this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
567 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2753 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
567
Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

UPFs should also be heavily taxed due to impact on health and mortality, says scientist who coined term

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets “all over the world” despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutritional scientist who first coined the term.

Prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will highlight the increasing danger UPFs present to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week.

“UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the conference in São Paulo.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

From the study itself:

These (UPFs) products are characterised as industrial formulations primarily composed of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods.

What is a "whole food?"

I looked further into the paper they used to classify UPFs

A practical way to identify an ultra-processed product is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the NOVA ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).

So I guess a "whole food" is a food that doesn't contain High fructose corn syrup or additives. But if they are making this direct link between ultra-processed foods and increased mortality, then surely it's these specific substances that are responsible for it? So why aren't we banning high fructose corn syrup and these additives?

Surely it doesn't need to be more complicated than that?

"What happens when we eat these substances?"

"we tend to die more quickly then if we didn't eat them."

"so let's ban these substances."

"OK."

[–] Eutent@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Human health and nutrition is, of course, highly complex. A substance may be generally healthy in one formulation/concentration, and tend to cause health problems in in another.

A "whole food" is not strictly defined, but is "Group 1" in the Nova food classification you mentioned.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Once you take a bite out of a whole food it's not whole anymore.

[–] DaleGribble88@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago

That's right! It's close to being a whole food, but it's just a bit off.

[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

But if they are making this direct link between ultra-processed foods and increased mortality, then surely it's these specific substances that are responsible for it?

Not necessarily. Think about it like cigarettes. The nicotine is what gets you addicted, but it is not what kills you. In a similar vein, these additives might cause you in some way or another to consume an unhealthy diet in the most general sense. So the effect can be more indirect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] urbeker@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The whole UFP thing is so wishy washy. It's such a broad category it is essentially meaningless, one of the earlier guardian articles talked about sliced bread being a UPF as it has added vitamins and minerals due to law.

If you closer at the whole topic it just comes across as saying if you are poor and eat food that you can afford you will die earlier. Writing a reminder of this on the food will not help anyone but it will make poor people feel a bit more like shit.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The point of these kinds of efforts is to shift the blame. “It’s easy to know which foods are good and bad with this handy system, so if someone is only eating bad foods, that’s their choice, and the rest of us can blame them for their poor health.”

[–] urbeker@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We already have a traffic light system on foods and it is largely ignored, partly because few people have the time and energy but also because you have to look at your diet as a whole and not judge it by individual items. I also think these UPF studies have a bit of a conservative agenda.

Why do people eat more processed food? Because there isn't a homemaker spending hours a day preparing meals as a full time job. Proceesed and convenience foods are massively egalitarian and I think let more people join the workforce.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

So many public health problems would be solved if we publicly funded cafeterias to provide subsidised breakfast, lunch and dinner to any member of the public. Economies of scale on providing those meals would make them incredibly cost effective and the improved health among working class people would lead to increased tax receipts which are would (at least partially) mitigate the cost of such a policy.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm sick of being told what I should and shouldn't be eating tbh.

Seen plenty of scares over the years about fats, saturated fats, eggs, sugars, carbs, glutens, red meat, meat... Now Ultra Processed Food.

At this point, it's just food. If you're too fat eat less of it. If it's actually dangerous don't sell it.

[–] Frokke@lemmings.world 5 points 4 months ago

Because no one actually knows. Studies or trends are done by crusaders for or against a certain food because they noticed for themselves it has some neg impact.

There are not enough actual studies on food or even healthcare. There was like 1 decent study for example on keto diet for athletes. Results weren't valid for most people as they only looked at athletic results and how the athletes felt. Not the health impact for gen pop.

Healthcare is the same. I've lived my entire life following various medical advice due to medical issue. Recently that advice has changed. And I'm fkin pissed cuz after 40 fkin years I am finally pain free.

And I haven't even touched the topic of both food and healthcare for women, poc, differing body-/lifestyle types.

Only thing I can agree on: consume less sugar and sauces. Sure my opinion is anecdotal, but everyone I know that has cut those 2 has seen great results.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I’d like to see warnings on alcohol before this

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Aren't there already? Surgeon General's Warning: Do not drive a pregnant woman under the influence blah blah blah

[–] dudeami0@lemmy.dudeami.win 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I think the point would to be make them like cigarette warning labels. At the moment the text can be hidden on a bottle or can in tiny text. It needs to be a big ugly white box with a black border and large text that gets people's attention.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago

And what good did it do for cigarettes? It's not like you're going to look at the pack and go "oh shit, it's bad for me?"

Everyone I know who gave up smoking recently, did so purely for cost reasons and took up vaping instead.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Everything needs warnings because if used incorrectly they will do damage to you in some way. where do warning end?

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

even water 💦💦

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Having recovered a dead body from the bottom of a lake, I can positively affirm it's not good for you.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 19 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Will that achieve anything?

People know the effects, people see the effects, people don’t care.

Just seems like a silly outdated idea. Isn’t it well established that the best way to stop people from buying stuff like this is plain white packaging and advertising restrictions?

[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Do they?

I don't even know what an "ultra processed food" •IS•.

How is it different than the "processed cheese product" that passes for most individually wrapped "American cheese" cheese slices? Or is that ultra processed?

Are Doritos ultra processed or just the regular kind of processed?

Which kind of ground beef qualifies for "ultra"? Only the pink slime or anything that's been chemically treated?

I'm not being a pedantic contrary asshat, I legitimately do not know what qualifies something to be in this category and why it's worse than normal processing.

Bpa from plastic tubing used in the processing of Annie's organic leeched into the food. Is that considered contamination or a side effect of processing?

[–] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My dude, if you don't know that Doritos are ultra processed food, this is living proof that the government needs to step in and provide warnings to people..

[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

They're processed, yes. The corn is milled, pressed into triangles, coated with preservative-heavy flavor powder and cooked in one order or another, possibly repeatedly.

What makes it ULTRA processed?

Frickin... most raw potatoes are "processed" because they're typically not covered in topsoil when they get put in 5lb plastic bags.

A grass-fed organic, antibiotic free, roaming free-range massaged poterhouse steak is "processed" because it's not still attached to the cow.

I'm trying to understand the definition, here. Almost everything is processed to some degree or another.

Is white flour ultra processed because they bleach and de-hull the wheat berries? Or only when it's made into cake flour? Or do both of those count as "processed" and only "cake MIX" counts as "ultra processed"?

Am I making sense?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Will that achieve anything?

Yes! Various countries implement a "traffic light" style health meter that is legally required to be on the front of packaging that also gives a little subtext to say what causes it to be yellow or red (least healthy). So it will say stuff like "excess sodium" or "too much sugar" which actually does work. People don't even realize that some staples are considered UPFs because of preservatives (Tortillas), or are otherwise unhealthy (too much sugar and preservatives in 'health' cereals and yogurts).

This allows people to find staples that do not contain shocking amounts of sugar, preservatives, or highly processed options within the same category. It's worked when implemented well :)

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

In the case of tortillas I imagine the label would do more harm than good. Because what are people going to do, stop buying tortillas? They'd just learn to disregard the label. The only way I could imagine it working is if some tortillas had the label and others were safe, then you could buy the safe ones.

On the other hand, why not just ban the dangerous preservatives and let them all be safe?

Unless we are saying that it's ok for poor people to eat dangerous food if they can't afford the good kind

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 6 points 4 months ago

There are usually safe ones as well, just some that might need to be frozen instead of left out.

Fwiw, I always assumed tortillas were just like...flour and water and a bit of fat. Had no idea they had preservatives because I never paid attention to the label until I saw an article on surprising UPF foods in the NYT a few months ago. I'm more careful with my consumption of them now!

[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The alternatives for tortillas would be purchase from a bakery (made fresh so no preservatives), purchase frozen (so no need for added preservatives), or make at home (surprisingly easy to do).

[–] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I have honestly stopped buying tortillas when I learnt how crappy industrial tortillas are. I had no idea before that.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think it would help. Often times all the items on the shelf look the same with the exception of price.

You add a warning label on one item and the item next to it is $2 more and doesn’t have the warning, I am likely to buy the more expensive item.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's why they are advocating for a tax on those items as well. Makes them similarly priced to non-UPF options while also givign money to something useful like healthcare.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I would love this too. But still I would love something official that would designate which items are the over processed ones.

Though, the Supreme Court is about to make the FDA useless, so that won’t work soon.

[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 6 points 4 months ago

Will that achieve anything?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if we're putting warnings on things and trying to influence behaviour around tobacco and alcohol consumption (don't get me started on drugs) then we might as well do it with foods that can cause serious health problems and are arguably addictive.

[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think the best way would be to prevent it from being sold in the first place.

[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago

That's still just a superficial solution, you need to go deeper and address the reasons these foods exist in the first place, and why people buy them, because it really isn't the ultra processed foods in themselves that are the issue, it's that the system is geared not only to encourage producing food as cheaply as possible, but also for people to work for such long hours to barely survive, and be so badly educated about food and nutrition, that fast food, and filling the pockets of those who sell it, is their best option (in terms of time, money, and other physical and mental resources that go in to consistently and reliably preparing food from scratch).

So much of the damage being attributed to these "ultra processed foods" is almost certainly actually due to stress and poverty, which are what (alongside a multi-trillion dollar marketing and advertising industries) lead people to eat them in the first place.

[–] starchylemming@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)

so, dumb question :

what's the risk of these foods for people who are not obese?

[–] tomten@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

Becoming fat/obese

[–] elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

From my understanding: we extract many micronutrients from food by having bacteria in our digestive tract pre-process the food.

When you eat primarily eat junk food for a long time, the bacteria die of starvation. Once this happens it's hard to get them back and you are crippled by not being able to fully digest healthy food to its full potential.

TL;DR humans need to consume more than just calories and protein

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Unfortunately, the "Processed Food Moral Panic" has been taken over by the meat and dairy industries, so people will not be learning why it's important to eat lots of plants as whole foods.

[–] starchylemming@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

so judging by that a truly mixed diet with some degree of shitfood should be fine

[–] lili_thana@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cancer is a big risk

Had a friend of mine die on Thanksgiving last year in his early 30s from it. He was never obese in his life.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From UPFs specifically...?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's a waste of time, the "NOVA" system is subjective and it makes testing it a dead end. Your question will not be answered.

It also doesn't teach nutrition to the people; the core application of it is demonizing food that isn't cooked at home, as if something made in a small home kitchen is magically healthful.

If you want to get a better grasp, here's a nice and short read: (shorter than a book) Series 5: Is the Ultra-processed Food (UPF) concept useful, and for what goals? | TABLE Debates

load more comments
view more: next ›