties of socialism that are diametrically opposite. Not actually workable ideas, mind, but completely different from state socialism.
(Bakunin, for what it's worth, detested Marx's ideas. His comment about Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was that it would quickly devolve into dictatorship, period. Got that one right!)
Re:No Jesus was NOT as socialist (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus is pretty clear that the kingdom of heaven demands that you give your wealth away in order to enter it. Is Jesus not the king and ultimate goverment of the earth? Does he not tell you repeatedly to give up your possessions to the poor? If that isn't like socialism it is even less like capitalism. Many times have I seen rich people read passages from the bible that directly say "Do not be rich". The words seem to flow around them like a vapor.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Re: (Score:2)
Many places have limitations on what you can add to a cigarette, specifically flavourings. There are also restrictions on advertising and who can buy them.
The US FDA has proposed limiting nicotine content.
Re: (Score:3)
The flavoring bans are ostensibly a "think of the children" thing. The idea being that it's illegal to market cigarettes to children, and flavors can be perceived as trying to appeal to children. The stupid thing about that is, it's also kind of an admission that the age gates don't work, because if the product isn't supposed to be sold to anyone under 21, the fact that flavors have been added should be irrelevant.
Ironically, a similar argument was made against alcoholic beverages with fruity flavors and
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the most important part, the extremely high taxes on cigarettes which would most definitely be effective in reducing consumption of ultra processed food.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:4, Insightful)
Except eating healthy doesn't at all have to be expensive. Canned and frozen veggies are very affordable and so is fresh as long as one is buying in season and not buying exotic stuff. I don't know where this myth came from that one needs to eat expensive food to eat healthy but there's zero truth to it.
Re: (Score:3)
In many places fresh foods are significantly more expensive than fast food, and less widely available which becomes a problem for people without transportation.
A lot of people also have to work long hours and don't have time to prepare food, so they buy ready prepared.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of course, people will just ignore just as they do the warnings on cigarettes and alcohol.
We are not a unity hive mind. Warnings had a measurable effect on both cigarette and alcohol consumption, especially for the latter where the focus globally has been on the hazards specific to pregnancy.
Yeah plenty of people will ignore them, plenty of other's wont. Warnings are especially effective on new users or people who join a new risk group (e.g. the pregnant - a significant number of people quit smoking during pregnancy, and that is correlated with warnings about smoking harming baby development)
if you wanna put garbage in your body, that really should be your choice so long as you're fully informed.
The
Re: This is how they kill the poor (Score:2)
No, real food is cheap. I regularly get real zucchini and real potatoes and onions etc from my garden, practically for free.
Re: (Score:2)
No, real food is cheap. I regularly get real zucchini and real potatoes and onions etc from my garden, practically for free.
Sure, but... you pay for the seeds, water, tools, land and house and provide all the labor ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really just need the land for potatoes, and potatoes are really all you need.
Thanks Mark [wikipedia.org]. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You really just need the land for potatoes, and potatoes are really all you need.
The article mentions crisps, what we in NA call chips but those are basically the same over there as well - cut up and deep fried potatoes. Certainly not a complete diet but pretty minimal as processing goes. Definitely not "ultra".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, real food is cheap. I regularly get real zucchini and real potatoes and onions etc from my garden, practically for free.
And how are you under the impression that poor people live in residences where they can grow their own garden? Do you see a lot of personal gardens in apartment complexes, y'know, with their complete lack of yards?
Re: (Score:2)
No, real food is cheap. I regularly get real zucchini and real potatoes and onions etc from my garden, practically for free.
Yes, because poor people all live in houses that have yards they can convert into a garden.
Re: This is how they kill the poor (Score:2)
One can certainly attempt to kill the poor. But when facing an existential crisis, I can't really blame the poor if they rise up and kill the middle class and rich. Even if that includes me, especially if it does!
So I would rather avoid peak capitalism scenarios that end in civil unrest and myself being first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Other political chatterboxes I interact with tell me I'm a socialist for not wanting to be murdered by the proletariat.
If everyone has a job and enough to eat
Re: (Score:2)
People often misunderstand the works of Karl Marx. You, sir, understand perfectly. I mean, he was wrong about the whole Communism thing, but the idea that if the rich piss the poor off enough, the poor will rise up and kill them is pretty solid and has happened plenty of times. It's starting to happen right now again, it seems.
Re:This is how they kill the poor (Score:4, Interesting)
except "cheap food" in this case is not actually food
Things that will be illegal in 100 years (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an interesting thought experiment to look at moral trends, and consider what activities which are currently legal may become illegal in the future.
e.g. If you were playing this game in the past, you might have correctly predicted dog fighting, or legal descrimination based on race.
Looking 100 years into the future, we might wonder about the sport of boxing, or factory farming of animals. But I hadn't considered ultra-processed food...
Most of the moral things that are illegal (Score:2)
Marijuana for example was originally criminalized as an easy way to kick migrant Mexican workers out of the country and then later Richard Nixon used it to go after left-wing opposition to the Republican party as well as civil rights organizers.
It sounds like I'm trolling when I post that but it's a historic fact. You can Google it the people involved in the policy felt guilty about
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no one wants to play that game, or we'd be having a serious discussion about hormone therapy and medically unnecessary surgeries ( maiming ) for minors.
Won't be 100 years though, more like 10, maybe 20.
Imagine what kind monsters people in the future will think we were for allowing that to be done to little ones. And they'll be 100% accurate.
There is certainly precedent for medical procedures which were introduced, but later banned. The lobotomy is such an example.
Re: Things that will be illegal in 100 years (Score:3)
What does circumcision have to do with junk food?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What does circumcision have to do with junk food?
Where do you think chicken nuggets come from?
infinity plus gum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want a agreed-upon, stable, succinct, and intelligible definition of "ultra-processed" or I want to stop hearing the term.
"Of food: subjected to a high degree of industrial processing during manufacture, and usually containing large quantities of additives such as salt, sugar, fat, preservatives, or artificial colours and flavourings." [Source: Oxford English Dictionary]
Re:infinity plus gum (Score:5, Insightful)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
Re:infinity plus gum (Score:5, Informative)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
I agree that for many purposes a definition will need specify quantities, rather than using vague terms like "high degree".
The Siga Index [researchgate.net] is a food classification system gives a rating from 1 to 100 based on their degree of processing, designed to identify ultra-processed foods.
Re: (Score:3)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
I agree that for many purposes a definition will need specify quantities, rather than using vague terms like "high degree".
Laws require very precise, objective definitions of all terms. That's why they start with very precise, objective definitions of all terms. Because those that don't, generally don't survive legal challenges, and legislators (outside of California, at any rate) don't like looking stupid.
The Siga Index [researchgate.net] is a food classification system gives a rating from 1 to 100 based on their degree of processing, designed to identify ultra-processed foods.
Maybe you should have led with that, instead of a completely useless, if not actively harmful dictionary defintion.
Re: (Score:2)
A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.
But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."
I agree that for many purposes a definition will need specify quantities, rather than using vague terms like "high degree".
Laws require very precise, objective definitions of all terms. That's why they start with very precise, objective definitions of all terms. Because those that don't, generally don't survive legal challenges, and legislators (outside of California, at any rate) don't like looking stupid.
The Siga Index [researchgate.net] is a food classification system gives a rating from 1 to 100 based on their degree of processing, designed to identify ultra-processed foods.
Maybe you should have led with that, instead of a completely useless, if not actively harmful dictionary defintion.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
And I want a pony, but here we are.
Nope. (Score:2)
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Take the "Nova" classification developed by the team of A.D. Monteiro at the University of São Paulo, Brazil:
* agreed upon: is the basis of the national dietary recommendations in Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, and Ecuador.
* stable: has not fundamentally changed since Monteiro's paper from 2010
* succinct: a definition including several summarised criteria, extracted from a Nature paper, contains 1800 characters including spaces; can be read on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* intelligible: you tel
Re: (Score:2)
I want a agreed-upon, stable, succinct, and intelligible definition of "ultra-processed" or I want to stop hearing the term.
Talk about a statement dripping with the blood chum of litigation.
Can you even give me an agreed-upon, stable, succinct, and intelligible definition of the entity that would be necessary to create an agreed-upon, stable, succinct, and intelligible definition of “ultra-processed”?
We’re more broken than you think.
Bad for science! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
UFP's aren't the best way to get nutrition but, as bad a cigarettes?
They probably spoke about how addictive these are, not that you going to get lung cancer from eating Doritos instead of a proper meal.
Re: (Score:3)
Crap like this is why the morons want to discredit science. Sometimes I almost want to join them. Because they say shit like this. UFP's aren't the best way to get nutrition but, as bad a cigarettes? No way. I've consumed a lot of both over the years. My health got a lot better after after I quit smoking. I didn't notice a big change when I quit drinking Coke. I should know, I work at one of those research institutions mentioned above.
I understand your point about UPF being compared to cigarettes. That might be going too far.
Although having said that, if you change from a typical US diet to one based on fresh food made from basic ingredients, I think you'd notice more of a change than you would after just cutting out Coke. It's a difficult chnage to make living in the US, but people sometimes mention it if they move from the US to Japan. And vice versa - After living in Japan for a while, if they return to the US they feel an immediate s
Re: (Score:2)
Crap like this is why the morons want to discredit science. Sometimes I almost want to join them. Because they say shit like this. UFP's aren't the best way to get nutrition but, as bad a cigarettes? No way. I've consumed a lot of both over the years. My health got a lot better after after I quit smoking. I didn't notice a big change when I quit drinking Coke. I should know, I work at one of those research institutions mentioned above.
I understand your point about UPF being compared to cigarettes. That might be going too far.
Although having said that, if you change from a typical US diet to one based on fresh food made from basic ingredients, I think you'd notice more of a change than you would after just cutting out Coke. It's a difficult chnage to make living in the US, but people sometimes mention it if they move from the US to Japan. And vice versa - After living in Japan for a while, if they return to the US they feel an immediate stodginess in their health, associated with diet.
A thing that a lot of this discussion ignores is that basically everyone's grandmother was a machine for turning "fresh ingredients" into UPFs.
There's little nutritional difference between her cake / moose / bread / baclava / cookies / risotto / french fries / horchata / pilaf / flan / tomato sauce or whatever and the store bought versions. except that she had to work a hell of a lot harder for it. And even the soda thing is kind of bs. "sweet tea", "horchata", orange juice, chocolate milk
Re: (Score:3)
Crap like this is why the morons want to discredit science. Sometimes I almost want to join them. Because they say shit like this. UFP's aren't the best way to get nutrition but, as bad a cigarettes? No way. I've consumed a lot of both over the years. My health got a lot better after after I quit smoking. I didn't notice a big change when I quit drinking Coke. I should know, I work at one of those research institutions mentioned above.
I understand your point about UPF being compared to cigarettes. That might be going too far.
Although having said that, if you change from a typical US diet to one based on fresh food made from basic ingredients, I think you'd notice more of a change than you would after just cutting out Coke. It's a difficult chnage to make living in the US, but people sometimes mention it if they move from the US to Japan. And vice versa - After living in Japan for a while, if they return to the US they feel an immediate stodginess in their health, associated with diet.
A thing that a lot of this discussion ignores is that basically everyone's grandmother was a machine for turning "fresh ingredients" into UPFs.
There's little nutritional difference between her cake / moose / bread / baclava / cookies / risotto / french fries / horchata / pilaf / flan / tomato sauce or whatever and the store bought versions. except that she had to work a hell of a lot harder for it. And even the soda thing is kind of bs. "sweet tea", "horchata", orange juice, chocolate milk are just as bad as any other soda. (and even normal milk is definitely growth promoting)
The big issue isn't that the processed food is hyper-palatable, though it is, it's that culturally we've lost the concept of "sometimes foods" and just generally that most people have to watch what and how much they eat. And like... eat cake and cookies a few times a year, not a few times a week. Stuff like that.
The big thing about Japan is not that they ban instant ramen, chips, candy, and soda because they quite clearly don't.
The main thing is that they have maintained significant social stigma about being fat. There is fat shaming from family, from friends, from school colleagues, and work colleagues. Hell, your employer will come after you if your BMI gets out of limit.
anyway, personally i actually kind of agree that we could ban all food advertising and little of value would be lost. but that's true of almost ALL modern advertising for consumer products and services including gambling, gaming, alcohol, cars, mobile phones, laptops, clothing, music...
The grandmother would have baked bread, but bread would would have started to go stale after a couple of days. She would not have added ingredients prolong its life beyond that. And her meals would likely have involved less "processing" overall. Sure, the grandmother does "process" ingredients into food, but the resulting food is a bit different from a TV dinner.
Japan does have a social stigma about being fat, but I don't think that is the main thing. It is more that it is just easier to remain thin. If you
Re: (Score:2)
"The grandmother would have baked bread, but bread would would have started to go stale after a couple of days"
One grandmother had five kids, the other eight. Stale food was not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"Crap like this" == poor reading comprehension?
"Treated more like," and "require tighter regulation" are not the same as "as bad as."
Press release writer?
First, define ultra processed foods (Score:3)
Re:First, define ultra processed foods (Score:5, Informative)
Nova classification IV.
https://www.fsp.usp.br/nupens/... [fsp.usp.br]
You'll find a definition including abstract characteristics as well as examples.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition isn't particularly coherent. Cane and beet sugar are Group II, but "sugar, oils, and fats for domestic use" are Group IV? Which is it? Ice cream is Group IV despite being milk (Group), cream, sugar, and salt (all Group II)... are they complaining about the often-present emulsifier ,which as a vegetable extract should also be Group II? Certainly it should be Group III at worst. Sausage is Group IV despite the processing in sausage being pretty much purely physical; perhaps they don't know
Re: (Score:2)
It's coherent enough. When classifying a broad spectrum like foods, you will always find ambiguity at the edges. If you want specificity you face to make a definitive list. But if you want definitions, you have to abstract, and abstractions are always imperfect.
The question is whether the classifications are meaningful and useful, and I would argue that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
For your specific comparison of sugar, oils, and fats, when read in context it's pretty clear what is meant.
Group II of these are derived in a single step. Olives to olive oil. Milk to butter. Cane sugar to rock sugar. Group IV require further processing. White sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc.. these things are not direct derivations. They require additional processing.
I'm From the Government and... (Score:2)
...I'm here to help...
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm here to help...
It's a funny Reagan quote from 1986. It's intended to portray the self-reliance of the Reagan vision of America in contrast to a nanny state vision of his opponents.
But it doesn't reflect reality very well. In the US, red states receive more federal funds per dollar of taxes paid than blue states [moneygeek.com]. The government provides an important role when there are civil emergencies, and when people find themselves in trouble, often through no fault of their own. The desire to be self-reliant, and take pride in that is
I will believe in ultra-processed food ... (Score:3)
as a meaningful category when chocolate is added to it.
It's like Paula Poundstone's reasoning about Ding-Dongs:
They only have three ingredients- devil's food cake, creamy filling, chocolaty coating.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the believer's club! Group IV.
https://www.fsp.usp.br/nupens/... [fsp.usp.br]
"Ultra-processed foods include... sweets and chocolates..."
Re: (Score:2)
Original article (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this is the link to the original article, it appears to be open access / no paywall.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
I need to read it again, but it feels like it reads more like an essay or whitepaper than a scientific article. I am not sure the author actually conducted any testing or comparing tobacco to ultra-processed food. I am also not sure the author offered a concrete definition of ultra-processed food. The author does identify foods that are very high in simple carbohydrates (e.g. candy, M&Ms, Peeps), but I don't think anyone believes that candy is healthy.
I wish the author had provided their working definition of ultra-processed food. The way I understand, even things like home-made bread qualify as ultra-processed food. The problem is that unless you are eating only raw fruits and vegetables; pretty much everything else is processed to some degree, even if it just involves cooking. I want to understand how ultra-processing is being conceived other than "traditional" junk food, or just anything to come out of an "evil" industrial kitchen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, exactly. I am not trying to defend crap food, but really, what are we talking about? Pancakes? Homemade grilled cheese (defining, for the moment, "american cheese" as cheese)? Breakfast cereals? Hot breakfast oatmeal? "TV" dinners? (of which there are a vast range, from obviously shite to plausibly good.)
One would hope that there's a gap between, say, bagged pork rinds vs no-frills baked pretzels. Just saying ":UPF bad, not-UPF good" is unavailing, especially if there's no consumer useful defin
So ... (Score:2)
Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes
On a shelf, behind the counter at 7-11? They're going to have to reverse the design in all the stores, flipping the employee ans customer spaces.
Proof. Where's the proof ? (Score:2)
Until then, stop fucking around with the tasty stuff, you eat fucking quinoa and lettuce and we will eat what we like.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove that some foods are deadly, then ban them completely.
Until then, stop fucking around with the tasty stuff, you eat fucking quinoa and lettuce and we will eat what we like.
If only it were that easy... somewhat contrary to the TFA's musings the issue isn't UPFs per se, but that the "UP" has been used to make high calorie foods that are tasty, and more convenient (i.e. available) and cheap.
Basically the problem is that they are too cheap/tasty/convenient which makes it way too easy to overeat if you don't pay attention to what it is you're choosing to eat. And we've developed bad habits like eating in front of TVs, computers and phones which ALSO makes it easier to overeat b
wat (Score:2)
"Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables"
I'd love to see the author of the study eat 3 meals of cigarettes a day and get back to us. The control group (average Americans) will definitely live longer.
Cheez-It! (Score:2)
>"Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables"
Well, I, for one, don't plan to smoke my Cheez-Its. (But, they have to be the "extra toasty" ones, those are really good).
Need to Drop the Term "Ultra-Processed" (Score:3)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with food that has been processed via a variety of means and the term is confusing for EVERYONE as a result. Did you have a tofu wrap with kimchi? Congrats, you had "ultra-processed" food and now your life is in danger. (Ok, no, not really.) Let's just look at what the article itself says:
What is ultra-processed food?
Ultra-processed food involves extremely high levels of manufacturing to produce. It includes all formula milk, many commercially produced baby and toddler foods, fizzy drinks and sweets, fast food, snacks, biscuits and cakes, as well as mass-produced bread and breakfast cereals, ready meals and desserts.
* Fizzy drinks - Carbonation isn't a problem, it's the sugar.
* Sweets - Apricots are not a problem, candy is.
* Fast Food - Quickly produced grilled chicken is a non-issue. High-salt, high-fat meets and sugary breads are.
* Mass-Produced Bread - There's nothing wrong with making a LOT of bread. The cake-levels of sugars are.
What do these foods contain?
Ultra-processed ingredients include fruit juice concentrates, maltodextrin, dextrose, golden syrup, hydrogenated oils, soya protein isolate, gluten, “mechanically separated meat”, organic dried egg whites, as well as rice and potato starch and corn fibre. Additives such as monosodium glutamate, colourings, thickeners and glazing agents are also ultra-processed.
* There's nothing bad about fruit juice concentrates except when they use insufficient water to reconstitute the concentrate or if they remove too much pulp.
* Dextrose? Dextrose is used to treat hypoglycemia.
* Golden Syrup? Again... It's sugar!
* Gluten? Gluten is the problem? WTF?
* What in the world is wrong with dried egg whites?
* Monosodium glutamate is just a salt!!
Why does it matter?
Ultra-processed food contains higher levels of salt, sugar, fat and additives that are associated with obesity, cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. They also tend to have lower levels of protein, zinc, magnesium, vitamins A, C, D, E, B12 and niacin necessary for a child’s optimal growth and development. It is also thought that other mechanisms are at play in UPFs being associated with worse health outcomes, including negative effects on the development of gut microbiota.
And here's where we get to what it's ACTUALLY all about-- HIGH salt, HIGH sugar, HIGH fat. That's it. That's the problem.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about mass produced food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about dehydrated food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about quickly produced food or with food with a long preparation process.
The ONLY ACTUAL problems are the unhealthy levels of SALT, SUGAR, and FAT.
So again, I assert We Need to Drop the Term "Ultra-Processed". Most people don't understand it and thus it's a useless term to improve peoples' lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Van Tulleken's "Ultra-Processed People" covers these points, here are some examples, off the top of my head:
> * Fizzy drinks - Carbonation isn't a problem, it's the sugar.
When a drink is served cold and is carbonated - you are less sensitive to its sugar contents. In other words, you can smuggle a larger quantity of sugar into your body this way. If, in contrast, you let that fizzy drink reach room temperature and get rid of the fizz - it would taste too sweet.
This is an example of a deliberate design me
A UPF is, what? (Score:3)
I've seen any number of articles recently bewailing the evils of UPF's, but nothing that says exactly WHAT counts as an ultra-processed food. Wheaties? Fully-cooked sausages (e.g. GIlbert's)? Hot dogs? Pretzels? or just what exactly? There's no point in telling people that X is bad if you don't properly define what X is.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother to read any of the articles or their sources, or search the internet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I did. Did you? and anyone looking for "UPF" isn't likely to land on "Nova classification", not that the latter will tell them anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
So I googled "what are ultra processed foods", and the nova system was the second image, and referenced from the pages of the top three results. I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely.
And what do you find to not be useful about the definitions? They're about as useful as classification definitions can be. They don't tell you what to do with the information, but that's not the point of the classification. You need guidance that references it.
Or make "healthy" food affordable, easy, and tasty (Score:2)
Sure, it is easier to get the people in charge to agree to collect more (sin) taxes, but it would remove the barely affordable sustenance options for many.
There are really simple and obvious reasons people avoid unprocessed foods today. Solve those instead. Don't poison the existing imperfect solutions out of some self righteous messiah complex.
Create a way to know exactly how ripe or "good" something will be (before I buy it). Make it like buying something off a shelf. I always get the same thing I pai
Re: (Score:2)
"Why aren't we training every public school student in safe food handling, and giving them a certificate for it?"
That class was called home economics but was only open to girls. The boys were in shop. Really both genders should have been in both classes, but the school year was pretty full already.
Okay, I tried this (Score:2)
But I couldn't get the damn cornflakes to stay lit!
It's not the processing, it's the ingredients (Score:2)
Homemade bread is ultraprocessed, but it's unquestionably good for you.
Wonder bread is equally ultraprocessed, and is far less healthful.
It's not the processing, it's non-food ingredients like chemical preservatives and food dyes made of petroleum.
Stop giving processing a bad name. Many processes, like cooking, generally *improve* the quality, safety, and healthfulness of food.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
The last fucking thing we should be worrying about is ultra processed foods. Fuck anyone on the left who is worried about this for anyone but themselves.
You haven't thought this through. Given that we as a society going to heavily subsidize food for some people, including children, do you think we should at least insist that these subsidies go toward buying ans consuming healthy foods? Or should we allow these subsidies to get diverted to junk food manufacturers simply because they are the lowest bidder?
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know the solution, but I know giving the government more and more power/money leads to worse outcomes, not better.
I don't know about you but this is type of thing Republicans say while they take actions to make sure this is the end result, we get the government we deserve. Lest I remind everyone Michelle Obama tried to give kids more vegetables and the Republicans flipped the fuck out, “Your America is turning into a nanny state thanks to the Obama administration’s efforts to rein in the junk food industry,” said Sean Hannity.
Mike Bloomberg wanted to ban giant sodas and Sara Palin get's on stage with a Big Gulp. Elect clowns and expect clownery.
The expanded Child Tax Credit reduced childhood poverty to it's lowest level ever before it was rescinded. Social Security keeps 1/3 of our elderly from living in destitution and allows their children to produce more output during their working years. The government can do lots of good if we elect people who believe it can do those things.
Re: Once again we can't get Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
You failed to read or understand what he wrote if you think that's the takeaway.
If you have a smoking gun which proves politics is purely a show for our benefit, present it. Otherwise fuck off with your equivocation.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a perfect example of "Every accusation is a projection. "
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck right off with this both-sides shit. When's the last time the Democrats ever advocated putting children in jail, separated from the parents, en masse, or sending thousands of secret police to terrorize and murder the citizens of cities run by republicans (no, they no longer deserve to be capitalized)? Oh, that's right: NEVER. That's because Democrats actually do care about the people and the rule of law. They aren't a crazy death cult run by a tyrannic fascist. Do they have problems? Sure. Are they on a level with the republicans' outright opposition to the Constitution, the rule of law, and of every form of justice? No, not even close. The republicans have buried themselves so deep in the evil mire that they should probably start worrying about buying fire-proof suits. If Hell exists, I'll see them burn in the deepest depths of the hottest Hells, from the Heavens, while me and Obama laugh it up somewhere out there in the Galaxy, while chatting casually with Jesus and the Buddha.
(And I don't want to hear any shit about the Democrats prior to the 1970's. Before then, the parties' loyalties were divided very differently. The parties back then are NOT the parties of today. They're related only through a shared history.)
Re: Once again we can't get Americans (Score:4, Interesting)
It's funny how conservatives are so incredibly flawed yet they justify it by the opposition not being perfect. "Unless the Democrats act with complete compassion and never make a mistake, I will be a Republican". The argument gets made over and over and over again and it's getting really tired.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you are extremely emotional about this issue.
I doubt the opposition to feeding children is based on some "out group" bias, but more in the practicalities. The argument is two fold; quality and cost. Free food for children will prompt more parents to simply rely on the government to feed their children, resulting in worse health outcomes for the children. That's the quality argument, and it's not a bad one truth be told.
Cost is, of course, as I mentioned; I have yet to meet a government program w
Re: You're making excuses for hungry children (Score:3)
Most humans are emotional about feeding children. Some are emotional about making sure they eat while others are emotional about not paying a few dollars in taxes per year so that they can do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when "it's for the children" was rightly derided for being manipulative and meaningless? When did people start falling for that nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
None of that has anything to do with what I posted unless...wait...have I been arguing with a bot?
Figures.
Re: (Score:3)
I have yet to see anyone argue that feeding children no food versus junk food is an improvement.
Why are you treating this issue like feeding the kids junk food or letting them starve are the only two options? Programs like WIC provide healthy food to parents and can not be used for junk food for instance.
Re: (Score:3)
Republics tend to work best as they have the best succession system, thus last longer. The Marxist systems (socialism, fascism, communism) immediately collapse into Tyranny. Monarchy
Re: (Score:2)
To all agree that children should not go hungry.
Huh? This doesn't have anything to do with parents being unable to provide food for their children, unless you're jumping to the conclusion that everything that can't be sold at Whole Foods will somehow end up banned.
Really, the take-away here is that this is just another one of those studies that places the blame for America's obesity problem on our food, rather than people individually making poor choices with their diet. Absolutely nobody is forcing you to pig out on boxes of Little Debbies. Last I ch
Re: (Score:2)
To all agree that children should not go hungry. The last fucking thing we should be worrying about is ultra processed foods. Fuck anyone on the left who is worried about this for anyone but themselves.
We have hundreds of thousands of children who are going to go hungry tonight because child hunger is a political issue and a sizable number of voters like to tell themselves that food insecurity breeds character.
And you know who you are and I bet you have mod points. Go ahead I've got karma to burn.
But getting back to the left wing we have this really nasty habit of getting our asses kicked by the right wing on stuff that matters and then they let us go off and do whatever the fuck on shit that doesn't matter and then we look like idiots and morons because of it.
So you get people complaining about kids eating chicky nuggies instead of kids having sleep for dinner.
I think you often have something useful to say, but your rage causes a kind of stream-of-anger output which detracts from comprehensibility.
Serious suggestion: Don't think of karma as currency. Breathe more slowly. Remove the coarse language. Parse once to edit before submitting.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultra-processed food is not a boutique concern. It is structurally linked to poverty, healthcare costs, disability, and shortened life expectancy. Poor kids are not just hungry; they are disproportionately fed the worst food because it is cheap, subsidized, and aggressively marketed.
Treating UPFs like cigarettes is not about scolding parents or banning nuggets. It is about regulation: labeling, advertising to children, corporate accountability, and subsidy reform. Those are left economic fights, not moral panics. For the right these are business as usual. They don't want the labels, but they want to advertise poison to your children, and they don't want any accountability, but they do want your money.
Hunger and ultra-processed food are not competing concerns; they are symptoms of the same system. A politics that says âoeat least theyâ(TM)re eating somethingâ quietly accepts a two-tier society: dignity and longevity for some, bare survival for others.
Let's be clear:
No child should go hungry.
No child should be structurally pushed into lifelong metabolic disease because the cheapest calories are engineered junk.
Corporations should not profit from poisoning people while the public pays the healthcare bill.
Re:Once again we can't get Americans (Score:5, Informative)
It's cheaper because the chicken nuggets are made from a less desirable waste product. The whole chicken contains the premium pieces (breasts, legs, wings) as well as a small amount of waste.
The chicken nuggets are made from the waste after the prime pieces have been cut off and sold for a higher price. When you buy a bag of chicken nuggets you're not buying whole chicken, you're buying the waste from several chickens where the premium pieces have already been sold.
Re: Once again we can't get Americans (Score:3)
You really, REALLY have been going out of your way bending over backwards to look absolutely certifiably idiotic, especially your loudest and aggressive, violent ones are particularly detrimental to your whole image and they remind all normal people of the worst flaws of humanity and the worst episodes in history.
That is why the oh-so-allegedly-purely-evil other side is having an absolute field day pummeling you, even on platforms you formerly ruled with an absolute and iron fist of propaganda and censorshi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't sound like a very ethical study if you're intentionally seeing if you can make the participants sick.