6 ms·

Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

52 points by elsewhen 2y ago

ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means of delivery makes a huge difference on how immediately gratifying and habit-forming they are. I think we should make regulation that enforces stronger separation between food and beverages that we consume as part of a healthy diet, and candy and psychoactive substances that we consume for fun. We should acknowledge that a significant and growing fraction of the population are forced to actively fight their inner voices telling them to consume these things whenever they go to a supermarket, which they have to because we all need to eat. Alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed foods have no place in food stores, but should be confined to dedicated outlets.
- tracker1 2y ago
  On a similar note, I find it fascinating how many people feel fruit juice smoothies are healthy. I mean, as a small kid, my grandparents would tell me fruit juice should be really limited, like half a cup a few times a week. To people downing 30oz/1L fruit smoothies daily. A lot of times it comes down to dosage. edit: example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."
- br3d 2y ago
  I, too, am nervous of banning things, but we need to take a holistic evidence-based view. As part of this, we should be looking at the hidden subsidies that support UPF manufacturing and enable such products to be, in many cases, wildly cheaper than healthier alternatives
ideonexus 2y ago
It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrates spiking my blood sugar and driving up my cholesterol. I dumped all the processed foods, went whole-foods, Mediterranean Diet, pescatarian, and blew my doctor's mind when all my tests came back healthy. We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.
- nickff 2y ago
  What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?
  - ideonexus 2y ago
    Just a few examples: 1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores. 2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat? 3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat. 4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them. What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.
theamk 2y ago
I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet: "industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years); "edible substance" - check! (very edible, yum-yum) "derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." - check! (what isn't) .. so it's an UPF and should get a warning label? If they want to start passing the laws related to UPF, I'd like to see a good clear definition first. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
- ianburrell 2y ago
  The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Depends on preservatives. Nitrites/Nitrates used with cured meats seem to be less than ideal... On other hand they also increase food safety... Which also opens up question of what factors we balance. Removing too many preservatives from food likely will increase waste. Which then have corresponding impact emissions and resources in general...
  - esd_g0d 2y ago
    Yeah, to me the whole discussion of "UPF = unhealthy" is based on a romanticization of "natural" that breaks down if you try to make sense of it. If you use the right words, you can make even cheese and butter sound ultra processed. So the concept of UPF itself is shaky. Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the "food processing" process that makes the material "unhealthy" -- whatever those words mean. So even if we could define UPFs, there wouldn't be an inherent correlation with unhealthiness, as pointed out in the example of fruit juice -- a personal favorite of mine, because the natural crowd loves fruit juice (don't get me wrong, I love it too, but I'm aware it's just candy)
Tagbert 2y ago
Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?
- zug_zug 2y ago
  We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]
  - theteapot 2y ago
zug_zug 2y ago
Imagine a future where all food stores have 3 sections: - The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten. - The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc. - The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative impact on microbiome, indefinite shelf-life, >50% calories are refined sugar.
- soared 2y ago
  Calories can have value by themselves. I don’t recall the phrasing but something like Eat Enough, not too much, then look for variety.
msteffen 2y ago
To the extent that people are curious about the definition of ultra-processed foods, I recommend Chris Van Tulleken’s book “Ultra Processed People.” From it, I got the sense that the real emphasis is on this aspect of the NOVA definition: “Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup…modified starches…modified oils…protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners…) in their list of ingredients.” The history of NOVA is that as the obesity epidemic was spreading, a Brazilian nutrition scientist, Carlos Monteiro, did a large scale project to identify likely causes right as it reached Brazil and obesity in Brazil started to rise. In short, he found statistical evidence indicating, basically, that as as people stopped cooking they became obese. In the book, he observes that connection was so strong that if the one single thing you knew about a person was that they had bought sugar, it predicted that they would not be obese because sugar, while unhealthy, is usually used to cook with. Thus the emphasis on “traditional culinary uses”. Cooking has a lot of virtues, but evidence that the ingredients themselves are the issue came when an NIH researcher, Kevin Hall, did an experiment where he had people live in an NIH facility and half ate “processed” food (in the NOVA system) and half ate “ultra-processed” food with equivalent nutritional content, and the UPF group gained weight very quickly relative to the “processed” group. The Hall excitement is when Monteiro’s theory really started getting traction.
lmaoguy 2y ago
There would be virtually nothing in the USA without this tag on it

52 points by elsewhen 2y ago

I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means of delivery makes a huge difference on how immediately gratifying and habit-forming they are. I think we should make regulation that enforces stronger separation between food and beverages that we consume as part of a healthy diet, and candy and psychoactive substances that we consume for fun. We should acknowledge that a significant and growing fraction of the population are forced to actively fight their inner voices telling them to consume these things whenever they go to a supermarket, which they have to because we all need to eat. Alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed foods have no place in food stores, but should be confined to dedicated outlets.

tracker1 2y ago
On a similar note, I find it fascinating how many people feel fruit juice smoothies are healthy. I mean, as a small kid, my grandparents would tell me fruit juice should be really limited, like half a cup a few times a week. To people downing 30oz/1L fruit smoothies daily. A lot of times it comes down to dosage. edit: example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."
br3d 2y ago
I, too, am nervous of banning things, but we need to take a holistic evidence-based view. As part of this, we should be looking at the hidden subsidies that support UPF manufacturing and enable such products to be, in many cases, wildly cheaper than healthier alternatives

ideonexus 2y ago

It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrates spiking my blood sugar and driving up my cholesterol. I dumped all the processed foods, went whole-foods, Mediterranean Diet, pescatarian, and blew my doctor's mind when all my tests came back healthy. We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.

nickff 2y ago
What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?
- ideonexus 2y ago
  Just a few examples: 1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores. 2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat? 3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat. 4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them. What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.

theamk 2y ago

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet: "industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years); "edible substance" - check! (very edible, yum-yum) "derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." - check! (what isn't) .. so it's an UPF and should get a warning label? If they want to start passing the laws related to UPF, I'd like to see a good clear definition first. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food

ianburrell 2y ago
The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Depends on preservatives. Nitrites/Nitrates used with cured meats seem to be less than ideal... On other hand they also increase food safety... Which also opens up question of what factors we balance. Removing too many preservatives from food likely will increase waste. Which then have corresponding impact emissions and resources in general...
- esd_g0d 2y ago
  Yeah, to me the whole discussion of "UPF = unhealthy" is based on a romanticization of "natural" that breaks down if you try to make sense of it. If you use the right words, you can make even cheese and butter sound ultra processed. So the concept of UPF itself is shaky. Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the "food processing" process that makes the material "unhealthy" -- whatever those words mean. So even if we could define UPFs, there wouldn't be an inherent correlation with unhealthiness, as pointed out in the example of fruit juice -- a personal favorite of mine, because the natural crowd loves fruit juice (don't get me wrong, I love it too, but I'm aware it's just candy)

Tagbert 2y ago

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

zug_zug 2y ago
We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]
- theteapot 2y ago

zug_zug 2y ago

Imagine a future where all food stores have 3 sections: - The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten. - The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc. - The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative impact on microbiome, indefinite shelf-life, >50% calories are refined sugar.

soared 2y ago
Calories can have value by themselves. I don’t recall the phrasing but something like Eat Enough, not too much, then look for variety.

msteffen 2y ago

To the extent that people are curious about the definition of ultra-processed foods, I recommend Chris Van Tulleken’s book “Ultra Processed People.” From it, I got the sense that the real emphasis is on this aspect of the NOVA definition: “Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup…modified starches…modified oils…protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners…) in their list of ingredients.” The history of NOVA is that as the obesity epidemic was spreading, a Brazilian nutrition scientist, Carlos Monteiro, did a large scale project to identify likely causes right as it reached Brazil and obesity in Brazil started to rise. In short, he found statistical evidence indicating, basically, that as as people stopped cooking they became obese. In the book, he observes that connection was so strong that if the one single thing you knew about a person was that they had bought sugar, it predicted that they would not be obese because sugar, while unhealthy, is usually used to cook with. Thus the emphasis on “traditional culinary uses”. Cooking has a lot of virtues, but evidence that the ingredients themselves are the issue came when an NIH researcher, Kevin Hall, did an experiment where he had people live in an NIH facility and half ate “processed” food (in the NOVA system) and half ate “ultra-processed” food with equivalent nutritional content, and the UPF group gained weight very quickly relative to the “processed” group. The Hall excitement is when Monteiro’s theory really started getting traction.

lmaoguy 2y ago

There would be virtually nothing in the USA without this tag on it