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

World News

53001 readers
2225 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
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
348
Ultra-processed foods should be treated more like cigarettes than food – study (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] wakko@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 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 5 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.