How food companies ‘sweetened the world’ – and increased the risk of disease
How food companies ‘sweetened the world’ – and increased the risk of disease
The hard sell of ultra-processed foods in developing countries as being ‘good for you’ gives children a taste for sugar and salt that could have lasting effects on their health
The hard sell of ultra-processed foods in developing countries as being ‘good for you’ gives children a taste for sugar and salt that could have lasting effects on their health
You're viewing a single thread.
I always see a lot of misunderstanding in discussions about this stuff, so here is some related reading for anyone who wants to understand why scientists are saying ultra-processed food leads to health problems:
Ultra Processed People by Chris van Tulleken
The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzer
tl;dr?
From the links I provided above:
Ultra Processed People by Chris van Tulleken
In this book, Chris van Tulleken, father, scientist, doctor, and award-winning BBC broadcaster, marshals the latest evidence to show how governments, scientists, and doctors have allowed transnational food companies to create a pandemic of diet-related disease. The solutions don’t lie in willpower, personal responsibility, or exercise. You’ll find no diet plan in this book―but join Chris as he undertakes a powerful self-experiment that made headlines around the world: under the supervision of colleagues at University College London he spent a month eating a diet of 80 percent UPF, typical for many children and adults in the United States. While his body became the subject of scientific scrutiny, he spoke to the world’s leading experts from academia, agriculture, and―most important―the food industry itself.
The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzer
It’s super tempting to choose a bag of Doritos over an apple for a quick snack. But why is this? Why does pseudo-food take the prize over real, nutritious food that provides us with benefits other than instant taste-bud gratification? It’s all about the flavor.
Real, nutritious and natural food is now largely bred and cultivated for the sake of volume and revenue – but not so much for taste. Things like chicken and tomatoes are grown to maturity as quickly as possible in order to maximize sales, but in the process these foods lose so much of their flavorful potential. In the past, we looked to nature’s already developed and perfected products for sustenance. Now, food companies modify nature in order to turn a profit, and this has a significant impact on its taste. Real food has become increasingly bland, and junk food has all the orange-dusted, finger-lickin’ goodness we now crave!
We reach for the cheese puffs because we know they will satisfy a craving for flavor. The problem is that this (artificial) flavor is a concoction of chemicals that convinces us to eat way more than we should. Ultimately, this is what leads us to rack up the calories and overconsume fats, salts, and sugars.
This is a pretty bad take, and definitely not one endorsed by scientists. One person represents a case report, not a study. In the world of academic medicine, you can find case reports on nearly anything, and people cite them as if they represent peer-reviewed scrutiny. If we’re to get anywhere on the matter, we need larger studies based on randomly assigned cohorts with controls to evaluate dietary influences on health, not whatever this is masquerading to represent.
Damn I guess nobody thought about doing it scientifically. Oh well. Back to the Doritos I suppose.
Oh wait:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods/https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318630
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html
Is… is that enough? Should I keep going?
Literally no one is saying this was anything else, it's not even really a case report, it's a pop-sci book... which is why the book covers a bunch of the more rigorous academic research.
Here's some for you, if you're up for it. Full article linked here.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between consumption of ultraprocessed food and noncommunicable disease risk, morbidity and mortality. Forty-three observational studies were included (N = 891,723): 21 cross-sectional, 19 prospective, two case-control and one conducted both a prospective and cross-sectional analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated consumption of ultraprocessed food was associated with increased risk of overweight (odds ratio: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.51; P < 0.001), obesity (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% CI, 1.34-1.70; P < 0.001), abdominal obesity (odds ratio: 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34-1.66; P < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48; P = 0.001), metabolic syndrome (odds ratio: 1.81; 95% CI, 1.12-2.93; P = 0.015) and depression in adults (hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.28, P < 0.001) as well as wheezing (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.55; P < 0.001) but not asthma in adolescents (odds ratio: 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.46; P = 0.065). In addition, consumption of ultraprocessed food was associated with cardiometabolic diseases, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia and cancer (breast and overall) in adults while also being associated with metabolic syndrome in adolescents and dyslipidaemia in children. Although links between ultraprocessed food consumption and some intermediate risk factors in adults were also highlighted, further studies are required to more clearly define associations in children and adolescents.
Ah thanks! But I did read the blurbs.
I got curious about the big conclusions of the books — where do the solutions lie, and how do we get tasty over-farmed food? And what was Chris' health like after that month?
So, the broad recommendation of both books is just to go back to eating real food, that is, home-cooked, minimally-processed, and preferably organic labeled.
I like Ultra Processed People because the author is a medical doctor and a researcher, so he does a good job of getting into some of the research, but the 30 day diet was mostly a publicity stunt, in my view. That said, here are some outcomes:
After the month was over, Chris reported poor sleep, heart burn, unhappy feelings, anxiety, sluggishness, and a low libido. He also had piles from constipation. “I felt ten years older”, he says, but “didn’t realise it was all [because of] the food until I stopped eating the diet”.
Chris gained almost 7kg in the four weeks and moved from a healthy weight to overweight. “If the weight gain continued at that rate for six months, I would have gained six stone”, he says. It didn’t stop there.
Brain activity scans showed the areas of Chris’ brain responsible for reward had linked up with the areas that drive repetitive, automatic behaviour. “Eating ultra-processed food became something my brain simply tells me to do, without me even wanting it”, he says, adding this is a similar brain response to taking substances we consider classically addictive such as cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. The changes in brain activity weren’t permanent, but “if it can do that in four weeks to my 42-year-old brain, what is it doing to the fragile developing brains of our children”.
Why do they recommend organic labeled food?
The organic labeling is largely bs to justify charging more for a similar product imo. I can't really say any of the organic labeled produce I've gotten is notably better than the "normal" version.
That’s a dangerously unqualified statement
Turns out there are substantial chemical / nutritive differences between 'conventional' and organically grown food. There's actually more nutrition, more food, per unit volume in organic food. If you'd like to understand why, then you should read the books, as well as In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan.