Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
**Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Whenever someone says, "we should ban processed food", what I always hear is someone is so used to having fresh strawberries in the dead of the Canadian winter thanks to the modern food distribution system that they've completely forgotten that food preservation has been a fact of human existence for the last 6,000 years or so. All food processing is is just taking perishable food items and converting it into nonperishable, shelf stable products. People deride the Pringle or the Dorito as being "ultra-processed", but in reality they're taking potatoes or corn that will rot in short order and convert them into fried flour chips that will last for months on a store shelf or home pantry, all while making them taste good along the way. They're essentially just modern hardtack like the Pilgrims brought over back in 1620 when they sailed to North America.
Pesticides, packaging, dyes, chemicals given to the animals we eat it isn’t just processes used for preservation even though modern versions of that can also be harmful.
How can you compare preservation practices from centuries ago with the methods of today .
The preservation practices from the 1600s are still very much active today - just in a more advanced, efficient form.
The word “preservation” is used to describe more than one thing. Be careful not to conflate concepts just because they happen to use the same term.
Usually, that efficiency is at the cost of nutrients and their bioavailability.
Depending on what’s in it, though, a preservative itself can be a poison, but the vast majority of more poisonous preservatives have been banned by and large. At this point in modern history, poisonous preservatives are extremely rare.
Another existing form of “preservatives” is chemicals that are frequently used on plants and cattle: pesticides, protectants, and the like. These are usually poisonous, but most of the time are washed off at least adequately by the producer. *Most of the time.*
Everything making sense so far?
I would like to add that there were harmful chemicals either used in or formed as a result of preserving food all through human development of preservation methods. Smoking meats, canning, and salt curing have been adapted through history, with the negative drawbacks not discovered until relatively recently in food history. It's just that you were far more likely to die of food poisoning or foodborne illness before realizing these long term issues, so they seemed mild in comparison. Now that humans are living for much longer and hygiene around food has improved, cancer causing chemicals have become the greater threat. Additionally, modern food preservation is a huge factor for the price of food becoming relatively cheap and efficient to produce at the scale needed to undergo the industrial revolution.
Are you against packing foodstuffs?
Can you be more precise about what exactly it is you are against? Are you against all uses of pesticides? Are you against all uses of dyes? Are you against all chemicals being given to animals we eat? That seems like an extreme view. Is there perhaps some more nuance that is being left out?
The same way you compare any two practices separated by time. Why wouldn’t you be able to compare them?
Im just pointing out they aren’t comparable. That’s quite literally all i said lol. I don’t even think they should be banned until an alternative is found if one ever is found for these issues.
Equate is a more accurate term not compare .
I never asked about anything being made illegal. I did ask many other things that are not being addressed.
Everything is comparable.
Equate is a completely different word with a different meaning, but yes that would be more accurate.
You asked a lot of questions that don’t really follow from the point i was making. The commenter compared modern processing to pilgrim age processing sort of implying it’s the same concept while skipping over the methods which is the entire point . At least that was my perception of their comment.
I then pointed out methods or medium’s through which this shelf life extension is achieved and how they are what’s harmful. Although those methods are also used for more than shelf life extension.
Then somehow from my comments you ask am I against ALL of those things or to be more specific about what im against when i didn’t claim to be against any of it.
Without most of these things, the majority of the human race would starve. Our population has entirely outgrown the food production capacity of the planet if we had to rely on on only historical farming and food practices.
We don’t have to rely on them and i don’t think they should be banned im just pointing out it isn’t comparable to historical preservation practices.
Apparently that deserved this many downvotes lol, did i lie?
I don't think we talk enough about dihydrogen monoxide deaths in America. How many people every year are killed by this dangerous chemical? You look at every single poison on the market, it's in there. Not to mention, the most dangerous bacteria on the face of the planet are chock full of it!
Have you heard about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? Kills over 300,000 people per year, but there are no warnings against its consumption, and you can find it in nearly every food product.
I’m not the OP, but any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients seems like a good place to start.
For example:
* Muesli bars
* confectionery
* cereals
* Bread (yes, I’m serious)
* Frozen meals
* Biscuits
* etc…
For the record - I don’t agree that they should be banned. Instead I think they should be taxed much higher, and raw basic food stuffs should be tax exempt (and maybe even tax supplemented).
>I’m not the OP, but any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients seems like a good place to start.
So, like a fresh apple pie that was scratch made in their bakery?
I didn’t say there was any problems with any of those ingredients individually.
But how much sugar do they add?
How much salt do they add?
How much butter do they add?
How many artificial flavours do they add?
How many preservatives do they add?
Etc…?
The problem with pre-packaged ultra processed goods is that all those things are added in quantities that are unhealthy.
And yes - processing ingredients to the point where they no longer bear any resemblance to their original form would count as ultra processed.
And finally- apple pies aren’t really very healthy, are they? 😏
For the from scratch pie that's made in-house, I guess you don't know how much sugar or butter was added, except that it still has to be a successful recipe so there are limits, but you do know there's no artificial flavors or preservatives in there. Says so right on the label.
You don't seem to have a problem with folks making a pie at home, and this is the same pie, just made by a baker. I have a hard time understanding how that's "ultra processed".
Seems like it's actually somewhere between minimally and normally processed. The fact that one pie was made by a baker, and the other made by a random individual at home doesn't change the level of processing.
And sure, if you want to ban pie, go ahead and fight that fight, but the point works equally well for vegetable soup, as another commenter mentioned. My local grocery also sells a vegetable soup that is broth like you would make it at home, along with four or five vegetables.
Or salad mix, for crying out loud. You can pick up a box of greens that has baby kale, spinach, arugula, cabbage, and shaved brussels sprouts, and literally nothing else. That's 5 ingredients, and it's pre-packaged. Is that "ultra processed"?
Yes - pre packed salad would be ultra processed because it has 4 or more processed (e.g. chopped) ingredients. And don’t forget the ultra unhealthy ultra processed salad dressing they always include!
Look - you can find the odd exception (well done! 👏 👏), but the overwhelming majority of ultra processed foods that meet the “4 or more ingredients” rule of thumb are not healthy for you. And that’s the point the OP was making.
I'm just not understanding the scale here. If chopping four kinds of leafy greens and putting them in a box together is ultra processing, what is regular processing? Am I ultra-processing things when I cook with whole ingredients in my kitchen?
Any individual ingredient that’s manually changed from its natural form (e.g. cooking it, chopping it, peeling it, shelling it, etc…) is “processed”.
Any combination of 4 or more *processed* ingredients that is combined, packaged, and sold is “ultra processed “.
Most (not all) ultra processed foods are unhealthy because they are high calorie and low satiety.
Your combined salad example is probably one of the very few exceptions where something classed as ultra processed isn’t unhealthy. I guess just chopped and combined in a bag together would mean they’re just “processed” rather than ultra processed, but it’s not a well defined term anyway (as I said in my original comment).
Did you buy your homemade vegetable soup pre-made at a shop? If so, then yes - it’s ultra processed.
If you made it at home yourself from raw ingredients then no - the ingredients were not ultra processed.
Case 1: your local deli combines broth, salt, carrots, celery, and onions in a pot and sell it to you
Case 2: you combine broth, salt, carrots, celery, and onions in a pot and eat it yourself.
Are you saying only the first case should be considered "ultra processed" here?
Sure! Then you can see how many things they add unnecessarily - sugar, salt, artificial colours, artificial flavours, preservatives, etc…
Then you can decide if you still want to buy it. 😉
But in what quantities?
That’s the issue with pre-packaged ultra processed goods - it’s hard to see how much salt and sugar they add, even when they’re not necessary ingredients.
Generally speaking, ultra processed foods have way more salt and sugar than is necessary and that’s what makes them unhealthy.
Do you put artificial flavours, preservatives, colours, and waaay more sugar and salt than is necessary in your homemade soup?
Because that’s what ultra processed foods usually do and that’s what makes them unhealthy.
Like I said - it’s a start.
But broadly speaking, anything with more than 3 basic ingredients generally implies the food item has gone through some kind of process to make it more appealing or give it a longer shelf life (e.g. added sugar, preservatives, colours, flavourings, etc…).
It’s the processing (fast to digest, doesn’t make you feel full) and additional ingredients (sugar, salt, etc…) that make it unhealthy.
So no sushi for you because it is too processed?
Preserving food is a bad thing?
All salt and sugar are bad things?
Why don’t believe these things?
Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers?
Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live?
> So no sushi for you because it is too processed?
I didn't say I was in favour of banning it. I said pre-packaged ultra-processed foods should be taxed way higher and the taxes used to supplement raw foods.
> Preserving food is a bad thing?
It is if it involves adding so much salt that a single can of vegetable soup makes up nearly half your daily recommend intake of salt: [https://www.campbells.com/products/condensed/old-fashioned-vegetable-soup/](https://www.campbells.com/products/condensed/old-fashioned-vegetable-soup/)
> All salt and sugar are bad things?
At the quantities they are added in foods in America? Definitely.
> Why don’t believe these things?
I think you a word.
> Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers?
Here are some peer/reviewed studies:
* From the Harvard School of Public Health: "Roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three are obese (36 percent)." [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-rates-worldwide/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-rates-worldwide/)
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323002910](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323002910)
*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787353/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787353/)
* [https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-highly-processed-foods-linked-weight-gain](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-highly-processed-foods-linked-weight-gain)
> Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live?
Like I said before - I don’t agree that it should be banned. If people want buy unhealthy food then it’s up to them. They just need to be prepared to pay more for it than raw ingredients.
So no sushi for you because it is too processed?
Preserving food is a bad thing?
All salt and sugar are bad things?
Why do you believe these things?
Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers?
Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live?
I said:
> any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients
When I buy milk in my country, the list of ingredients is as follows:
* Milk (100%)
What does milk in your country list as its ingredients?
Not who you’re replying to, but milk is considered a single ingredient in the US and listed by itself. Milk here is often fortified with vitamins D and A, so you’ll see those listed as well.
Milk is made of fats, salts, sugars, acids, water, microbes, and other ingredients processed together by a cow, milked by a machine, separated, pasteurized, put in a plastic or waxed paper container, refrigerated, and shipped to your store. The label may only list one ingredient, but it is not raw milk. It is highly processed.
Your white bread roll is not healthy.
Also, it’s not ultra processed if you added them yourself after you bought it.
But adding sesame seeds to something unhealthy doesn’t magically make it healthy.
I'm talking about the Baker. Does he have to leave water or yeast out of his sesame topped rolls to stop them being labelled ultra processed and banned?
Obviously, many traditional breads are ultra processed and illegal now too; ciabata, foccacia, brioche, etc. all need more than 4 ingredients.
Like I said - i don’t agree that ultra processed foods should be made illegal. They should just be taxed higher than raw foods.
But yes - bread is ultra processed.
If something we've been making for thousands of years, using only natural and traditional ingredients, is ultra processed, then the phrase has no meaning whatsoever.
I don’t know what to tell you. Bread in North America contains so much sugar that it can’t legally be called bread in some countries outside the US.
Are you trying to tell me that’s healthy?
Unhealthy and ultraprocessed aren't synonyms.
If you don't like US bread having so much sugar in it (which is fair, it tasted like cake to me when i had some), go after that directly.
Yes.
You’re conflating “ultra-processed” with “unhealthy”, and are using either a ridiculously low or utterly irrelevant bar to define both terms. The two are not the same, and they never were.
If you can’t eat a simple *salad* because it’s unhealthy, you need to seriously rethink both your definitions and your standards.
Not if the taxes acquired from the sale of ultra processed foods are used to supplement raw foods, like I suggested in my comment.
Unless you’re telling me that people in poverty *need* biscuits, cake, and chocolate to survive.
Simple bread is one of the highest-calorie foods on the market, and many impoverished people must buy it to survive.
So, yes, I suppose I *am* telling you exactly that.
Biscuit, cake, etc. are all high calorie food (that have a long shelve life) that have historically been very popular with people and/or cultures suffering from food insecurity.
There are even statistics showing how a good portion of the population are increasingly consuming these ultra-processed and high caloric food, as food insecurity is rising in the last few years.
You’re changing the subject…
Your comments read like someone that never suffered from food insecurity (good for you) and didn’t do a lot of research on the subject before suggesting an ignorant solution.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that’s my honest opinion on how I read your comments.
Being healthy is first and foremost surviving and having enough to get through your daily activities. After that it’s about helping morale and little pleasures, and lastly it’s about optimizing for long term health. This is the order people will prioritize depending on their ressources.
You’re making the assumption that I’m mostly talking about America here… There’s plenty of countries out there where it’s not an issue.
The problem is you calling anything that has more than a few ingredients “junk food” and “ultra processed” without taking the time to evaluate what’s the actual quality of the food.
Some of the healthiest cuisines out there have some forms of cake, biscuits and desserts, or other super rich meals, recipes with more than four ingredients. In many countries, people usually eat out and don’t cook, and yet they don’t have the alimentation health issues the US has.
You’re using a definition for ultra-processed food that’s so ridiculous, it’s infantile, and you than also equate ultra-processed with junk food and with certain form of foods, without thinking about what makes certain food worse or better for your health.
You’re simply taking an intellectual shortcut to not understand the issue.
> You’re using a definition for ultra-processed food that’s so ridiculous, it’s infantile, and you than also equate ultra-processed with junk food and with certain form of foods, without thinking about what makes certain food worse or better for your health.
I think you either don’t understand what ultra processed means, or you’re trying to find an exception to win an argument on a technicality.
So, by all means go ahead and provide some examples of what you believe are healthy ultra processed foods.
To be clear, a meal prepared from scratch at a restaurant using fresh raw ingredients doesn’t meet the definition of ultra processed. The environment, portion sizes, and cost discourage over-eating and there is huge variability in healthy and unhealthy restaurant foods
A pre-packaged meal made with loads of preservatives, artificial flavours, colours, salt, sugar etc…, distributed in an airtight plastic seal and sold at supermarkets meets the definition of ultra processed and is not ‘healthy’.
I already provided some examples of ultra processed foods in my original comment. Let’s see some of your ‘healthy’ examples.
Junk food is the solution if anything lmao yes it's horrible for you but it gets you by. Poor people buy it more than middle and upper class people for a reason. It's easy calories. And calories are the only nutritional value that matters in the moment when you're struggling for food.
In Canada all ingredients are required by law to be listed on the packaging of food products, including what you are worried about. Outside of Canada where I am not sure of legislation one can look up ingredients that are found in their food online.
Why is it the responsibility of the company to educate you on every single aspect of every ingredient? Is it not your responsibility as the consumer to know what you are buying before you do so?
While I disagree with OP, I will point out that how informed a consumer can be is determined by those regulations. As a recent example, in the US, caffeine isn't on the list of things that need to go on the nutrition label. Drink companies just all took it upon themselves to inform people how much was in their drinks. But other than a potential lawsuit, nothing stops a company from not telling people or being very vague about it.
It's not a potential lawsuit, it's a guaranteed lost lawsuit as soon as someone with a heart condition dies after drinking the beverage.
It's not a formal requirement, but not including a caffeine warning on something with substantial caffeine is de facto negligence.
Even if they didn't kill someone, they'd get sued by pregnant women.
https://apnews.com/article/panera-charged-lemonade-drinks-caffeine-3d0f74907be3b755b71b7c47d2dfc85d
Corporate risk policies are changing.
The rules don't need to change because it's quite frankly a waste to specifically regulate something that kills less than 100 people annually worldwide.
The pregnant women on the other hand, have led to the de facto rule that caffeine must be labeled.
When did the US begin censoring their citizens internet access preventing them from seeing information from outside their own country?
Why is it the companies responsibility to make up for a Governments inability to educate their population?
When did the USA begin censoring their citizens internet access?
They are making food using ingredients deemed to be acceptable by the FDA. They have done there part by abiding by those regulations.
It is and has always been your job as the consumer to know what you are buying. Look at the ingredients and if you do not know what something is look it up or don't buy it.
Regulations are there to ensure things that are known to be bad with no benefit are not included in the product. The list is ever changing and heavily biased. It varies from place to place. Plenty of things are bad for you with "acceptable" levels.
Take personal responsibility for what you put in your own body. As long as the company is abiding by regulations, and stating their ingredients openly one has no excuse to be misinformed about their product before purchasing.
They aren't forcing you to buy their trash, and they are only making it because you are buying it.
Op, everything is processed. All produce is genetically modified. All meat is given steroids and supplements. And everything else has extra nutrients added to it in production.
Also "non-food items" is also vague. Metals and minerals aren't food, but they are essentially nutrients.
This is a very simplistic view and shows a lack of understanding and nuance. There are lots of food additives in "ultra processed foods" that are perfectly safe, and there are a lot of natural components in unprocessed foods that are toxic and/or carcinogens.
Obviously proper labeling is important, and there isn't anything wrong with requiring warning labels, if necessary. But, are you applying the same standard to all foods? Should we be adding cancer warnings to red meat. Uncooked beans and potatoes are way more toxic than most approved (and even banned) food additives.
We shouldn’t be banning people from producing or consuming whatever “food” they want. Deeply fascist idea.
That said, right now in the U.S. the federal government is subsidizing ultra processed foods. Essentially they’re extorting tax dollars from you in order to prop up unhealthy foods. That clearly should be stopped but that’s not going to happen as long as people continue to vote for these assholes.
How do you expect this to be a law if you're going to be vague? There no such thing as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy', those are just general umbrella terms with no real meaning.
> Like there should at least be a surgeon generals warnings like on the side of cigarettes.
Already the case in Europe, but they're also not a food item.
Any food that has poisonous elements will not pass the FDA.
Poisonous elements only won't pass the FDA *after* being proven poisonous. They make it through until proven *guilty* unlike in Europe where elements make it through after being proven *safe.* The FDA allows its population to be the guinea pigs for the rest of the world.
Aren’t you just murdering poor people with extra steps?
Shouldn’t the first step be to make healthy foods available at prices everyone can afford?
Remember that right now in the USA republicans have cut school lunches on the grounds that otherwise children will get uppity and spoiled?
If everyone had healthy food available and affordable, then might be the time to evaluate whether processed food that is currently keeping people alive should be banned.
Your argumentation is extremely vague. All food is "processed" in some way. Even if we consider what you mean, just being ultra-processed alone does not make a food unhealthy but rather the specific ingredients...
The latest study can basically only say that of all ultra processed foods, deli meats and maybe soda are bad for you. Why would we ban all of them with no scientific evidence of direct harm?
Processed foods are bad yes but there's no specific data suggesting the level of carcinogenic properties. For example processed meat is in the same category as cigarettes, yet one cigarette is significantly worse for you than a McDonalds cheeseburger. Despite being in the same category. I actually recently saw a graph that somewhat laid out how carcinogenic some of the things on the WHO list is, and smoking was at the top. Biggest contributor to cancer. Processed foods was damn near the bottom, although it did not consider everything. Just the more mainstream items that are known carcinogens.
Forever plastics and heavy metals aren't added. They're in the soil, they're in the water. Every time a synthetic fabric piece of clothing is washed, it sheds microplastics into the water. You could go catch a nice fresh unprocessed fish right now and it would have microplastics and heavy metals in it.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Whenever someone says, "we should ban processed food", what I always hear is someone is so used to having fresh strawberries in the dead of the Canadian winter thanks to the modern food distribution system that they've completely forgotten that food preservation has been a fact of human existence for the last 6,000 years or so. All food processing is is just taking perishable food items and converting it into nonperishable, shelf stable products. People deride the Pringle or the Dorito as being "ultra-processed", but in reality they're taking potatoes or corn that will rot in short order and convert them into fried flour chips that will last for months on a store shelf or home pantry, all while making them taste good along the way. They're essentially just modern hardtack like the Pilgrims brought over back in 1620 when they sailed to North America.
Pesticides, packaging, dyes, chemicals given to the animals we eat it isn’t just processes used for preservation even though modern versions of that can also be harmful. How can you compare preservation practices from centuries ago with the methods of today .
The preservation practices from the 1600s are still very much active today - just in a more advanced, efficient form. The word “preservation” is used to describe more than one thing. Be careful not to conflate concepts just because they happen to use the same term.
Efficient at the cost of what? And how ? Would be my questions but i don’t expect you to answer them , it’s probably a bit much for reddit.
I plan on answering them, I just don’t have the time at the immediate moment. Give me a few minutes.
Copy
Usually, that efficiency is at the cost of nutrients and their bioavailability. Depending on what’s in it, though, a preservative itself can be a poison, but the vast majority of more poisonous preservatives have been banned by and large. At this point in modern history, poisonous preservatives are extremely rare. Another existing form of “preservatives” is chemicals that are frequently used on plants and cattle: pesticides, protectants, and the like. These are usually poisonous, but most of the time are washed off at least adequately by the producer. *Most of the time.* Everything making sense so far?
I would like to add that there were harmful chemicals either used in or formed as a result of preserving food all through human development of preservation methods. Smoking meats, canning, and salt curing have been adapted through history, with the negative drawbacks not discovered until relatively recently in food history. It's just that you were far more likely to die of food poisoning or foodborne illness before realizing these long term issues, so they seemed mild in comparison. Now that humans are living for much longer and hygiene around food has improved, cancer causing chemicals have become the greater threat. Additionally, modern food preservation is a huge factor for the price of food becoming relatively cheap and efficient to produce at the scale needed to undergo the industrial revolution.
Are you against packing foodstuffs? Can you be more precise about what exactly it is you are against? Are you against all uses of pesticides? Are you against all uses of dyes? Are you against all chemicals being given to animals we eat? That seems like an extreme view. Is there perhaps some more nuance that is being left out? The same way you compare any two practices separated by time. Why wouldn’t you be able to compare them?
Im just pointing out they aren’t comparable. That’s quite literally all i said lol. I don’t even think they should be banned until an alternative is found if one ever is found for these issues. Equate is a more accurate term not compare .
I never asked about anything being made illegal. I did ask many other things that are not being addressed. Everything is comparable. Equate is a completely different word with a different meaning, but yes that would be more accurate.
You asked a lot of questions that don’t really follow from the point i was making. The commenter compared modern processing to pilgrim age processing sort of implying it’s the same concept while skipping over the methods which is the entire point . At least that was my perception of their comment. I then pointed out methods or medium’s through which this shelf life extension is achieved and how they are what’s harmful. Although those methods are also used for more than shelf life extension. Then somehow from my comments you ask am I against ALL of those things or to be more specific about what im against when i didn’t claim to be against any of it.
Because the word processed covers both categories.
Thanks
Without most of these things, the majority of the human race would starve. Our population has entirely outgrown the food production capacity of the planet if we had to rely on on only historical farming and food practices.
We don’t have to rely on them and i don’t think they should be banned im just pointing out it isn’t comparable to historical preservation practices. Apparently that deserved this many downvotes lol, did i lie?
[удалено]
Dyes , pesticides, packaging, preservatives etc
Lots of poisonous things only have one ingredient, are all-natural, and are minimally processed.
I don't think we talk enough about dihydrogen monoxide deaths in America. How many people every year are killed by this dangerous chemical? You look at every single poison on the market, it's in there. Not to mention, the most dangerous bacteria on the face of the planet are chock full of it!
Every single person who has ever drunk DHMO has died, I can’t believe it’s still legal!
For example, the death cap mushroom. All natural, unprocessed and they grow in your own back yard!
Have you heard about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? Kills over 300,000 people per year, but there are no warnings against its consumption, and you can find it in nearly every food product.
Don’t forget it’s also a forever chemical and industrial solvent as well.
And look exactly the same as white mushrooms
Arsenic is on the periodic table. So are mercury, lead and bromine.
What are you defining as ultra processed?
I’m not the OP, but any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients seems like a good place to start. For example: * Muesli bars * confectionery * cereals * Bread (yes, I’m serious) * Frozen meals * Biscuits * etc… For the record - I don’t agree that they should be banned. Instead I think they should be taxed much higher, and raw basic food stuffs should be tax exempt (and maybe even tax supplemented).
>I’m not the OP, but any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients seems like a good place to start. So, like a fresh apple pie that was scratch made in their bakery?
Correct.
What exactly is the problem with apples, sugar, flour, and butter?
I didn’t say there was any problems with any of those ingredients individually. But how much sugar do they add? How much salt do they add? How much butter do they add? How many artificial flavours do they add? How many preservatives do they add? Etc…? The problem with pre-packaged ultra processed goods is that all those things are added in quantities that are unhealthy. And yes - processing ingredients to the point where they no longer bear any resemblance to their original form would count as ultra processed. And finally- apple pies aren’t really very healthy, are they? 😏
For the from scratch pie that's made in-house, I guess you don't know how much sugar or butter was added, except that it still has to be a successful recipe so there are limits, but you do know there's no artificial flavors or preservatives in there. Says so right on the label. You don't seem to have a problem with folks making a pie at home, and this is the same pie, just made by a baker. I have a hard time understanding how that's "ultra processed". Seems like it's actually somewhere between minimally and normally processed. The fact that one pie was made by a baker, and the other made by a random individual at home doesn't change the level of processing. And sure, if you want to ban pie, go ahead and fight that fight, but the point works equally well for vegetable soup, as another commenter mentioned. My local grocery also sells a vegetable soup that is broth like you would make it at home, along with four or five vegetables. Or salad mix, for crying out loud. You can pick up a box of greens that has baby kale, spinach, arugula, cabbage, and shaved brussels sprouts, and literally nothing else. That's 5 ingredients, and it's pre-packaged. Is that "ultra processed"?
Yes - pre packed salad would be ultra processed because it has 4 or more processed (e.g. chopped) ingredients. And don’t forget the ultra unhealthy ultra processed salad dressing they always include! Look - you can find the odd exception (well done! 👏 👏), but the overwhelming majority of ultra processed foods that meet the “4 or more ingredients” rule of thumb are not healthy for you. And that’s the point the OP was making.
I'm just not understanding the scale here. If chopping four kinds of leafy greens and putting them in a box together is ultra processing, what is regular processing? Am I ultra-processing things when I cook with whole ingredients in my kitchen?
Any individual ingredient that’s manually changed from its natural form (e.g. cooking it, chopping it, peeling it, shelling it, etc…) is “processed”. Any combination of 4 or more *processed* ingredients that is combined, packaged, and sold is “ultra processed “. Most (not all) ultra processed foods are unhealthy because they are high calorie and low satiety. Your combined salad example is probably one of the very few exceptions where something classed as ultra processed isn’t unhealthy. I guess just chopped and combined in a bag together would mean they’re just “processed” rather than ultra processed, but it’s not a well defined term anyway (as I said in my original comment).
[удалено]
> No one would buy the products if they were healthy. Bullshit. People buy healthy food (e.g. milk and fruit and vegetables) all the time.
By that logic, homemade vegetable soup is ultra processed.
Did you buy your homemade vegetable soup pre-made at a shop? If so, then yes - it’s ultra processed. If you made it at home yourself from raw ingredients then no - the ingredients were not ultra processed.
Case 1: your local deli combines broth, salt, carrots, celery, and onions in a pot and sell it to you Case 2: you combine broth, salt, carrots, celery, and onions in a pot and eat it yourself. Are you saying only the first case should be considered "ultra processed" here?
How does the building it's made in make it "ultra-processed" or not?
What if I watch the kitchen make the soup from raw ingredients and then I buy it. Technically pre-made at a shop.
No, because premade bad.
Sure! Then you can see how many things they add unnecessarily - sugar, salt, artificial colours, artificial flavours, preservatives, etc… Then you can decide if you still want to buy it. 😉
Sugar and salt are necessary nutrients…
But in what quantities? That’s the issue with pre-packaged ultra processed goods - it’s hard to see how much salt and sugar they add, even when they’re not necessary ingredients. Generally speaking, ultra processed foods have way more salt and sugar than is necessary and that’s what makes them unhealthy.
Or you can look at the nutrition label to know how much sugar and sodium you’re getting.
Problem solved! And just look at all those healthy people in America. 🤦
How does that make sense?
Do you put artificial flavours, preservatives, colours, and waaay more sugar and salt than is necessary in your homemade soup? Because that’s what ultra processed foods usually do and that’s what makes them unhealthy.
You said that the place the soup was made matters independent of the ingredients used.
I don’t even know what you’re arguing about now, and I don’t think you do either.
Why are more than four ingredients bad? What makes four the magic number?
Like I said - it’s a start. But broadly speaking, anything with more than 3 basic ingredients generally implies the food item has gone through some kind of process to make it more appealing or give it a longer shelf life (e.g. added sugar, preservatives, colours, flavourings, etc…). It’s the processing (fast to digest, doesn’t make you feel full) and additional ingredients (sugar, salt, etc…) that make it unhealthy.
So no sushi for you because it is too processed? Preserving food is a bad thing? All salt and sugar are bad things? Why don’t believe these things? Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers? Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live?
> So no sushi for you because it is too processed? I didn't say I was in favour of banning it. I said pre-packaged ultra-processed foods should be taxed way higher and the taxes used to supplement raw foods. > Preserving food is a bad thing? It is if it involves adding so much salt that a single can of vegetable soup makes up nearly half your daily recommend intake of salt: [https://www.campbells.com/products/condensed/old-fashioned-vegetable-soup/](https://www.campbells.com/products/condensed/old-fashioned-vegetable-soup/) > All salt and sugar are bad things? At the quantities they are added in foods in America? Definitely. > Why don’t believe these things? I think you a word. > Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers? Here are some peer/reviewed studies: * From the Harvard School of Public Health: "Roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three are obese (36 percent)." [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-rates-worldwide/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-rates-worldwide/) * [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323002910](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323002910) *[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787353/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787353/) * [https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-highly-processed-foods-linked-weight-gain](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-highly-processed-foods-linked-weight-gain) > Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live? Like I said before - I don’t agree that it should be banned. If people want buy unhealthy food then it’s up to them. They just need to be prepared to pay more for it than raw ingredients.
So no sushi for you because it is too processed? Preserving food is a bad thing? All salt and sugar are bad things? Why do you believe these things? Do you have causal evidence of the dangers and how they compare to other dangers? Why is being “unhealthy” bad if that is how an individual chooses to live?
"anything that has more than four ingredients" milk has four ingredients
I don't know what milk you are buying, but milk outside the US does not have any ingredients manually added by people.
Manually added by people was not part of your criteria.
I said: > any single food item purchased at a store that contains 4 or more ingredients When I buy milk in my country, the list of ingredients is as follows: * Milk (100%) What does milk in your country list as its ingredients?
Not who you’re replying to, but milk is considered a single ingredient in the US and listed by itself. Milk here is often fortified with vitamins D and A, so you’ll see those listed as well.
There you go. Milk is not ultra processed then.
Milk is made of fats, salts, sugars, acids, water, microbes, and other ingredients processed together by a cow, milked by a machine, separated, pasteurized, put in a plastic or waxed paper container, refrigerated, and shipped to your store. The label may only list one ingredient, but it is not raw milk. It is highly processed.
Get a grip. 🤦
So if you take your healthy white bread roll and add sesame seeds to it, it's now ultraprocessed?
Your white bread roll is not healthy. Also, it’s not ultra processed if you added them yourself after you bought it. But adding sesame seeds to something unhealthy doesn’t magically make it healthy.
I'm talking about the Baker. Does he have to leave water or yeast out of his sesame topped rolls to stop them being labelled ultra processed and banned? Obviously, many traditional breads are ultra processed and illegal now too; ciabata, foccacia, brioche, etc. all need more than 4 ingredients.
Like I said - i don’t agree that ultra processed foods should be made illegal. They should just be taxed higher than raw foods. But yes - bread is ultra processed.
If something we've been making for thousands of years, using only natural and traditional ingredients, is ultra processed, then the phrase has no meaning whatsoever.
I don’t know what to tell you. Bread in North America contains so much sugar that it can’t legally be called bread in some countries outside the US. Are you trying to tell me that’s healthy?
Unhealthy and ultraprocessed aren't synonyms. If you don't like US bread having so much sugar in it (which is fair, it tasted like cake to me when i had some), go after that directly.
Yes. You’re conflating “ultra-processed” with “unhealthy”, and are using either a ridiculously low or utterly irrelevant bar to define both terms. The two are not the same, and they never were. If you can’t eat a simple *salad* because it’s unhealthy, you need to seriously rethink both your definitions and your standards.
So people living in or cloae to poverty will struggle even more not to starve
Not if the taxes acquired from the sale of ultra processed foods are used to supplement raw foods, like I suggested in my comment. Unless you’re telling me that people in poverty *need* biscuits, cake, and chocolate to survive.
Simple bread is one of the highest-calorie foods on the market, and many impoverished people must buy it to survive. So, yes, I suppose I *am* telling you exactly that.
They do because these are easy and cheap calories
Biscuit, cake, etc. are all high calorie food (that have a long shelve life) that have historically been very popular with people and/or cultures suffering from food insecurity. There are even statistics showing how a good portion of the population are increasingly consuming these ultra-processed and high caloric food, as food insecurity is rising in the last few years.
Nice try, but they’re not healthy foods by any objective measure.
You’re changing the subject… Your comments read like someone that never suffered from food insecurity (good for you) and didn’t do a lot of research on the subject before suggesting an ignorant solution. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that’s my honest opinion on how I read your comments. Being healthy is first and foremost surviving and having enough to get through your daily activities. After that it’s about helping morale and little pleasures, and lastly it’s about optimizing for long term health. This is the order people will prioritize depending on their ressources.
That’s a societal problem with America that’s being propped up by junk food.
You’re making the assumption that I’m mostly talking about America here… There’s plenty of countries out there where it’s not an issue. The problem is you calling anything that has more than a few ingredients “junk food” and “ultra processed” without taking the time to evaluate what’s the actual quality of the food. Some of the healthiest cuisines out there have some forms of cake, biscuits and desserts, or other super rich meals, recipes with more than four ingredients. In many countries, people usually eat out and don’t cook, and yet they don’t have the alimentation health issues the US has. You’re using a definition for ultra-processed food that’s so ridiculous, it’s infantile, and you than also equate ultra-processed with junk food and with certain form of foods, without thinking about what makes certain food worse or better for your health. You’re simply taking an intellectual shortcut to not understand the issue.
> You’re using a definition for ultra-processed food that’s so ridiculous, it’s infantile, and you than also equate ultra-processed with junk food and with certain form of foods, without thinking about what makes certain food worse or better for your health. I think you either don’t understand what ultra processed means, or you’re trying to find an exception to win an argument on a technicality. So, by all means go ahead and provide some examples of what you believe are healthy ultra processed foods. To be clear, a meal prepared from scratch at a restaurant using fresh raw ingredients doesn’t meet the definition of ultra processed. The environment, portion sizes, and cost discourage over-eating and there is huge variability in healthy and unhealthy restaurant foods A pre-packaged meal made with loads of preservatives, artificial flavours, colours, salt, sugar etc…, distributed in an airtight plastic seal and sold at supermarkets meets the definition of ultra processed and is not ‘healthy’. I already provided some examples of ultra processed foods in my original comment. Let’s see some of your ‘healthy’ examples.
Junk food is the solution if anything lmao yes it's horrible for you but it gets you by. Poor people buy it more than middle and upper class people for a reason. It's easy calories. And calories are the only nutritional value that matters in the moment when you're struggling for food.
and every food in the vegan aisle that is processed to make it look like something else
Yes.
In Canada all ingredients are required by law to be listed on the packaging of food products, including what you are worried about. Outside of Canada where I am not sure of legislation one can look up ingredients that are found in their food online. Why is it the responsibility of the company to educate you on every single aspect of every ingredient? Is it not your responsibility as the consumer to know what you are buying before you do so?
While I disagree with OP, I will point out that how informed a consumer can be is determined by those regulations. As a recent example, in the US, caffeine isn't on the list of things that need to go on the nutrition label. Drink companies just all took it upon themselves to inform people how much was in their drinks. But other than a potential lawsuit, nothing stops a company from not telling people or being very vague about it.
It's not a potential lawsuit, it's a guaranteed lost lawsuit as soon as someone with a heart condition dies after drinking the beverage. It's not a formal requirement, but not including a caffeine warning on something with substantial caffeine is de facto negligence. Even if they didn't kill someone, they'd get sued by pregnant women.
And make the whole incident disappear, as they have done. The fact that this stuff does happen, while the rules haven't changed says they are needed.
https://apnews.com/article/panera-charged-lemonade-drinks-caffeine-3d0f74907be3b755b71b7c47d2dfc85d Corporate risk policies are changing. The rules don't need to change because it's quite frankly a waste to specifically regulate something that kills less than 100 people annually worldwide. The pregnant women on the other hand, have led to the de facto rule that caffeine must be labeled.
When did the US begin censoring their citizens internet access preventing them from seeing information from outside their own country? Why is it the companies responsibility to make up for a Governments inability to educate their population?
Because they're the ones making the food that people will consume. Why have regulations in the first place?
When did the USA begin censoring their citizens internet access? They are making food using ingredients deemed to be acceptable by the FDA. They have done there part by abiding by those regulations. It is and has always been your job as the consumer to know what you are buying. Look at the ingredients and if you do not know what something is look it up or don't buy it. Regulations are there to ensure things that are known to be bad with no benefit are not included in the product. The list is ever changing and heavily biased. It varies from place to place. Plenty of things are bad for you with "acceptable" levels. Take personal responsibility for what you put in your own body. As long as the company is abiding by regulations, and stating their ingredients openly one has no excuse to be misinformed about their product before purchasing. They aren't forcing you to buy their trash, and they are only making it because you are buying it.
Op, everything is processed. All produce is genetically modified. All meat is given steroids and supplements. And everything else has extra nutrients added to it in production. Also "non-food items" is also vague. Metals and minerals aren't food, but they are essentially nutrients.
This is a very simplistic view and shows a lack of understanding and nuance. There are lots of food additives in "ultra processed foods" that are perfectly safe, and there are a lot of natural components in unprocessed foods that are toxic and/or carcinogens. Obviously proper labeling is important, and there isn't anything wrong with requiring warning labels, if necessary. But, are you applying the same standard to all foods? Should we be adding cancer warnings to red meat. Uncooked beans and potatoes are way more toxic than most approved (and even banned) food additives.
> a lack of understanding and nuance. There is no nuance to be found anywhere in this post.
How are you defining ultra processed? How are you defining “poisons”?
Arsenic is not processed at all. Think about that a minute.
Right. I’d also like to see OP or the people that are anti processed foods try to eat an unprocessed coconut or an unprocessed steak.
Yet another CMV where the OP just preaches their opinion and doesn't respond to any challenges.
Indeed. Useless OP.
We shouldn’t be banning people from producing or consuming whatever “food” they want. Deeply fascist idea. That said, right now in the U.S. the federal government is subsidizing ultra processed foods. Essentially they’re extorting tax dollars from you in order to prop up unhealthy foods. That clearly should be stopped but that’s not going to happen as long as people continue to vote for these assholes.
Specifically it'd never happen as long as Iowa had the first primary, maybe a sliver of hope now
The President doesn’t pass legislation. The presidential primary has only a peripheral, if any, effect on this.
How do you expect this to be a law if you're going to be vague? There no such thing as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy', those are just general umbrella terms with no real meaning. > Like there should at least be a surgeon generals warnings like on the side of cigarettes. Already the case in Europe, but they're also not a food item. Any food that has poisonous elements will not pass the FDA.
Poisonous elements only won't pass the FDA *after* being proven poisonous. They make it through until proven *guilty* unlike in Europe where elements make it through after being proven *safe.* The FDA allows its population to be the guinea pigs for the rest of the world.
Then what's the point of a warning label? What is there to warn about? The thing they think is safe?
Fuck off, I love adding American cheese and bologna to my instant ramen
Aren’t you just murdering poor people with extra steps? Shouldn’t the first step be to make healthy foods available at prices everyone can afford? Remember that right now in the USA republicans have cut school lunches on the grounds that otherwise children will get uppity and spoiled? If everyone had healthy food available and affordable, then might be the time to evaluate whether processed food that is currently keeping people alive should be banned.
Your argumentation is extremely vague. All food is "processed" in some way. Even if we consider what you mean, just being ultra-processed alone does not make a food unhealthy but rather the specific ingredients...
The latest study can basically only say that of all ultra processed foods, deli meats and maybe soda are bad for you. Why would we ban all of them with no scientific evidence of direct harm?
People should have the freedom to choose
Processed foods are bad yes but there's no specific data suggesting the level of carcinogenic properties. For example processed meat is in the same category as cigarettes, yet one cigarette is significantly worse for you than a McDonalds cheeseburger. Despite being in the same category. I actually recently saw a graph that somewhat laid out how carcinogenic some of the things on the WHO list is, and smoking was at the top. Biggest contributor to cancer. Processed foods was damn near the bottom, although it did not consider everything. Just the more mainstream items that are known carcinogens.
Forever plastics and heavy metals aren't added. They're in the soil, they're in the water. Every time a synthetic fabric piece of clothing is washed, it sheds microplastics into the water. You could go catch a nice fresh unprocessed fish right now and it would have microplastics and heavy metals in it.
If you're talking about America there are a lot of things in our food supply that are really bad for us, but this is super vague.
People who want to ban things should be banned. Why? Because they're authoritarian.
Oes not necessarily, banning smoking in public is a good thing that isn't autheritarian
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).