4 ms·
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 u
by 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 agoOn 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 agoI, 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