Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist
UPFs should also be heavily taxed due to impact on health and mortality, says scientist who coined term
UPFs should also be heavily taxed due to impact on health and mortality, says scientist who coined term
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets “all over the world” despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutritional scientist who first coined the term.
Prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will highlight the increasing danger UPFs present to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week.
“UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the conference in São Paulo.
You're viewing a single thread.
Will that achieve anything?
People know the effects, people see the effects, people don’t care.
Just seems like a silly outdated idea. Isn’t it well established that the best way to stop people from buying stuff like this is plain white packaging and advertising restrictions?
Do they?
I don't even know what an "ultra processed food" •IS•.
How is it different than the "processed cheese product" that passes for most individually wrapped "American cheese" cheese slices? Or is that ultra processed?
Are Doritos ultra processed or just the regular kind of processed?
Which kind of ground beef qualifies for "ultra"? Only the pink slime or anything that's been chemically treated?
I'm not being a pedantic contrary asshat, I legitimately do not know what qualifies something to be in this category and why it's worse than normal processing.
Bpa from plastic tubing used in the processing of Annie's organic leeched into the food. Is that considered contamination or a side effect of processing?
My dude, if you don't know that Doritos are ultra processed food, this is living proof that the government needs to step in and provide warnings to people..
They're processed, yes. The corn is milled, pressed into triangles, coated with preservative-heavy flavor powder and cooked in one order or another, possibly repeatedly.
What makes it ULTRA processed?
Frickin... most raw potatoes are "processed" because they're typically not covered in topsoil when they get put in 5lb plastic bags.
A grass-fed organic, antibiotic free, roaming free-range massaged poterhouse steak is "processed" because it's not still attached to the cow.
I'm trying to understand the definition, here. Almost everything is processed to some degree or another.
Is white flour ultra processed because they bleach and de-hull the wheat berries? Or only when it's made into cake flour? Or do both of those count as "processed" and only "cake MIX" counts as "ultra processed"?
Am I making sense?
I don't even know what an "ultra processed food" •IS•.
Linking a whole article to answer the question, is a hilarious way to prove his point that most people don't know what an UPF is.
Hilarious? Folks don't usually downvote things that make them laugh. It was my belief that putting a link up as a follow up to his question was helpful.
Laughing at not with. Hence the downvotes
Did you have a point relevant to UPF? The fact that my post above had maybe 9 upvotes and 12 downvotes does show that some folks found it helpful. In the early days of the publicly-available internet, folks tried to help each other. Now the world is on the edge of WWIII and folks are beating folks down where they think they can. I kinda miss the old internet. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Ignoring your crazy old man rambling, people likely downvoted a link to Wikipedia because it's low effort. If you'd taken a little time to give a short summary and included your link as a source, you would likely have received better reception.
No one wants to say, "I don't understand this very well", only to be told to go read about it. They want human conversation and explanation.
Holy cow, thank you!
Will that achieve anything?
Yes! Various countries implement a "traffic light" style health meter that is legally required to be on the front of packaging that also gives a little subtext to say what causes it to be yellow or red (least healthy). So it will say stuff like "excess sodium" or "too much sugar" which actually does work. People don't even realize that some staples are considered UPFs because of preservatives (Tortillas), or are otherwise unhealthy (too much sugar and preservatives in 'health' cereals and yogurts).
This allows people to find staples that do not contain shocking amounts of sugar, preservatives, or highly processed options within the same category. It's worked when implemented well :)
In the case of tortillas I imagine the label would do more harm than good. Because what are people going to do, stop buying tortillas? They'd just learn to disregard the label. The only way I could imagine it working is if some tortillas had the label and others were safe, then you could buy the safe ones.
On the other hand, why not just ban the dangerous preservatives and let them all be safe?
Unless we are saying that it's ok for poor people to eat dangerous food if they can't afford the good kind
There are usually safe ones as well, just some that might need to be frozen instead of left out.
Fwiw, I always assumed tortillas were just like...flour and water and a bit of fat. Had no idea they had preservatives because I never paid attention to the label until I saw an article on surprising UPF foods in the NYT a few months ago. I'm more careful with my consumption of them now!
The alternatives for tortillas would be purchase from a bakery (made fresh so no preservatives), purchase frozen (so no need for added preservatives), or make at home (surprisingly easy to do).
Permanently Deleted
I think it would help. Often times all the items on the shelf look the same with the exception of price.
You add a warning label on one item and the item next to it is $2 more and doesn’t have the warning, I am likely to buy the more expensive item.
That's why they are advocating for a tax on those items as well. Makes them similarly priced to non-UPF options while also givign money to something useful like healthcare.
I would love this too. But still I would love something official that would designate which items are the over processed ones.
Though, the Supreme Court is about to make the FDA useless, so that won’t work soon.
Will that achieve anything?
Maybe. Maybe not.
But if we're putting warnings on things and trying to influence behaviour around tobacco and alcohol consumption (don't get me started on drugs) then we might as well do it with foods that can cause serious health problems and are arguably addictive.
I think the best way would be to prevent it from being sold in the first place.
That's still just a superficial solution, you need to go deeper and address the reasons these foods exist in the first place, and why people buy them, because it really isn't the ultra processed foods in themselves that are the issue, it's that the system is geared not only to encourage producing food as cheaply as possible, but also for people to work for such long hours to barely survive, and be so badly educated about food and nutrition, that fast food, and filling the pockets of those who sell it, is their best option (in terms of time, money, and other physical and mental resources that go in to consistently and reliably preparing food from scratch).
So much of the damage being attributed to these "ultra processed foods" is almost certainly actually due to stress and poverty, which are what (alongside a multi-trillion dollar marketing and advertising industries) lead people to eat them in the first place.