3 ms·

Unlike a printed dictionary constrained by physical paper, we now have digital publishing where every product, ingredient, additive and health consequence can h

Unlike a printed dictionary constrained by physical paper, we now have digital publishing where every product, ingredient, additive and health consequence can have their own digital database definition. Instead of debating abstract semantic categories like "processed" and using random items to support or negate specific claims, we can now aggregate data directly against digital identifiers for physical items. GroceryDB is a research baby step that illustrates what can be done to augment consumer decision making. The processed-food industry can create their own ICantBelieveItsNotProcessedDB to annotate products and ingredients with the benefits of industrial processing. Over time, food consumers can make local purchasing choices after human review of available data on food chains and health consequences.

vel0city 3y ago
But at least in the case of guar gum in hummus it seems like it's picking and choosing what is a "processed food" rather arbitrarily. Would hummus with cocoa power be rated as high as hummus with guar gum? What makes pure coca powder different from guar gum? What makes pre-packaged hummus different from just always being considered a processed food?? Practically all commercially packaged hummus is created through an "industrial process". Isn't it then all highly processed? It's applying an index to things without even really explaining why or what that index really means. What are the actual health impacts of hummus with guar gum versus hummus without it? It's ultimately telling us next to nothing other than highlighting some ingredients the maintainers don't like while ignoring ingredients they do like, seemingly very arbitrarily. Does the index define roasted and ground coffee as a highly processed food? Why or why not?
- walterbell 3y ago
  > some ingredients the maintainers don't like From the Washington Post article above, you can add these names: Kevin Hall, Scientist National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Dariush Mozaffarian, Cardiologist Dean, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy Tufts University Carlos A. Monteiro, Professor of Nutrition and Public health School of Public Health University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
  - vel0city 3y ago
    This still tells me practically nothing and answers zero of my questions, which really are genuine. I never really get a good rubric for me to determine if a food is highly processed other than "these people decided it, so it is so". Which is what you're doing here. Guar gum is bad because these people said it's bad. Ok, but, like, why? How did they decide that specifically? On the index, why is garlic powder a 37 while chili powder which contains rice concentrate (what is that?!) is a 1? Is garlic powder, which only lists garlic as an ingredient, 37x worse for me than chili powder? What I information am I actually gaining from this index? How is looking at this index informing me of making a healthy choice at all? https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_365-by-whole-foods-market-garlic-powder-201-oz-b074v3vp5k?store=all https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_365-by-whole-foods-mark... https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_simply-organic-organic-chili-powder-289-oz-b00269xe0q?store=all https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_simply-organic-organic-...
    - walterbell 3y ago
      Perhaps this is not the right index for you? Please do share indexes and professional sources that you find genuinely useful.
      - harry8 3y ago
        If an index is being touted and it's garbage it is harmful. (I have not formed an opinion on the index being assessed). The point being if it's extremely variable it /will/ be gamed and will work against you. The circular arrow symbol on plastics is a recent example where poor definition of what it meant has even led to consumers believing a symbol indicating non-recyclable means recyclable. A superior indicator for consumers that would get vastly less wrong is "plastic is not recyclable." This or any index to provide information to consumers should be aggressively scrutinized. What it is today will not be what it becomes unless it can be defended, which requires thorough and widespread understanding.
        walterbell 3y ago

vel0city 3y ago

But at least in the case of guar gum in hummus it seems like it's picking and choosing what is a "processed food" rather arbitrarily. Would hummus with cocoa power be rated as high as hummus with guar gum? What makes pure coca powder different from guar gum? What makes pre-packaged hummus different from just always being considered a processed food?? Practically all commercially packaged hummus is created through an "industrial process". Isn't it then all highly processed? It's applying an index to things without even really explaining why or what that index really means. What are the actual health impacts of hummus with guar gum versus hummus without it? It's ultimately telling us next to nothing other than highlighting some ingredients the maintainers don't like while ignoring ingredients they do like, seemingly very arbitrarily. Does the index define roasted and ground coffee as a highly processed food? Why or why not?

walterbell 3y ago
> some ingredients the maintainers don't like From the Washington Post article above, you can add these names: Kevin Hall, Scientist National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Dariush Mozaffarian, Cardiologist Dean, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy Tufts University Carlos A. Monteiro, Professor of Nutrition and Public health School of Public Health University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
- vel0city 3y ago
  This still tells me practically nothing and answers zero of my questions, which really are genuine. I never really get a good rubric for me to determine if a food is highly processed other than "these people decided it, so it is so". Which is what you're doing here. Guar gum is bad because these people said it's bad. Ok, but, like, why? How did they decide that specifically? On the index, why is garlic powder a 37 while chili powder which contains rice concentrate (what is that?!) is a 1? Is garlic powder, which only lists garlic as an ingredient, 37x worse for me than chili powder? What I information am I actually gaining from this index? How is looking at this index informing me of making a healthy choice at all? https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_365-by-whole-foods-market-garlic-powder-201-oz-b074v3vp5k?store=all https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_365-by-whole-foods-mark... https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_simply-organic-organic-chili-powder-289-oz-b00269xe0q?store=all https://www.truefood.tech/product/wf_simply-organic-organic-...
  - walterbell 3y ago
    Perhaps this is not the right index for you? Please do share indexes and professional sources that you find genuinely useful.
    - harry8 3y ago
      If an index is being touted and it's garbage it is harmful. (I have not formed an opinion on the index being assessed). The point being if it's extremely variable it /will/ be gamed and will work against you. The circular arrow symbol on plastics is a recent example where poor definition of what it meant has even led to consumers believing a symbol indicating non-recyclable means recyclable. A superior indicator for consumers that would get vastly less wrong is "plastic is not recyclable." This or any index to provide information to consumers should be aggressively scrutinized. What it is today will not be what it becomes unless it can be defended, which requires thorough and widespread understanding.
      - walterbell 3y ago