Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Sometimes state intervention is intentionally absent these days..
More reasons not to support McDonald’s.
- Thread starter big ears
- Start date
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
About that, 35 minutes in and onward.
Interesting to note the geographical and temporal overlaps with people not exposed to such routine levels of chemical and medicinal interventions in what are later foodstuffs either for humans or animals which we eat, and when the problems seeem to have began in our times; for a "non-residual compound" to have its constituent parts found in the groundwater (- as it has been in eg Denmark decades ago) might be problematic to the health of people, if this fellow's hypothesis holds water. Precautionary principle? Not so much.
Where did i mention state intervention?
With respect to choice, choice is a funny thing. There are times when we have no effective choice, whether that's because the market is restricted in some manner (e.g. supermarkets restricting what goes on their shelves based on profit as opposed to health), or because the individual has some form of illness ('addiction') to a particular substance.
With regards to the foods in question here, the evidence is pointing to the fact that it is addictive and specifically manufactured to be so. This is in the same way that manufacturers of vapes, introduce flavours particular attractive to young people, and package them accordingly.
The corporate entities are only interested in making money, whilst it is currently lawful at least with regards to UPF, there is a genuine question over whether it should be imho.
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive. Sugar and food aren't, as the (non-expert) author of your link directly quotes. "“In humans, there is no evidence that a specific food, food ingredient or food additive causes a substance-based type of addiction".4. Ultraprocessed Food Is the Cause of NCDs
Rather, the quality of the food is the cause. Ultraprocessed food, defined as industrial formulations typically with 5 or more ingredients [24], is the category of food that drives NCDs [25], such as obesity [26,27], diabetes [28], heart disease [29], and cancer [30]. In particular, added sugar (i.e., any fructose-containing sweetener; sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, maple syrup, honey, agave) is the prevalent, insidious, and egregious component of ultraprocessed food that drives that risk.
In this article, using scientific and legal evidence, I will elaborate three related arguments. First, I will demonstrate that ultraprocessed food is addictive because of the sugar that is added to it, and that the food industry specifically adds sugar because of its addictive properties. Second, I will highlight the specific mechanisms by which sugar is toxic to the liver, which leads to NCDs. Lastly, I will argue that added sugar is more appropriately defined as a food additive rather than as a food. In so doing, I will argue that added sugar, and by extension the entire ultraprocessed food category, meets these criteria established by the public health community for regulation of a substance (abuse, toxicity, ubiquity, externalities) [9]. [my emphasis].
from here, i am sure there are others around
Ultraprocessed Food: Addictive, Toxic, and Ready for Regulation - PMC
Past public health crises (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, opioids, cholera, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), lead, pollution, venereal disease, even coronavirus (COVID-19) have been met with interventions targeted both at the individual and all of ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Next youl'l tell me that cigarettes and alcohol are not addictive either!
Sugar has been quoted as 6x more addictive than Cocaine
BBC documentary on sugar with DR Michael Mosley few years back
I would say food or maybe the ingredients are definately addictive
Otherwise we wouldn’t have issues that we have now ….. the studies by likes of Dr Chris Van Tulken and in his book now say that UPF’s are engineered to have you wanting more …. That they for example don’t trigger the body’s response to say you’re full .
Paul
BBC documentary on sugar with DR Michael Mosley few years back
I would say food or maybe the ingredients are definately addictive
Otherwise we wouldn’t have issues that we have now ….. the studies by likes of Dr Chris Van Tulken and in his book now say that UPF’s are engineered to have you wanting more …. That they for example don’t trigger the body’s response to say you’re full .
Paul
Out of curiosity what's your expertise in this field and how does that contrast to the Author's ('non-expert') opinions along with his other 16 pages of articles referenced on the NLH?
And when you quote, its important to note that the authors 'own words' you quote, are in fact a quote from NueroFAST, not Lustig, and this is the preceding paragraph which makes that very clear
"However, not everyone subscribes to this expanded view of specific foods having addicting properties. For instance, a group of academics in Europe called NeuroFAST does not accept the concept of food addiction, rather calling it “eating addiction” [46]. This group has proffered its own “eating addiction scale” in which all foods are treated similarly [47], and it is the behavior that distinguishes the phenomenon. These investigators state that even though specific foods can generate a reward signal, they cannot be addicting because they are essential to survival. In their own words:" [my emphasis]
If someone says an apple is not an orange, he does not need to be an orange in order for the statement to be correct. The author is a paediatric endocrinologist - an expert in childhood hormones, and public health campaigner - and quite an eminent one. He is not an expert in either addiction, nor a neuropharmacologist. This is a matter of record. As it happens, in other studies he states that sugar is not addictive.
"Sugar addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal, has been demonstrated in rodents but not humans."
Garber AK, Lustig RH. Is fast food addictive? Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011 Sep;4(3):146-62. doi: 10.2174/1874473711104030146. PMID: 21999689.Your objection here is based on you having invented something I didn't say. I didn't say that the author himself had written that; I said that " author of your link directly quotes....". Which is correct. NeuroFAST was a mainly EU funded programme of study by people who actually are experts, in the opinion of Lustig. Why else would he have quoted them?
All of which reinforces the point I made. I have some difficulty seeing why you object to my use of words which you selected, although I can see that it is awkward that they negate your argument.
My objection is the fact that you tried to imply something, and set out a quote which was included in the article but was a quote of a 3rd party you didn't make that clear. The author i quoted acknowledged but disagreed with which you failed to point out.
Your characterisation of the author as a 'non-expert' is disingenuous, when you looked at this published work you will no doubt have seen that he is published extensively on obesity/processed food and effects of sugar, and those papers are widely referenced.
If there were no opinions being expressed about UPF and their potential to be addictive you'd have a point, a quick google reveals many articles (scholarly and otherwise) that support the notion that UPF are addictive The BMJ for example Social, clinical, and policy implications of ultra-processed food addiction
If you had said that there is debate over whether UPF is manufactured to create addiction i could have gone with that, as it is you have tried, unsuccessfully, infer that there is no reasonable body of opinion that finds that the way that such foods are manufactured gives rise to addiction on those consuming it.
FWIW its unsurprising that "Sugar addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal, has been demonstrated in rodents but not humans" it is not uncommon for researchers to refuse to conduct experiments on humans that may give rise to harm for no obvious benefits, whereas society generally has no such qualms about conducting experiments on other creatures. i.e. it wont be provided in the same way that is was in the lab for mice.
.
Attachments
I did make it clear. The words I used were "the author of your link directly quotes...". I specifically used the word "quotes" and your objection is that you think I did not use that word. I recommend you check back. Further, the author may or may not have disagreed; so far as I can see, the fact is that he did not opine on the validity of their research. Which is perhaps not surprising, since he has written the same thing himself elsewhere. You really do not have a valid objection here.
It is not disingenuous in the slightest. As you say, he has published extensively on obesity and processed food, but not on addiction or pharmacology. Your argument is that an expert in field A is an expert in a different field B. Not only that, but that his expertise is greater than that of those who are experts in field B. This is not valid and is obviously unreasonable. It is also spurious to imply that extensive publication, or numbers of citations, is a yardstick of quality. There have been numerous plausible criticisms of that type of measure and incentive system, including by scientists themselves.
By the same token, you'd have a good argument for claiming that the world is flat, the moon landings were faked and copious other retrograde, wrong or evil ideas etc etc. Supporting a notion is not equivalent, nor even a step on the path, to something being factual or even any good evidence for it existing.
It is also not uncommon for rodents to differ from humans physiologically and psychologically. You cannot draw any further inference from that sentence other than that sugar addiction has not been demonstrated in humans, nor extrapolate unfounded conclusions.
I think we ought to address the apparent situation which is that reflexively you have decided to object to a perfectly reasonable comment I made, which reflects an established scientific consensus. It is actually your opinion that sugar or processed food is addictive, and the problems arise because the document you have subsequently sought out and selected to support your hypothesis not only doesn't really support it, but contains confirmation of what I wrote. Worse, but that the same author has also written to the same effect elsewhere. Sugar is not an addictive drug. Ethanol is, nicotine is, caffeine is, prescription opioids are, heroin is etc. They have all been scientifically demonstrated to be addictive. Sugar and food have not.
Thanks for your reply, the point remains that the assertion that UPF is addictive is not my assertion alone, but that of many authors in the field. The article posted was an example, of not a few but many readily available on the internet.
As i pointed out a simple google search reveals the same being views expressed by many authors, in reputable scientific and medical journals.
I have to really laugh about your assertion re mice being different as the reason why there is no evidence of sugar addiction in humans, as opposed to the ethical issues of getting such data in a lab.
As I previously said if you argued its a matter for debate you'd have a point.
Its not hard, to agree that the matter is not settled, but that there is a significant body of evidence which suggests that UPF is addictive.
The McRib is back on sale Wednesday October 16th for a limited time for those that miss them.
Quite refreshing to see a fast food drive through chain with pork on the menu, think McDonalds is the only one.
Quite refreshing to see a fast food drive through chain with pork on the menu, think McDonalds is the only one.
or if you do, just not all the time
People vilify McDonalds, alchohol, chocolate, fizzy drinks…..it’s all to do with will power and self control, some people have very little.
McDonald’s is an excellent time saving option, you just shouldn’t be eating it as a staple diet, but then, if you ate the finest Kobe steak constantly it would be bad for you, or anything else in huge amounts without having a varied, balanced diet.
As for taste - many of the McDonalds items taste fantastic to me - nothing wrong with the flavour at all.
People really need to start being accountable for their own actions and decisions and lifestyles, any time I have been in court listening to some ned that’s been caught for the umpteenth time it always amazed me how many of their briefs used the phrase “my client is a victim of circumstance”….no, your client is a c*nt….plain and simple, and many people just don’t take responsibility for their own actions.
Regards,
Gixer
McDonald’s is an excellent time saving option, you just shouldn’t be eating it as a staple diet, but then, if you ate the finest Kobe steak constantly it would be bad for you, or anything else in huge amounts without having a varied, balanced diet.
As for taste - many of the McDonalds items taste fantastic to me - nothing wrong with the flavour at all.
People really need to start being accountable for their own actions and decisions and lifestyles, any time I have been in court listening to some ned that’s been caught for the umpteenth time it always amazed me how many of their briefs used the phrase “my client is a victim of circumstance”….no, your client is a c*nt….plain and simple, and many people just don’t take responsibility for their own actions.
Regards,
Gixer
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
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
Similar threads
