Hacker News Reader

Comment by hedora | Hacker News Reader

Half of RFK’s platform is insane. The other half makes sense.

He claimed he’d focus on the reasonable half (like banning ultra processed foods). I’m hoping that’s true.

However, vaccinating the chickens creates a huge trade barrier (because you cannot sell vaccinated poultry products in most places), so this could just be another example of Trump’s isolationist trade policies.

I guess we can hope they did this to improve public health, but I suspect it’s more of “a stopped clock is right twice a day” situation.

View on HN

Banning ultra processed food is unhinged. The conventional definition of UPF isn't coherent.

I agree legislative work to precisely define UPF is needed.

However, scientists have repeatedly shown that they cause a statistically significant increase in all cause mortality.

If you take the random word generator that is RFK’s mouth, then filter it with reproducible scientific studies, the result is probably actually better than what previous political appointees have produced.

I’ve already expressed skepticism about the second step, where science is involved. Still, I can hope.

there is not evidence that it is the "processing" of the UPF that is the problem. so any attempt to ban UPF is doomed.

https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35658669/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25804833/

^—- Conclusions: The consumption of ultra-processed products (i.e. foods with low nutritional value but high energy density) has increased dramatically in Sweden since 1960, which mirrors the increased prevalence of obesity. Future research should clarify the potential causal role of ultra-processed products in weight gain and obesity.

So, the last one has a quantitative definition that could be used for a preliminary ban.

Also, all those articles link many more. One click deep will provide a dozen concurring studies. I didn’t feel like adding more links.

"foods with low nutritional value but high energy density" is not the definition of UPFs that I've seen most often. The definition I most see is the NOVA classification. NOVA doesn't require a UPF food to be of low nutritional value or high energy density.

Also the GOP opposed mere taxes on sugary drinks but now they want to ban UPFs? I don't believe it.

Of course. The study goes back to the 1960’s, so they can’t use classifications that didn’t exist back then.

That’s why I said “preliminary”

Alternatively, they could read more than three abstracts, and find a better definition.

Regardless, there’s enough evidence for a ban, and also quantifiable metrics that could be used to define one.

I’d expect the regulators and scientific community to do better than my proposal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com