4 ms·

Which is why the headline emphasis this is in reference to "ultra-processed" foods and they further go on to define ultra-processed as: Ultra-processed foods a

Which is why the headline emphasis this is in reference to "ultra-processed" foods and they further go on to define ultra-processed as: Ultra-processed foods and beverages can be defined as products with additives and industrially processed ingredients that have been technologically broken down and modified.7 They are not merely processed foods with high levels of sugar, salt, and fat but also contain ingredients and additives not commonly used in home kitchens and artisanal restaurants, such as synthetic flavours, emulsifiers, hydrogenated oils, and soy protein isolates. The role of these ingredients is often to simulate the taste, texture, or nutritional profile of minimally processed foods.

dolni 6y ago
Yes, I read the definition. It does little to clear up confusion. What constitutes a synthetic flavor? Is vanilla extract an example or do you have to go further than that? Emulsifiers are things that actually get used in regular cooking. According to https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-does-emulsify-mean-480592#:~:text=Common%20emulsifiers%20include%20egg%20yolks,%2C%20miso%2C%20and%20garlic%20paste https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-does-emulsify-mean-480592.... egg yolks and honey are both emulsifiers. Based on how that sentence is phrased, you'd think that an emulsifier is something synthesized chemical that the average chef has never heard of. Hydrogenated oils and soy protein isolates have long been recognized as things to avoid, so their inclusion in the list is not a surprise. Like I said, the definition is overbroad and does little to help someone like me actually identify things that are very bad for me. I already know eating a bag of Doritos for dinner is not a great idea. What sort of food items do you typically see these nutritional monsters hiding out in? Are they so awful that they shouldn't be enjoyed even as a once-in-a-while indulgence? The article specifically mentions Coca Cola and Mars, among others. I mean golly gee, thanks for the big brain insight. Are there people out there who didn't know that soda and candy bars are not paragons of nutrition?
- nwienert 6y ago
  It’s a bit like porn or automatic guns, hard to define perfectly but easy to see and discuss. Not one person thinks of egg yolks or honey when talking about “ultra processed additives”. I don’t think you’re making any point here about confusion you’re just ranting. If I were to try and extract some coherent positive thought out of this, I’d say a website that tracks and allows discussion of ingredients and products that are good/bad would be interesting so we could stop bikeshedding on naming when obviously there exist many levels of better/worse foods and ingredients.
  - dolni 6y ago
    > I don’t think you’re making any point here about confusion you’re just ranting. How uncharitable. > If I were to try and extract some coherent positive thought out of this, I’d say a website that tracks and allows discussion of ingredients and products that are good/bad would be interesting so we could stop bikeshedding on naming when obviously there exist many levels of better/worse foods and ingredients. That's basically it. I'd hazard a guess that at least some "ultra-processed" ingredients don't have any effect on you at all. Some might even be positive. People take medication for health conditions after all, and they help them live longer, higher quality lives. What could be more ultra-processed than that? Scientists and engineers don't generally tolerate painting with such a broad brush, and it's at least obvious to me that there are several confounding variables here other than the artificial ingredients themselves (super high calorie density, for example).

dolni 6y ago

Yes, I read the definition. It does little to clear up confusion. What constitutes a synthetic flavor? Is vanilla extract an example or do you have to go further than that? Emulsifiers are things that actually get used in regular cooking. According to https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-does-emulsify-mean-480592#:~:text=Common%20emulsifiers%20include%20egg%20yolks,%2C%20miso%2C%20and%20garlic%20paste https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-does-emulsify-mean-480592.... egg yolks and honey are both emulsifiers. Based on how that sentence is phrased, you'd think that an emulsifier is something synthesized chemical that the average chef has never heard of. Hydrogenated oils and soy protein isolates have long been recognized as things to avoid, so their inclusion in the list is not a surprise. Like I said, the definition is overbroad and does little to help someone like me actually identify things that are very bad for me. I already know eating a bag of Doritos for dinner is not a great idea. What sort of food items do you typically see these nutritional monsters hiding out in? Are they so awful that they shouldn't be enjoyed even as a once-in-a-while indulgence? The article specifically mentions Coca Cola and Mars, among others. I mean golly gee, thanks for the big brain insight. Are there people out there who didn't know that soda and candy bars are not paragons of nutrition?

nwienert 6y ago
It’s a bit like porn or automatic guns, hard to define perfectly but easy to see and discuss. Not one person thinks of egg yolks or honey when talking about “ultra processed additives”. I don’t think you’re making any point here about confusion you’re just ranting. If I were to try and extract some coherent positive thought out of this, I’d say a website that tracks and allows discussion of ingredients and products that are good/bad would be interesting so we could stop bikeshedding on naming when obviously there exist many levels of better/worse foods and ingredients.
- dolni 6y ago
  > I don’t think you’re making any point here about confusion you’re just ranting. How uncharitable. > If I were to try and extract some coherent positive thought out of this, I’d say a website that tracks and allows discussion of ingredients and products that are good/bad would be interesting so we could stop bikeshedding on naming when obviously there exist many levels of better/worse foods and ingredients. That's basically it. I'd hazard a guess that at least some "ultra-processed" ingredients don't have any effect on you at all. Some might even be positive. People take medication for health conditions after all, and they help them live longer, higher quality lives. What could be more ultra-processed than that? Scientists and engineers don't generally tolerate painting with such a broad brush, and it's at least obvious to me that there are several confounding variables here other than the artificial ingredients themselves (super high calorie density, for example).