Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zigurd | Hacker News Reader

I don't want to defend what's in those aisles of the grocery store I don't visit, but I have a problem with the definition. It amounts to a list of ick nobody should put in their mouth in any combination. The problem is that some of the supposed ick is marginal: Is a Pop Tart(tm) with a dyed HFC "berry" filling really, measurably, "worse" than a slice of toasted artisanal bread with farm to table butter and jam? You shouldn't eat either one in large quantities. One is obviously ickier, but, so?

Whey protein vs tofu? One is in your favorite Hunan dish, the other is sold in tubs next to dubious supplements. But, so?

View on HN

I know there is a tendency to think of ultra-processed as bad, but perhaps a better way to think of these categories is that for the first two (or three) categories it is scientifically much easier to show that they are harmful. For the ultra-processed category there are so many chemical products inside the food, it is a lot harder to show harm or harmlessness.

Think of risk profiles rather than harm amounts.

Perhaps an urban myth but my general rule of thumb as a non-expert has been: more processed = more carcinogenic

pop Tart has literally tens of ingredients, toasted artisanal bread with butter and jam has at maximum 10, all natural. Seems quite obvious the diference.

He didn't ask if they were different, he asked if they were "worse". It is not obvious at all that having more ingredients equals worse.

Roughly speaking, if you remove Nova class 4 you are back at mid-century eating habits and I doubt anybody would dare to claim that they weren't much healthier than today with 2/3 of US population being overweight. "Unhealthy" groceries still existed, but the quantities consumed were much smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Li...

> mid-century eating habits

So pies made with lard, sugar, and served with whole-milk ice cream?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com