this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
347 points (97.3% liked)

World News

53001 readers
2256 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables, and require far tighter regulation, according to a new report.

UPFs and cigarettes are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, researchers from three US universities said, pointing to the parallels in widespread health harms that link both.

UPFs, which are widely available worldwide, are food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using emulsifiers or artificial colouring and flavours. The category includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits.

There are similarities in the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, and in manufacturers’ efforts to optimise the “doses” of products and how quickly they act on reward pathways in the body, according to the paper from researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University.

One of the authors, Prof Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, a clinical psychologist specialising in addiction, said her patients made the same links: “They would say, ‘I feel addicted to this stuff, I crave it – I used to smoke cigarettes [and] now I have the same habit but it’s with soda and doughnuts. I know it’s killing me; I want to quit, but I can’t.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 36 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

How the fuck do you expect to get kids to eat salad when the salad dressing is locked behind a counter with the cigarettes?

The problem is that "ultra-processed foods" is too broad to be meaningful. Also the fact that, you know, some amount of personal choice is essential to a free society.

[–] albus@lemmy.world 21 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

When I was an italian kid, I have never had problems eating salads with no ultra-processed dressing.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sure that's because of choices that your parents made and nothing to do with living in an area with high population density and easy access to fresh food.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

I don't understand. I'm pretty sure raising a child depends on the choices of the parents. What do you mean, that in areas with higher population density it is easier to get fresh food? And that thus the parent's choices are not influential or only possible because of the environment? In my experience fresh food is more accessible in low population density areas, thus I don't really follow.

[–] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] albus@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

it is not ultra-processed, it is just processed.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 17 hours ago

Eh. That's the thing with UPF, it doesn't really have a definition. There's a whole lot of transformation that's happened there - quite possibly more than whatever American-style dressing.

[–] wakko@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand neuroscience.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world -3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Please, explain to me how Cheerios are addictive and need to be banned.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

That's kind of loaded. Banned is a strong word but, Cheetos specifically were not only engineered to be addictive, but Frito-Lay isn't even shy about admitting that.most of the snacks you find in the middle aisles are. Soda included.

[–] arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 13 hours ago

They said Cheerios, not Cheetos. Tbf tho some of the flavored Cheerios are kind of addictive.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world -2 points 13 hours ago

No, Cheerios. The heart-healthy cereal that people give to infants. That's an "ultra-processed food", because the phrase is bullshit.

[–] wakko@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Learn about how the human body processes carbohydrates. Then learn about what a truly "normal" amount of carbohydrates for a human to consume on a daily, weekly, annual basis is. Finally, compare that amount of "normal" carbs to the amount in a single bowl of Cheerios. Subtract the dietary fiber involved if you need precision. But the basic comparison is so obviously skewed that the dietary fiber part of the calculation is barely more than a rounding error.

Cheerios don't need "banning" for any of the reasons we prohibit or control the sale of truly hazardous or life-threatening materials. Nobody said that is what is needed. Overconsumption of carb-heavy foods like Cheerios are bad for our health on a time scale measured in years or decades. Drinking drano is bad for your health on a time scale measured in seconds. Don't get it twisted. Nobody's treating eating cheerios like drinking drano. Insinuating such a thing is happening is simply incorrect and not a valid argument.

Humans need to eat more green things and eat less carbs. We need companies that serve human needs to truly serve the real human needs, not lie about the exploitable bugs in human cognition, pretend they're "needs", and try to say there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to over-consume to the point of morbid obesity just to pump the shareholders' stocks a few cents higher.

That's the basic message. Humanity is more important than profit margins.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

and try to say there’s nothing wrong with encouraging people to over-consume to the point of morbid obesity just to pump the shareholders’ stocks a few cents higher.

Yeah, and no one is saying that either.

We all agree people need to eat healthier. Targeting "ultra-processed foods" is a stupid way to accomplish that. It would backfire completely, and cause more problems than it would solve.

[–] wakko@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Targeting “ultra-processed foods” is a stupid way to accomplish that.

Then let's hear your genius, sure-fire, guaranteed-to-work idea that's been built on high-quality research and rigorous data collection methodology.

You clearly don't know how ridiculously stupid the entire food labeling regulations process is. All because CEOs refuse to do reasonable, rational things that are better for human beings than their stock price.

The problem here isn't the regulations. The problem is the failure to recognize that every regulation is written in somebody's blood. So, how many people is the "right" number of people who need to die of preventable causes before we conclusively say "maximizing addictive properties in food" is no longer a business practice we're willing to accept as a nation? Do 100 people need to die? Thousands? Do you need to see millions of dead bodies piled up end-over-end like cord wood before you recognize that, gosh golly gee, maybe we should listen to scientific opinions over corporatist scumbag opinions?

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

There are places that don't have easy access to fresh food. You want people to die of preventable causes? Let's ban the bread they make their fucking sandwiches with, because other people are shortsighted and privileged enough to think that the only reason anyone doesn't choose whole-grain, small-batch, artisinal bread is because white bread is "ultra-processed", so it must be addictive.

By the same token, banning Cheerios would be a great way to make sure a bunch of kids are malnourished.

Apply a little reading comprehension to this extremely scientific article and see how they're dancing around the fact that "ultra-processed" isn't synonymous with "unhealthy". Phrases like "includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits" are clearly manipulative language meant to gloss over the fact that the category includes those things but is not limited to them.

Anyway, here are some better ideas: a four day work week and expanding work-from-home so that people actually have time to make healthy choices. Or how about better funding for school lunches, with an emphasis on variety so that kids can be exposed to more foods, giving them the tools to make healthier choices later in life.

There are so many ways we could try to improve this situation, and blanket bans is by a wide margin the most idiotic.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Why would you even buy a readymade dressing? Salad dressing is dead simple to make.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 10 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Sure if you're just making Italian or Russian dressing. If you want thousand island or caesar, you need more than a basic pantry. Also the time and energy/motivation, which a lot of people don't have.

[–] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

That's why I have my own olive trees, chicken farm, lemon orchard, anchovy fishery, and a dairy farm in Parma

I don't know why anyone would buy readymade olive oil, eggs, lemon juice, anchovies, or Parmesan, they're dead simple to make

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Friendly reminder that Parmesan generally refers to an American counterfeit product. Please refer to the cheese as Parmigiano.

I Say this because the US seems very proud of producing counterfeit products and wants to maintain a monopoly on such goods https://en.edairynews.com/us-blasts-eu-for-monopoly-on-south-america-dairy-meat/

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world -1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The first two dressings you listed are much healthier than the latter two. If I'm eating a salad, I don't need to put a caloric dressing on it.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

No, you don't need to. But it makes it a lot more palatable.

Edit: also, there's very little difference between russian and thousand island

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 0 points 16 hours ago

Only to people who eat way too much sugar.

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip -3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Why do they need to eat salad? Or do you think that's the only healthy food?

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

It was an example of how fucking stupid this idea is.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 2 points 16 hours ago

If you want to follow a Mediterranean diet, yes, salad is a very healthy food that you should eat weekly