DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ultra Processed Foods

I have made a few posts in which I commented on the situation with Ultra Processed foods, how they are killing us (or shortening our lives) and how essentially about 8 mega food companies supply/control over 50% of what we eat. I even said that it'll come to be the tabacco story of the future with food execs knowing exactly what they were doing and sought profit and growth at the expense of human health.

It'll be interesting to see if this issue becomes political like, for example, the environment.

STORY

San Francisco files landmark lawsuit, comparing ultra-processed food companies to 'big tobacco'
The city argues ultra-processed foods have led to a health care crisis.

Agreed 100 percent bro.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/what-are-ultra-processed-foods

I think that is one of the reasons food in Europe tastes so different from food in the US

I made a switch to whole foods back when I was diagnosed with diabetes. We buy few canned goods or much of anything out of a box. We start with fresh or frozen meat and veggies try to cook with whole natural foods without the bastardization with additives, preservatives, artificial gobbledygook… I can’t even walk into a McD’s, Taco bell, white castle, or a few other places that sell chemical representations of food without getting gut cramps… and a lot of people live entirely on that crap.

Now, we’re accustomed to paying a little more to make real food… but it’s probably the one health choice I/we made that saved me to this point.

UPF should be eliminated. they are horrible!

What are the 5 most processed foods to avoid?
AI Overview
The five most processed foods to avoid are sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks, sugary breakfast cereals, and frozen/fast foods. These items are often high in sugar, salt, unhealthy fats, and additives, with minimal nutritional value.
1. Sugary drinks
Examples: Sodas, energy drinks, sweetened coffee and tea.
Why to avoid: High in added sugar and empty calories, with no real nutritional value.
2. Processed meats
Examples: Hot dogs, sausages, bacon, ham, and deli meats.
Why to avoid: Often contain high levels of sodium and preservatives like nitrates and nitrites.
3. Packaged snacks
Examples: Potato chips, cookies, crackers, and pretzels.
Why to avoid: Typically made with refined flours, salt, and additives to increase shelf life and flavor.
4. Sugary breakfast cereals
Examples: Most cereals marketed to children.
Why to avoid: Usually high in sugar, refined grains, and artificial colors, while being low in fiber and protein.
5. Frozen/fast foods
Examples: Frozen pizzas, chicken nuggets, and fast food burgers.
Why to avoid: Loaded with unhealthy fats, processed carbs, and a wide array of artificial ingredients.

I don't know about eliminated but curtailed for sure. We need to strive to find that balance between additives and a stable shelf life.

As OCD said, it really becomes your choice. You choose what you eat. If we start to make smarter choices more often, then those 2-3 processed ham deli sandwich's you eat over a month aren't going to become a major problem.
As to 888 article on Tobacco, I can see some parallels, but probably not quite the same. Nicotine addicts people and causes them to seek more and more to satisfy their need. I can't say for sure but I don't think food additives are addictive in nature. Probably more just that salami or whatever it is you like to eat.

I think most everybody knows that the items on Limas list are things we should limit. I think we would be hard pressed to find many who think starting your day with a big bowl of fruit loops is a good way to kick off the day.

There's plenty of science to show that food companies can and do try to make junk food more addictive. Even if the third article title seems a stretch, there is a lot of science to show that food companies do try to make food addictive:

https://www.metagenics.co.uk/news/t...tion-how-the-companies-keep-us-lovin-it/
The Science of Junk Food Addiction: How The Companies Keep Us Lovin' It

https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-ev...late-you-into-eating-more-junk-food.html
How food corporations manipulate you into eating more junk food

https://usrtk.org/ultra-processed-foods/addictive/
Some ultra-processed foods are as addictive as cigarettes and cocaine

https://www.steponefoods.com/blogs/...04hzzCXAS74JBEPBwJ9zZVPWL8IvvUMjvpc-YwAt
Food companies make food addictive

I didn't read any. I'll take your word at face value. I have never met you but I assume you have a face..lol

Then we need to try to get rid of the things we can. Some we probably can't.

There are tight margins in the food industry. There have to be some items in place to make food items more shelf stable. You can't do farm to table on a large scale basis. If you think food is high now, wait until we reduce the shelf life and have to toss food right and left because it has expired.

Overall I think we are all in agreement to the largest degree. I am just pointing out that processing makes foods available year round and taste better...at least to the palates we have developed over a lifetime. We all know we eat too much salt. If we reduced salt amounts by 50% tomorrow, people would just add their own. If we would step it down over 10 years, it might take. Don't even make a point to telling people. Just do it.

I think there could be healthy ways to still keep extended shelf life stable. I simply don't think there have been concentrated efforts to find them. They have found a very cheap way to do it and I don't believe they have considered it in their best interest to invest in finding more healthy alternatives.

This attention being given to get rid of forever chemicals may be the push they need in order to do so. At least I hope so. Much like yourself I don't think these foods really harm you if eaten in moderation. The problem is a lot of people use such foods as the main source of their diet.

For me what it boils down to is do we force food manufacturers to higher standards or do we hold consumers responsible for their dietary choices?

The argument could be made that if consumers stop eating a lot of these foods that contain so many forever chemicals the market would demand those food manufacturers find healthy alternatives.

I'm making this my new signature... so thank you for that.


In all seriousness... while I'm not a fan of most of RFK's shtick, I will say (again) that if he can even make a dent in terms of improving our unhealthy diet then his part of this admin will have been a success.

Yes, our healthcare system is a bureaucratic mess that costs us orders of magnitude more than it should... and nobody in charge seems to want to actually address this.

Yes, we are on this anti-science kick right now.


But I bet we could short-circuit a bunch of that vicious cycle if we can get more healthy foods into the diets of more people in this country.

With RFK - as whacked as his belifs are, personally I do not believe the ends justify the means. Not believing in vaccines - and believing and lying about the affects of vaccines is as big or bigger than the ultra processed foods issue. More than 99.8% of the worlds medical experts - and the science and data - shows that vaccines are effective. It is settled and established sceince. RFK's determination and position to undo this is dangerous. imo.

As studies are conducted and sample sizes grow to be large enough to be scientifically verifiable - the fight against ultra processed foods will become overwhelming. It's just a matter of time... and then it will become a matter of what the food execs knew, when they knew it and what they did to actively hide this information.

Thinking of the political angle of "healthy eating and diets" - yes, there is recent politification of this subject. Michelle Obama tried hard to foster healthy eating with kids/schools ... she was largely villified and ridiculed by the Right for those efforts.

It is terrible that in our country it's not the message being sent that matters. It's all about who is sending the message.

Glad to be of service. It's my honor.

Possibly.

I don't think it is incumbent on the food companies to figure it out, nor do I think it is a government issue. I think research universities might be the best answer. They receive grants to research all sorts of crazy issues and animals. Maybe any governmental involvement would be to apply a little pressure to help direct more money in that direction and less to others?

Let's face it, nature provides salt. Salt he been used for several thousands of years. Salt might have it's problems but it's better to die of blood pressure issues 50-60 years from now over botulism killing you in 3-4 days.

Yeahhhh.... Maybe if billions upon billions of dollars in research money on almost everything under the sun including cancer research weren't being gutted that might be helpful.

But here's the thing. Business will use the cheapest method possible to preserve foods. I don't plan to vilify them for that because the very reason people are in business is to make money.

So even if they invent safer preservatives what will the cost be?

Business changes based on consumer demands and profits. So one of two things would need to happen. Consumers either need to stop buying ultra processed foods which would force their hand into finding an unprocessed solution or the government will have to demand food manufacturers find an alternative.

I understand we have different trains of thought about this but if consumers demand healthier options why should someone other than the people who will profit from it pay the cost of the R&D?

I liken it to the crap we hear about "Americans ONLY are paying for the R&D of Pharmaceutical companies. That's why our prescription drug prices are so much higher than they are everywhere else. And if we don't pay for it, it will slow down R&D."

You know, as if the rest of the globe pays a fraction of the cost because we pay for all of the R&D? For anyone to believe that crap they would have to believe these Pharmaceutical companies are selling their products to the entire rest of the globe at cost or at a loss. We both know enough about how business works to understand that's just BS. We're just paying crazy prices because our system lets them get away with it. Meanwhile the cost of health insurance and what the government pays these drug companies for prescriptions is crazy. Which means our tax dollars are being wasted by overpaying the drug companies in medicare and medicaid prescription costs.

Bottom line is businesses should pay for the things they are going to make profits from. Not the rest of us.

I would much prefer that food manufacturers hand be forced by supply and demand. That people would simply stop purchasing these ultra processed foods to the point that business must change their foods to meet demand. But when we look at the past that's not often how things work.

While both don't even compare to the long lines of people who line up to pop pills for everything, while ignoring all the side effects they cause while they use us. We are all just their Guinea pigs, and sugar daddies.

Many prescription drugs do come with possible side effects. Some more than others. I certainly understand that you know all to well and certainly more than many of the rest of us how much that's true. The greater the risk of your illness the more the risk of side effects one is willing to take. And they take that into consideration when approving such drugs. If a human being is facing a death sentence the acceptance of the side effects is the lesser of the two evils.

By far and away most prescription drugs while they do have possible side effects, the odds are very low you will have such side effects.

But if the pubic in general ate a healthier diet they would certainly not need nearly as much medication and suffer from things quite common today such as diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. All of which lead to even more severe outcomes in the long term.

I acknowledge this is a bit of a cop-out, but I'll still say I find it silly to be pushing shelf life as a worry when we're already over-producing as we are.

I think that is something that varies based on you situation. In my case, and I would say anyone who doesn't have children, shelf life means more to them. Our children are grown and my wife and I live by ourselves. We don't eat a lot of ultra processed food but we do eat some. For example we do sometimes eat cereal, bead and many things that we need to have a longer shelf life.

We eat whole grain breads but it takes a long time for us to eat a loaf of bread. The same thing goes for a box of cereal and even milk. My parents grew up during the post depression era and I was raised not to waste food or anything for that matter. As such and also from an economic standpoint extended shelf life is important to us. If we had children in the household that would be a different matter.

You are certainly correct that we do overproduce food as a nation. Studies indicate that 30% to 40% of food per household is wasted which is about 1800 to 2200 dollars per year. My daughter and her family as an example just won't eat leftovers. They purchase far more fruits and vegetables than they consume. It amazes me just how much food they waste.

So for some of us shelf life is quite important. To others not so much.