More reasons not to support McDonald’s.

[gixer1]

Yeah to a point Gary

But when soooo many of these types of food UPF are designed to keep you coming back for more ….

Evidence is there , studies been done ….
How many folk actually are on a proper whole food diet these days as opposed to UPF’s ?
What’s easier and cheaper and more “convienent” ?

Fact is most folk 60% plus are getting 80% of their daily intake from UPF’s

And it’s not just the Uk it’s world wide …. When in Middle East Bahrain for example every 2nd hospital was a diabetes specialist hospital …..

Paul

It may be more convenient - not sure about cheaper - you can buy a bag of soup mix (with veggies and stock) in tescos/morrisons for £1.15 that will make a decent sized pot of soup - but people choose not to do that - and I get that it’s not something you would do everyday, but people take the convenience option (including myself sometimes) it’s when you do that all the time that it’s an issue…

Most bad habits are expensive, including junk food - and I’m an ex-smoker so know just how hard it can be to get away from an addictive habit - but you have to find something that is more important to you. In my case it was after my son was born and I couldn’t hack the smell of smoke near him when he was little…so I stopped and happy to say am 16 years off it now and the money savings are mental!

Many people don’t want to stop but I do believe it’s choice, not an ingredient that makes them over do it.

You were missed yesterday!

 

[Apthorpe]

Let's get this UPF stuff into context. UPF is a food classification invented recently, to classify foods. This is not exclusively some chemical laden type of manufactured sludge, although it does include those. Perfectly normal foods are UPFs - much bread both brown and white, including of "artisan" types, beer, whisky, weetabix, baked beans, wholegrain breakfast cereals and so on.

It's a bad classification when you're lumping together junk food with food universally known to be pretty good for you.

 

[sauer]

Sorry Apthorpe

I’ll take the word of Dr whose sole work is this and what I’ve listened to and read over your word on here
As educated as your prose usually is I’ll listen to them

Just need to look at the western world and chronic problems affecting health and threatening to burst the medical systems in many countries ….
We are with food where we were with tabbacco in mid 80’s & 90,s

And funnily enough the main players in food now are …. Yup the former tabbacoo companies

It’s now the biggest killer world wide overtaking tobacco

Paul

 

[tackb]

Sorry Apthorpe

I’ll take the word of Dr whose sole work is this and what I’ve listened to and read over your word on here
As educated as your prose usually is I’ll listen to them

Just need to look at the western world and chronic problems affecting health and threatening to burst the medical systems in many countries ….
We are with food where we were with tabbacco in mid 80’s & 90,s

And funnily enough the main players in food now are …. Yup the former tabbacoo companies

It’s now the biggest killer world wide overtaking tobacco

Paul

let me guess , the solution is more tax ?

it's always more tax !!!!!!

 

[Mountain Bug]

let me guess , the solution is more tax ?

it's always more tax !!!!!!

First it will be more governmental control from some newly created agency that has been appointed to manage this. The taxes will come later in order to pay the eye-watering salaries of said agency and for years of pointless studies, only to learn what we already knew.

Scott

 

[Bavarianbrit]

lardarses and cola seem to me to be connected. Never noticed much of it in the 1960s.

 

[Apthorpe]

Sorry Apthorpe

I’ll take the word of Dr whose sole work is this and what I’ve listened to and read over your word on here
As educated as your prose usually is I’ll listen to them

Do. They can only confirm what I wrote. UPF include any food cintaining malt. The other examples, I think I drew from the British Heart Foundation or similar reputable source.

Just need to look at the western world and chronic problems affecting health and threatening to burst the medical systems in many countries ….
We are with food where we were with tabbacco in mid 80’s & 90,s

And funnily enough the main players in food now are …. Yup the former tabbacoo companies

???? Is there any evidence for this rather outlandish claim?

It’s now the biggest killer world wide overtaking tobacco

Paul

 

[sauer]

Plenty evidence read Dr Chris Van Tulkens book ultra processed people

 

[Apthorpe]

Plenty evidence read Dr Chris Van Tulkens book ultra processed people

THe book whose cover photo is a loaf of brown bread (as I'd indicated)? And you think that book contains plenty of evidence of how the food industry is now controlled by tobacco companies? I'll bet you the price of the book that it doesn't.

 

[sauer]

You believe what you want to

As will I

Neither of us will agree with the other

So it’s pointless continuing back n forth

I’ve read the book , I’ve read other sources …. I accepted what I’ve read and what I see
You don’t … your right to do so

Paul

 

[User00056]

Nothing at all wrong with it if you take it for what it is - high in sugar, salt, and pretty much of limited nutritional value. Having said that, where's the harm now and again? The man who can convince anyone that a double sausage and egg McMuffin with a coffee isn't worthy of guilty pleasure status is no true friend of mankind

 

[Taff]

As the saying goes “ if bacon was bad for you it would not taste so good”

 

[GlennUK]

Do. They can only confirm what I wrote. UPF include any food cintaining malt. The other examples, I think I drew from the British Heart Foundation or similar reputable source.

Can you link to the BHF where it indicates that anything containing malt/ bread is a UPF as i cant find it?

The typical definition is food that is produced by industrial processes that cannot be reproduced in a domestic setting. That doesn't for example necessarily include bread, beer or many of the other food stuffs you have previously suggested.

???? Is there any evidence for this rather outlandish claim?

If you referring to the fact that there are sigifnciant and icnreaisng concerns over the consumption of UPFs then there is plenty, BHF to studies.

As to the tobacco companies, i have no idea, however, if not being controlled by a tobacco company makes the people manufacturing UPFs makes them 'better' in your eyes, go for it.

 

[GlennUK]

Nothing at all wrong with it if you take it for what it is - high in sugar, salt, and pretty much of limited nutritional value. Having said that, where's the harm now and again? The man who can convince anyone that a double sausage and egg McMuffin with a coffee isn't worthy of guilty pleasure status is no true friend of mankind

I agree, i have this saying, all things in moderation, including moderation itself.

In moderation UPFs/fast food is not harmful, as some other poster stated, over consumption of anything can be harmful.

The fact that UPFs are often associated with 'recipes' specifically intended to induce over consumption doesn't help either.

 

[Dazb1967]

Plenty evidence read Dr Chris Van Tulkens book ultra processed people

Books are like newspapers, They put a content in that will make them sell, I'm sure Dr Chris whatever is making plenty money from his book, For the record I do think UPF's are bad but yes I do eat them occasionally, my late Mother told me many years ago, Son don't believe everything you read.
Have you read about Lead bullets being bad, It's been proven and written about by medical experts so it must be true yet people still don't believe it

 

[Apthorpe]

Can you link to the BHF where it indicates that anything containing malt/ bread is a UPF as i cant find it?

I'm not your personal bibliography service. If the NHF didn't publish it another reputable British heart charity did, as I said. The underlying point is well-established fact. (On checking, it was HeartUK. The BHF does also make the point that UPFs are not universally bad,)

The typical definition is food that is produced by industrial processes that cannot be reproduced in a domestic setting. That doesn't for example necessarily include bread, beer or many of the other food stuffs you have previously suggested.

That's somewhat pedantic when the reality is that, in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases they do contain UPFs because the overwhelming majority of people buy their food from shops rather than running a vertically-integrated personal farm-to-table operation.
The point I had made about UPFs is that they are an arbitrary classification of foods which are not necessarily harmful. Some are the most horrid, harmful junk, but others are perfectly innocuous, or even rather healthy staples. Having grouped those together, the term is then used politically to argue for regulation (as your preferred author did). The effect is to apparently increase the proportion of food deemed harmful, without reference to actual nutritional value or health consequences. It is pseudo-scientific propaganda. Alarmist headlines are produced by studies where the participants are directly economically incentivised to produce sensationalism (.e.g van Tulleken) or have a vested interest in reaching that conclusion .

If you referring to the fact that there are sigifnciant and icnreaisng concerns over the consumption of UPFs then there is plenty, BHF to studies.

I'm not. It is abundantly clear from the context and the specific sentence that comment addressed that I wasn't.

The question there was the truthfulness of the extraordinary sounding claim I had questioned. Having just checked a copy of the book this morning, it does appear to be untrue.

 

[Apthorpe]

Why we might never know the truth about ultra-processed foods

Experts can’t agree how exactly they affect us and it’s not clear that science will give us an answer.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some readers might find this useful background.

 

[GlennUK]

Why we might never know the truth about ultra-processed foods

Experts can’t agree how exactly they affect us and it’s not clear that science will give us an answer.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some readers might find this useful background.

It is interesting since it includes both the concerns and the arguments against.

It also highlights the difficulties in getting absolute proof, in the same way that not all smokers die of lung cancer or heart disease, the reader should be cautious about deciding what and how they eat despite there being no absolutes proof.

As an observation, the commercial producers of food, whether produced organically or industrially, are doing it to make money, typically for shareholders when it comes to industrial food production.

Having seen the manner in which industrial corporations behave (thinking tobacco, diesel cars, pharmaceutical industries, etc) why should we think the food industry is any different?

Is there any evidence that the food industry holds itself to higher moral or ethical standards than other corporations?

You could ask if there is evidence they are not better, and that would be a fair point.

Its a matter of personal choice whether one chooses to believe they are or not.

 

[Apthorpe]

It is interesting since it includes both the concerns and the arguments against.

It also highlights the difficulties in getting absolute proof, in the same way that not all smokers die of lung cancer or heart disease, the reader should be cautious about deciding what and how they eat despite there being no absolutes proof.

Absolute proof is a red herring. And the analogy with smoking doesn't hold up. You could make a more accurate analogy along these lines. UPFs are like corner shops. Corner shops are seriously harmful and the people running them are morally inferior, acting unethically and unduly interested in money. This is because corner shops sell things like cigarettes, and alcohol, which are potentially very harmful. Worse still, corner shops account for a large percentage of neighbourhood purchases so this makes the prevalence of these shops a major public health crisis.

As an observation, the commercial producers of food, whether produced organically or industrially, are doing it to make money, typically for shareholders when it comes to industrial food production.

But that observation applies to every working human in history - including you. The ethical difference, if you want to look at it in ethical terms, is that the commercial producers of food are making one of the fundamental essentials of life available to people in abundance and at low prices and only making any money at all because of the voluntary choices of each person who eats it. You don't get more fundamentally benign than that. If they weren't doing that, then everyone would have to be a peasant again and 80% of them wouldn't even exist.

Having seen the manner in which industrial corporations behave (thinking tobacco, diesel cars, pharmaceutical industries, etc) why should we think the food industry is any different?

That is taking an extremely biased view of the way in which industrial corporations behave. If one fixates on the occasional scandal and denies the context, then inevitably one is going to end up with a pretty silly opinion. Pharmaceutical industries are, in fact, a colossal net benefit to society. The same applies to the provision of the diesel engine, arguably a contender for the single most beneficial item of technology.

Is there any evidence that the food industry holds itself to higher moral or ethical standards than other corporations?

I'd ask whether the totality of the evidence available provides sufficient support to contend that there is anything much wrong with the behavioural standards of the industries you're ideologically negative about.

You could ask if there is evidence they are not better, and that would be a fair point.

Its a matter of personal choice whether one chooses to believe they are or not.

Yes, but that is a defence of the right to deliberate stupidity. It is a matter of personal choice and it is also a matter that has the potential to damage everybody's quality of life if increasing proportions of people are choosing to. Society cannot function properly or progress if being wrong is equivalent to being right. People have a right to their own opinions, but they also have a responsibility to try to get it right.

 

[GlennUK]

Absolute proof is a red herring. And the analogy with smoking doesn't hold up. You could make a more accurate analogy along these lines. UPFs are like corner shops. Corner shops are seriously harmful and the people running them are morally inferior, acting unethically and unduly interested in money. This is because corner shops sell things like cigarettes, and alcohol, which are potentially very harmful. Worse still, corner shops account for a large percentage of neighbourhood purchases so this makes the prevalence of these shops a major public health crisis.

But that observation applies to every working human in history - including you. The ethical difference, if you want to look at it in ethical terms, is that the commercial producers of food are making one of the fundamental essentials of life available to people in abundance and at low prices and only making any money at all because of the voluntary choices of each person who eats it. You don't get more fundamentally benign than that. If they weren't doing that, then everyone would have to be a peasant again and 80% of them wouldn't even exist.

That is taking an extremely biased view of the way in which industrial corporations behave. If one fixates on the occasional scandal and denies the context, then inevitably one is going to end up with a pretty silly opinion. Pharmaceutical industries are, in fact, a colossal net benefit to society. The same applies to the provision of the diesel engine, arguably a contender for the single most beneficial item of technology.

I'd ask whether the totality of the evidence available provides sufficient support to contend that there is anything much wrong with the behavioural standards of the industries you're ideologically negative about.

Yes, but that is a defence of the right to deliberate stupidity. It is a matter of personal choice and it is also a matter that has the potential to damage everybody's quality of life if increasing proportions of people are choosing to. Society cannot function properly or progress if being wrong is equivalent to being right. People have a right to their own opinions, but they also have a responsibility to try to get it right.

Whatever, whether you like my analogy or not it matters not.

With regards to my observation about corporate entities, i am unsure why you would take any issue with that at all, factually it is correct, nothing more.

You think its extreme to ask the question about the ethics of corporate entities, seems like an odd thing to take issue with, but if i had said all corporate entities are morally bankrupt you'd have a point, i didn't but gave examples (there's that word again) of some industries which have had their share of scandals.

Im not ideologically negative about any particular industry, recognising that some companies (in some cases many companies within a particular industry) have behaved in a morally reprehensible fashion, is not demonstrating any particular ideology. Unless that is, being ideologically against the kind of practices some of those companies have engaged in, is being ideologically negative.

Asking whether there is evidence one way or the other is not deliberate stupidity. On the other hand not asking if there is evidence and simply believing something is so in the absence of any evidence either way, is stupidity.