3 ms·
> for public health policy it's easier Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point. After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for publi
by dolni 2y ago
> for public health policy it's easier
Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point.
After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for public health policy. Do the work.
"Easier" got us "N95s don't protect against COVID" and then it was "oh wait, actually cloth masks do!"
A lot of this stuff relies on trust.
I won't sit here and try to pretend that you will find health eating Doritos or McDonald's Big Macs. But is something like a low-sugar protein bar a decent option? How about Soylent?
These are the nuanced questions that are actually useful to answer. Nobody actually thinks "ultra processed foods" are good for you to begin with.
- ufo 2y agoWhy shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. The Brazilian dietary guidelines that were inspired by NOVA places a lot of importance in the social aspects of procuring food, preparing it, and eating it. In a sense, it's the antithesis of products such as Soylent.
- dolni 2y ago> Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict of interest? What kind of sense does that make? > The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. I wasn't make a comment on what they do. I was making a comment on what I would find useful. I don't find saying "ultraprocessed bad mmmm'kay" particularly interesting or insightful. All processes and preservatives are not equal. Pretending they are (or even just glossing over the details) is unscientific and a waste of time and money.