5 ms·

Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less. Science will gi

Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less. Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take? I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of those instances in the past where we created harm by exposing ourselves to something novel, prior to it being understood scientifically. I don't think exercising caution is unscientific.

filoleg 2y ago
You aren’t addresing the problem posed by the grandparent comment. You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  Like I said, it's not binary. The UPF category can be too broad to the point of it being meaningless. Somebody else in the comment chain mentioned creating a score instead. The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be top ramen. And yet, I still think we should discourage it.
  - filoleg 2y ago
    Thanks for elaborating on your point, because I actually agree with it more after this. > The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).

filoleg 2y ago

You aren’t addresing the problem posed by the grandparent comment. You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.

zero-sharp 2y ago
Like I said, it's not binary. The UPF category can be too broad to the point of it being meaningless. Somebody else in the comment chain mentioned creating a score instead. The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be top ramen. And yet, I still think we should discourage it.
- filoleg 2y ago
  Thanks for elaborating on your point, because I actually agree with it more after this. > The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).