this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
313 points (97.3% liked)

News

31486 readers
3321 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 days ago (24 children)

"Ultra-processed food" is a meaningless phrase. The definitions for it are so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers.

Define the ingredients that are bad ffs. Stop with this ridiculous bs.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 day ago (11 children)

You're spreading misinformation/FUD. At a minimum, Ultra Processed Food means it contains ingredients that are added because they "have" to to get it to your mouth, not because anyone wants you to put those ingredients in your body.

I agree that UPF is not rigorously defined yet, but to claim it is "so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers" is absurd. If it's literally just kimchi, it's not processed. If it's kimchi that has a shelf-stable additive, and a dye to make it look pleasing, and chemicals to hide the taste of the machines that made it, then it's processed.

If your FUD stems from your own ignorance about the subject matter, that's a you problem, quit flaunting it around. If it stems from being a hired shill of General Mills, et al., then I hope you're getting paid well.

[–] haloduder@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What would make the kimchi 'ultra processed'?

I agree with the original commenter that these terms are sensationalist bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don't mind manipulating useful idiots.

Also, you don't know what FUD is.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What would make the kimchi 'ultra processed'?

I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn't clear things up, I don't know how to help you.

you don't know what FUD is

They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn't 100% settled, we should reject it all outright. They are casting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the entire concept of being skeptical or critical of UPFs.

The only thing everyone agrees makes a UPF is the fact that it contains ingredients you wouldn't otherwise seek out to put in your body. So your null hypothesis should be "let's not put this in our body", and not the other way around.

bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don't mind manipulating useful idiots.

And I better not find out you're doing it for free.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.

That's not even close to what I'm arguing - you're layering in your perception of me as an "opponent" and making things up about me and what I've said.

I'm arguing that the phrase "ultra processed foods" is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.

It's like saying "Animals are dangerous." While it may be true it's unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm arguing that the phrase "ultra processed foods" is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.

And I'm saying that's an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn't 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn't mean it's completely useless. It's much more like arguing "the science isn't settled on global warming, therefore it's all a hoax". But science is never settled, it's always our best approximation to the truth.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.

Read carefully. I'm not saying there is no definition. I'm saying the definition is shit.

Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?

You can't. Nobody can. Because the category of "ultra-processed foods" is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.

The entire approach to trying to define "ultra-processed foods" is working backwards from "things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons".

In short - it's a marketing term they're trying to create a scientific definition for. It's a stupid idea.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It is clear to me you didn't click any of my sources and have no interest in this subject. Cheers.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

It's clear to me that you want me to say what you want me to say rather than what I am saying.

[–] haloduder@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.

then it’s processed.

What would make the kimchi ultra-processed?

They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.

I'm guessing you don't know how to read. This is a discussion about what constitutes ultra-processed food. It has nothing to do with whether 'UPFs' (the thing we're still trying to define) are good or bad.

And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.

Yeah, you're too far gone. I hope you get the help you need.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're Nestlé's favorite kind of person. To the point that, I defy you to come up with rhetoric that is more favorable to ultra processed foods.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)