7 ms·

It's only useful it it allows you to reason correctly about stuff in contemporary stores. The argument is that the label does not supply information that is ac

• icandoit 6y ago
  It is sufficient information. Replace processed food (candy bar) with less-processed (granola bar without added sugar) or non-processed (apple). People don't like ultra-processed in an partake-abstain framing (like many do with illegal drgus), but they could just apply a how-often, or frequency framing, (like they do with alcohol). People are just uncomfortable with the responsibility being theirs and are exercising their denial. The demand for a narrative about evil-FDA or evil-food-corp is HIGH. Everyone could just eat like the healthiest among their friends and family, but you can't sell a story without a villian.
  • dragontamer 6y ago
    Except you might replace processed food (Low Fat / Low Sugar cereal) with non-processed (Pork Belly + Lard). Which is non-helpful. A stir-fry dish from Panda Express and/or Noodle's and Co is entirely "group 2 unprocessed" by this designation. Is eating Panda Express all-day, every day healthy? You can literally see them cut the veggies and meats as they make the stir-fry. Its fresh and out in the open.
• watwut 6y ago
  But that argument is kind of weak when it comes packed with example that claims fat is bad and sugar+fiber is good. That is just not how nutrition works either. And honestly, the processed/unprocessed distinction will end up with better result then "fat is bad".