6 ms·

> most supermarket bread is stabilized, which you might not like aesthetically, but it isn't doing anything to your health That's a large assertion to make wit

> most supermarket bread is stabilized, which you might not like aesthetically, but it isn't doing anything to your health That's a large assertion to make without evidence. Personally, I'm suspicious of all antimicrobial agents' effects on gut microbiota and the knock-on effects on health.

rpdillon 11d ago
I mean, he's not presenting the evidence here in a hacker news comment, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. There are a bunch of different categories of stabilizers, and only some of them have antimicrobial properties -- most are about maintaining moisture and loaf volume over time. There are three substances that are predominantly used to inhibit mold growth, though: calcium propionate, potassium sorbate, and sodium benzoate. The first two are extremely well understood and considered safe globally. The third is still considered safe, but might have some interactions with vitamin C that lead to benzene formation to the tune of several parts per billion. The FDA considers this safe, and has for some time.
pessimizer 11d ago
> I'm suspicious of all antimicrobial agents' effects on gut microbiota Boy do I wish people would talk like this, instead of the "ultra-processed foods" bullshit. The Atlantic had a stupid as hell article a few days ago with a title that really boils the entire op down: Nobody Knows What Ultra-Processed Food Is" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/08/kennedy-ultraprocessed-food-definition/688246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/08/kennedy-ultraproc... "Ultra-Processed Food" is a phrase. It is not a thing. If you want to use it for its media traction, and "nobody knows what it is," define it before you use it. Instead, everybody has gone for "it is so mysterious," then goes on to cite a bunch of studies about "ultra-processed foods," treating it as a category that categorical statements can be made about. Name the chemicals, name the processes. They don't because these chemicals and processes are endorsed by massive conglomerates who can pull advertising and lobbying money. When you're vague as hell about everything, it's a case-by-case basis that only affects people who can't bribe as well as others. And about the people talking about sugars, salt and fats crammed into everything, I'm convinced they never cook. That's taste, and you can pour it in yourself just as well as a corporation. The reason people love it is because it tastes good. Salt isn't even bad for you, it's in fact very, very good for you because it makes micronutrient-rich foods palatable. Arguing that standard manufactured foods and foods marketed to children are too rich is a different argument, and most importantly for this conversation has nothing to do with the ultraprocessed foods question. Massive food companies are perfectly happy to remove all the fats and sugars from your food and replace them with some weird alcohol sugar or a new form of teflon they just invented a week ago, and to charge you a premium for the privilege of eating it. They literally did that throughout the 80s and 90s. The narrative intentionally confusing what the above refers to as "hyperpalatability" (a term which is as good as any) with "ultra-processed" (a propaganda term) is a gift to the food industry. It in fact even favors monopolies who can afford to put in the bizarre chemical constructions they'll use as alternatives, and to pay regulators to look the other way. "Ultra-processed foods" is a phrase meant for advertising - even the prefix "ultra-" reminds me of a cigarette ad, describing the filter. The filter was a device which ostensibly makes cigarettes healthier, but instead allows you to smoke far more than you would otherwise, and leads to worse health outcomes. Isn't smoking bad? Smoke our ultra-filtered cigarettes and breathe easy!
- achenet 11d ago
  The featured article/podcast has the person presenting define "ultra-processed foods" as industrial hyper-palatable foods. However, it focuses more about how the foods were marketed, and in particular, that the same marketing playbook developed by tobacco companies to market Marlboro and Camel cigarettes was then used to sell Kool-Aid and Miller beer. Basically, the execs at Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds realized that beer, Kool-Aid/sugar drinks, Oreos and cigarettes were more or less all the same type of products - affordable, habit-forming small luxury goods people enjoyed putting in their mouths, and applied the expertise they'd developed on one type of this market (cigarettes) to the rest of it.
  - jasomill 11d ago
    That's straight out of Mad Men, a fair point, and applicable to a much wider variety of consumer goods and services than foods and drugs.
tekla 11d ago
So you dislike vinegar, salt, and any fermented foods that suppress microbial agents?
- timschmidt 11d ago
  > So you dislike You said dislike. I said suspicious. One's an opinion, the other an invitation for science. > vinegar, salt, and any fermented foods that suppress microbial agents? In the gut microbiota broad system sequencing experiments I've consumed reports from, even altering diet from one primary food source to another can result in complete restructuring of the gut ecosystem as quickly as within 24 hours. And switching back to the original food source didn't return to an identical gut ecosystem. Many studies show direct connections between gut microbiota and specific and broad health impacts. So I think suspicious is right. There is much yet to be learned.
LargoLasskhyfv 11d ago
There have been so many (serious) tv-documentaries about this. Our bodies are the mass-experiments. I remember something from about 20 years ago in Germany, mostly about buns, the stuff that is called 'sandwich', and more 'normal' bread. It began with (then new) biotechnically produced enzymes, who's into that, and where. Turned out Denmark is big into it, with corporations most of us have never heard of. So that stuff goes in all the bread to give it desirable properties, texture, taste and longer shelf-life, not even in big amounts. And that's the crux. Because it can be so little, it isn't even mandatory to declare on the label. Nobody knows what that does to our bodies and their metabolisms longterm. Aroma came from France mostly. So they retraced the enzy- and aromatic stuff to Denmark and France, popped up in front of a big Polish bakery, and traced how the half/pre baken stuff moves frozen from there into our supermarkets, to be baken up in store, or being bagged, and brought home. How will attribution to negative side-effects ever be possible? Instead of pointing to other stuff like black carbon, so2, countless VOCs, PFAs, PFOAs, PTFEs, whatever?

rpdillon 11d ago

I mean, he's not presenting the evidence here in a hacker news comment, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. There are a bunch of different categories of stabilizers, and only some of them have antimicrobial properties -- most are about maintaining moisture and loaf volume over time. There are three substances that are predominantly used to inhibit mold growth, though: calcium propionate, potassium sorbate, and sodium benzoate. The first two are extremely well understood and considered safe globally. The third is still considered safe, but might have some interactions with vitamin C that lead to benzene formation to the tune of several parts per billion. The FDA considers this safe, and has for some time.

pessimizer 11d ago

> I'm suspicious of all antimicrobial agents' effects on gut microbiota Boy do I wish people would talk like this, instead of the "ultra-processed foods" bullshit. The Atlantic had a stupid as hell article a few days ago with a title that really boils the entire op down: Nobody Knows What Ultra-Processed Food Is" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/08/kennedy-ultraprocessed-food-definition/688246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/08/kennedy-ultraproc... "Ultra-Processed Food" is a phrase. It is not a thing. If you want to use it for its media traction, and "nobody knows what it is," define it before you use it. Instead, everybody has gone for "it is so mysterious," then goes on to cite a bunch of studies about "ultra-processed foods," treating it as a category that categorical statements can be made about. Name the chemicals, name the processes. They don't because these chemicals and processes are endorsed by massive conglomerates who can pull advertising and lobbying money. When you're vague as hell about everything, it's a case-by-case basis that only affects people who can't bribe as well as others. And about the people talking about sugars, salt and fats crammed into everything, I'm convinced they never cook. That's taste, and you can pour it in yourself just as well as a corporation. The reason people love it is because it tastes good. Salt isn't even bad for you, it's in fact very, very good for you because it makes micronutrient-rich foods palatable. Arguing that standard manufactured foods and foods marketed to children are too rich is a different argument, and most importantly for this conversation has nothing to do with the ultraprocessed foods question. Massive food companies are perfectly happy to remove all the fats and sugars from your food and replace them with some weird alcohol sugar or a new form of teflon they just invented a week ago, and to charge you a premium for the privilege of eating it. They literally did that throughout the 80s and 90s. The narrative intentionally confusing what the above refers to as "hyperpalatability" (a term which is as good as any) with "ultra-processed" (a propaganda term) is a gift to the food industry. It in fact even favors monopolies who can afford to put in the bizarre chemical constructions they'll use as alternatives, and to pay regulators to look the other way. "Ultra-processed foods" is a phrase meant for advertising - even the prefix "ultra-" reminds me of a cigarette ad, describing the filter. The filter was a device which ostensibly makes cigarettes healthier, but instead allows you to smoke far more than you would otherwise, and leads to worse health outcomes. Isn't smoking bad? Smoke our ultra-filtered cigarettes and breathe easy!

achenet 11d ago
The featured article/podcast has the person presenting define "ultra-processed foods" as industrial hyper-palatable foods. However, it focuses more about how the foods were marketed, and in particular, that the same marketing playbook developed by tobacco companies to market Marlboro and Camel cigarettes was then used to sell Kool-Aid and Miller beer. Basically, the execs at Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds realized that beer, Kool-Aid/sugar drinks, Oreos and cigarettes were more or less all the same type of products - affordable, habit-forming small luxury goods people enjoyed putting in their mouths, and applied the expertise they'd developed on one type of this market (cigarettes) to the rest of it.
- jasomill 11d ago
  That's straight out of Mad Men, a fair point, and applicable to a much wider variety of consumer goods and services than foods and drugs.

tekla 11d ago

So you dislike vinegar, salt, and any fermented foods that suppress microbial agents?

timschmidt 11d ago
> So you dislike You said dislike. I said suspicious. One's an opinion, the other an invitation for science. > vinegar, salt, and any fermented foods that suppress microbial agents? In the gut microbiota broad system sequencing experiments I've consumed reports from, even altering diet from one primary food source to another can result in complete restructuring of the gut ecosystem as quickly as within 24 hours. And switching back to the original food source didn't return to an identical gut ecosystem. Many studies show direct connections between gut microbiota and specific and broad health impacts. So I think suspicious is right. There is much yet to be learned.

LargoLasskhyfv 11d ago

There have been so many (serious) tv-documentaries about this. Our bodies are the mass-experiments. I remember something from about 20 years ago in Germany, mostly about buns, the stuff that is called 'sandwich', and more 'normal' bread. It began with (then new) biotechnically produced enzymes, who's into that, and where. Turned out Denmark is big into it, with corporations most of us have never heard of. So that stuff goes in all the bread to give it desirable properties, texture, taste and longer shelf-life, not even in big amounts. And that's the crux. Because it can be so little, it isn't even mandatory to declare on the label. Nobody knows what that does to our bodies and their metabolisms longterm. Aroma came from France mostly. So they retraced the enzy- and aromatic stuff to Denmark and France, popped up in front of a big Polish bakery, and traced how the half/pre baken stuff moves frozen from there into our supermarkets, to be baken up in store, or being bagged, and brought home. How will attribution to negative side-effects ever be possible? Instead of pointing to other stuff like black carbon, so2, countless VOCs, PFAs, PFOAs, PTFEs, whatever?