I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

@robblok

I just want to emphasize the fact that processed foods are indeed essential to support world populations today.  You would not have the personal  "choice" to eat only unprocessed natural foods, as you say you prefer, if the rest of the population was not able to support themselves on them.  There is simply not enough supply of natural foods to go around to everyone today.  Doesn't that make sense?

No it does not make sense, because the only thing processed foods have that non processed foods don't have is those HFC and other sugars. Also more is consumed of processed foods as of non processed foods. So switching to non processed would mean less food eaten.

 

So unless the HFC makes up of such a large amount in the processed food I don't see how it is needed to support the population as its made from unprocessed foods with as only additive HFC. 

 

So unless the HFC use is real high and not cancelled by the fact that people will eat less of not processed foods (see my study 500 calories per day less in the other thread) (almost 25% of daily total).

 

So I am not 100% convinced. But I have no numbers to back me up. Do you ? (honest question)

[WaveHunter]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

No it does not make sense, because the only thing processed foods have that non processed foods don't have is those HFC and other sugars. Also more is consumed of processed foods as of non processed foods. So switching to non processed would mean less food eaten.

 

So unless the HFC makes up of such a large amount in the processed food I don't see how it is needed to support the population as its made from unprocessed foods with as only additive HFC. 

 

So unless the HFC use is real high and not cancelled by the fact that people will eat less of not processed foods (see my study 500 calories per day less in the other thread) (almost 25% of daily total).

 

So I am not 100% convinced. But I have no numbers to back me up. Do you ? (honest question)

Honestly, I don't understand your point here.  I am saying that there is not enough natural foods (grown in the ground, on trees, livestock, etc) to feed the current world population.  Manufactured foods (made principally from artificial ingredients that can be created quickly, and created on-demand) are necessary to fill the gap. 

 

The supply and demand equation has nothing to do specifically with HFCS's

 

I'm just talking about supply and demand.  It's no longer possible to feed the world population from only natural sources, as it might have been 100 years ago.

 

Are you saying you disagree with this view?  That if processed foods were suddenly taken off the shelves of supermarkets, that wouldn't lead to a scarcity of natural foods, and that many people would actually starve as a result?

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Honestly, I don't understand your point here.  I am saying that there is not enough natural foods (grown in the ground, on trees, livestock, etc) to feed the current world population.  Manufactured foods (made principally from artificial ingredients that can be created quickly, and created on-demand) are necessary to fill the gap. 

 

The supply and demand equation has nothing to do specifically with HFCS's

 

I'm just talking about supply and demand.  It's no longer possible to feed the world population from only natural sources, as it might have been 100 years ago.

 

Are you saying you disagree with this view?  That if processed foods were suddenly taken off the shelves of supermarkets, that wouldn't lead to a scarcity of natural foods, and that many people would actually starve as a result?

 

Probably you don't get me miscommunication probably.

 

If today all of a sudden there were no unprocessed foods in the shelves there would be a shortage. I agree.

 

But the processed food is made from unprocessed stuff, that unprocessed stuff could be sold separately and people could make their own food. Problem solved. (requires a switch)

 

Only problem here is the HFC the corn and other stuff that is used cant be used that easily to make unprocessed food so that should be switched for other crops. Then there is again enough food.

 

Do remember that people eat 25% less in calories if they eat unprocessed so less is needed.

 

Just my view.

[WaveHunter]

49 minutes ago, robblok said:

Probably you don't get me miscommunication probably.

 

If today all of a sudden there were no unprocessed foods in the shelves there would be a shortage. I agree.

 

But the processed food is made from unprocessed stuff, that unprocessed stuff could be sold separately and people could make their own food. Problem solved. (requires a switch)

 

Only problem here is the HFC the corn and other stuff that is used cant be used that easily to make unprocessed food so that should be switched for other crops. Then there is again enough food.

 

Do remember that people eat 25% less in calories if they eat unprocessed so less is needed.

 

Just my view.

OK, I understand your reasoning now, although I'm not sure how you arrive at actual consumed calories of unprocessed vs processed.  I mean, granted people will eat far more processed carbs than unprocessed ones to feel satiated.  Is that what you're saying?  Still not sure how you come up with 25%, but not arguing it either.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I still think you're skirting the main issue, and that is that processed foods are here to stay, and many people (whether they like it or not) must rely on them for subsistence.  Again, I just don't see how supply can possibly meet demand with the world population being what it is today unless processed foods fill the void.  Do you?

 

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the "concept" of processed food, only in how producers are currently using unhealthy ingredients to make them that are not only nutritionally unsound but are often engineered to cause people to over-consume them, and then deceiving the public that their products are healthier than they actually are.

 

There's got t be a better way to make them that allows for profit but also allows for a genuinely healthy food product.  I mean, we've done amazing things as a society like flying to the moon, eradicating many horrible health conditions from the face of the earth like Smallpox and Polio.  Why can't food producers come up with a solution? 

 

As long as they can rake in profits doing what they're doing now, they have no incentive to change. but things must change IMO or there are going to be a lot of very sick people in the near future. 

 

Remember, we haven't yet really seen long term effects of processed foods yet but are just about to with the current 60 year+ generation.

 

Things need to change IMO.  You and I are fortunate that we really have a choice because of our education, our desire to live healthy, and the financial means to achieve that goal, but many, through no fault of their own, don't. 

 

That's just not fair!  Everybody should have access to healthy nutritious food, whether it's processed or not, and not be deceived through marketing and label trickery into believing they are getting healthy foods when they really are not.

 

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

OK, I understand your reasoning now, although I'm not sure how you arrive at actual consumed calories of unprocessed vs processed.  I mean, granted people will eat far more carbs and especially sugar to feel satiated than they will with a similar amount of fats.  Is that what you're saying?

 

No disrespect intended but I still think you're skirting the main issue, and that is that processed foods are here to stay, and many people (whether they like it or not) must rely on them for subsistence.  Again, I just don;t see how supply can possibly meet demand with the world population being what it is today unless processed foods fill the void.  I just don't see how enough "natural" foods can be grown to meet the demand.  Do you?

 

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the "concept" of processed food, only in how producers are currently using unhealthy ingredients to make them that are not only nutritionally unsound but are often engineered to cause people to over-consume them, and then deceiving the public that their products are healthier than they actually are.

 

There's got t be a better way to make them that allows for profit but also allows for a genuinely healthy food product.  I mean, we've done amazing things as a society like flying to the moon, eradicating many horrible conditions form the face of the earth like Smallpox and Polio.  Why can't food producers come up with a solution?  As long as they can rake in profits doing what they're doing now, they have no incentive to change. 

 

Things need to change IMO.  You and I are fortunate to truly have the choice to decide how we fill our nutritional needs. We have the education, the desire and the money that allows us to have that choice, but many, through no fault of their own, don't.  That's just not fair, and it shouldn't be that way.  Things could change so easily it the powers that be just did the right thing.

 

That you don't see the actual consumed calories is probably because you did not read my topic with the research attached. (about processed and unprocessed food and the experiment that was done). Its on this forum quite a nice experiment. They had an in house experiment (so no outside food everything was measured gold standard). The people even switched sides during the experiment making it even better. That showed that people who eat processed foods eat 500 cals more per day then those who don't.  Then i took the 2000 cals as average diet and 500 cals is 25% of that.

 

I am not skirting the main issue, you said the world can't be fed and gave that as an argument. I tried to disprove that. I never thought that processed food would disappear, that wont happen.

 

Legislation could change things but first it should be 100% clear what is bad and not. As you saw in what fracturedrabbit posted its not just HFC its also the process used on normal foods. So until its really clear and there is consensus nothing will change. 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

FYI, I’m a photojournalist therefore I travel extensively.  I’ve visited 26 countries so it’s nonsense for you to say I only understand how things are in America and have no understanding of other countries.

 

You consistently view things subjectively, based on your own experience, and just as consistently reject objective views of the real world.

 

You say that you made a choice to avoid processed foods, and therefore anyone else who doesn’t must be lazy or ignorant.  You seem to say that only Americans have a serious obesity problem that’s connected to processed foods, when in fact it’s an acknowledged world wide issue, that any basic google search by an open-minded person will reveal.

 

How can you deny the simple law of supply and demand?  There are more people in the world than there is natural food to feed them.  Processed food is therefore essential.  Without it there would be famine!

 

I backed up what I said about Australia with a couple random objectives sources of information to support my view.  Why haven’t you guys commented on them?  

 

You consistently try and make my views seem extreme whether it’s about carbs, sugar, or the global prevalence and problems of processed foods when all I’m making are OBJECTIVE observations of facts.

 

If you want to fiercely defend your views, based only on your own subjective experiences, and ignore objective facts of the world around us, then we’re not intelligently debating; we’re merely engaged in a pissing match, which is pretty unproductive.

 

That appears to be the case because I can’t think of one single point I’ve made where you don’t smugly tell me I’m wrong.  It seem more important for you to “win” an argument than to really explore a controversial issue and find truth.  To me, that’s what debating is about.

 

If that’s the case, let’s get back on track.  If you’re only interested in winning this pissing match, OK, fine.  Have it your way.  I’ve got better things to do than continue playing this silly game.

 

WaveHunter,
You're being irrational, regarding your comment I've highlighted in bold. It's completely unrealistic to imagine that processed foods would ever suddenly be taken off the shelves in Supermarkets. If that were to happen, there would not only be a scarcity of food for the average consumer but a collapse of the multi-billion dollar food processing industries, and significant unemployment for those working in those industries.

 

Such a change has to be a gradual process. I'm 76 years old and I remember vividly the controversies relating to the benefits of wholemeal bread in place of white bread, in the 1950's in the UK. In those days, white bread was the norm in the supermarkets. One would occasionally come across 'brown' bread, which was probably a mixture of whole meal and white flour with some coloring added. However, to get genuine wholemeal bread one would have visit small bakeries that specialized in such breads. On my way home from school I was often asked by my parents to drop by at a particular bakery to buy some genuine wholemeal bread.

 

Of course, nowadays, brands of white bread are in the minority, at least in Australian supermarkets, although many cafes and restaurants still seem to favour it. However, what is really disappointing is that despite the widespread evidence demonstrating the nutritional benefits of whole grain rice, compared with white rice, it's virtually impossible to be served whole grain rice in any restaurant.

 

In my entire life, I've come across only one restaurant that offered an option of white rice or whole grain rice on the menu, and that restaurant was in Pokhara, Nepal, a place that was probably influenced by the Hippie culture in the 1960's.

 

This situation really highlights the problems resulting from the entrenched culture of the food processing industries and culinary industries. It seem that 'appearance' and 'taste' are always the two most important characteristics for most people. Nutritional value comes last.

 

Hopefully, threads like this will encourage more people to think about the issues.

[WaveHunter]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

That you don't see the actual consumed calories is probably because you did not read my topic with the research attached. (about processed and unprocessed food and the experiment that was done). Its on this forum quite a nice experiment. They had an in house experiment (so no outside food everything was measured gold standard). The people even switched sides during the experiment making it even better. That showed that people who eat processed foods eat 500 cals more per day then those who don't.  Then i took the 2000 cals as average diet and 500 cals is 25% of that.

 

I am not skirting the main issue, you said the world can't be fed and gave that as an argument. I tried to disprove that. I never thought that processed food would disappear, that wont happen.

 

Legislation could change things but first it should be 100% clear what is bad and not. As you saw in what fracturedrabbit posted its not just HFC its also the process used on normal foods. So until its really clear and there is consensus nothing will change. 

OK, you're right I didn't see that link in your post, but what you say now makes sense, if for no other reason than the fact that many processed foods are intentionally engineered to cause over-consumption.  "Bet you can't eat just one" was actually the motto for Lay's Potato Chips for a while LOL!

 

And yes, HFCS is not the only culprit.  There are many other additives that are harmful, but HFCS has been investigated more than any of the others, and has a clearly defined disruptive effect on hormonal balance that in turn has a real-world effect on metabolic health.  And HFCS is the single most prevalent ingredient in processed foods.

 

I also agree that there has to be a scientific consensus on what constitutes healthy ingredients from bad ones.  The only way that will happen is through lab-based studies on the cellular level, and that's why I'm so fascinated by those kind of studies, and very little interested in ones that are more epidemiological-based.  

 

I'm not saying they don't play a valuable role in an interdisciplinary way, but epidemiological studies (by themselves) can almost never be considered as conclusive proof of anything simply because of testing variables no matter how tightly controlled a study is.  However studies of cellular mechanisms can and usually are completely conclusive because extraneous variables can be isolated.

 

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

WaveHunter,
You're being irrational, regarding your comment I've highlighted in bold. It's completely unrealistic to imagine that processed foods would ever suddenly be taken off the shelves in Supermarkets. If that were to happen, there would not only be a scarcity of food for the average consumer but a collapse of the multi-billion dollar food processing industries, and significant unemployment for those working in those industries.

 

Such a change has to be a gradual process. I'm 76 years old and I remember vividly the controversies relating to the benefits of wholemeal bread in place of white bread, in the 1950's in the UK. In those days, white bread was the norm in the supermarkets. One would occasionally come across 'brown' bread, which was probably a mixture of whole meal and white flour with some coloring added. However, to get genuine wholemeal bread one would have visit small bakeries that specialized in such breads. On my way home from school I was often asked by my parents to drop by at a particular bakery to buy some genuine wholemeal bread.

 

Of course, nowadays, brands of white bread are in the minority, at least in Australian supermarkets, although many cafes and restaurants still seem to favour it. However, what is really disappointing is that despite the widespread evidence demonstrating the nutritional benefits of whole grain rice, compared with white rice, it's virtually impossible to be served whole grain rice in any restaurant.

 

In my entire life, I've come across only one restaurant that offered an option of white rice or whole grain rice on the menu, and that restaurant was in Pokhara, Nepal, a place that was probably influenced by the Hippie culture in the 1960's.

 

This situation really highlights the problems resulting from the entrenched culture of the food processing industries and culinary industries. It seem that 'appearance' and 'taste' are always the two most important characteristics for most people. Nutritional value comes last.

 

Hopefully, threads like this will encourage more people to think about the issues.

Maybe you misunderstand the intent of my comment.  I was only using that "banished from the shelves" example to dramatize (for illustration only) my point that processed foods are essential to feed the world population today, and that without them, there would simply not be enough natural foods that could be grown to meet that demand. 

 

It's simply a matter of macroeconomic supply and demand that's at play today with regard to food.  I just don't see how supply and demand can be at equilibrium without processed food.  Isn't that a fair assessment of the situation today?  Please tell me if you disagree.

 

People who have the "choice" to eat healthy only have that choice because manufactured foods fill the gap between available supply (of natural foods) and actual demand (of world populations). 

 

In light of my clarification I hope you still don't think I am being irrational.

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Maybe you misunderstand the intent of my comment.  I was only using that "banished from the shelves" example to dramatize (for illustration only) my point that processed foods are essential to feed the world population today, and that without them, there would simply not be enough natural foods that could be grown to meet that demand. 

 

I think Robblok has already made the point that the source of most food that goes into the processing chain is the normally grown food which is natural and wholesome, excluding the issue of possible pesticide residue. If the processing industry were to shut down, the farmers would presumably still be producing the same amount of food, if not more, and the supermarkets would simply expand their fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh fish and meat sections, replacing the rows of shelves containing canned food and food in jars.

 

There's no shortage of food in the world. However, there is sometimes a shortage of adequate transport and storage facilities which can inhibit the delivery of food to those who are in great need due to famine or war.

[WaveHunter]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I think Robblok has already made the point that the source of most food that goes into the processing chain is the normally grown food which is natural and wholesome, excluding the issue of possible pesticide residue. If the processing industry were to shut down, the farmers would presumably still be producing the same amount of food, if not more, and the supermarkets would simply expand their fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh fish and meat sections, replacing the rows of shelves containing canned food and food in jars.

 

There's no shortage of food in the world. However, there is sometimes a shortage of adequate transport and storage facilities which can inhibit the delivery of food to those who are in great need due to famine or war.

OK, My fault for not defining exactly what I mean when i use the term "processed" food. 

 

In addition to manufactured foods made entirely of artificial ingredients, processed foods also include foods that are grown in conventional high-yield farms where dangerous pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and other chemicals are used.

 

These substances that have become synonymous with high-yield agriculture find there way into food products found in supermarkets, just as livestock products containing steroids, hormones, and antibiotics also find their way into the foods we buy.

 

When you say "normally grown food" is natural and wholesome, I respectfully  just have to disagree.  Some may say that these added substances have no real negative effect on nutritional health.  I would strongly disagree based on what is now being studied about long-term effects they have on humans.

 

Today, true "organic" farming accounts for only 1% of global agricultural land use.  If only 1% of global agricultural land is devoted to growing them, they can hardly support the world population as a whole.

 

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

OK, My fault for not defining exactly what I mean when i use the term "processed" food. 

 

In addition to manufactured foods made entirely of artificial ingredients, processed foods also include foods that are grown in conventional high-yield farms where dangerous pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and other chemicals are used.

 

These substances that have become synonymous with high-yield agriculture find there way into food products found in supermarkets, just as livestock products containing steroids, hormones, and antibiotics also find their way into the foods we buy.

 

When you say "normally grown food" is natural and wholesome, I respectfully  just have to disagree.  Some may say that these added substances have no real negative effect on nutritional health.  I would strongly disagree based on what is now being studied about long-term effects they have on humans.

 

Today, true "organic" farming accounts for only 1% of global agricultural land use.  If only 1% of global agricultural land is devoted to growing them, they can hardly support the world population as a whole.

 

Okay! The goal posts have now changed again. The issue has now become one of pesticide control, the potential harmful effects of pesticide residue on fresh fruit and vegetables, and the effects of hormone injections used to increase the production of the meat products we eat.

 

These are genuine concerns, but the problems are more serious in some countries than others. I get the impression, from this forum, that the over-use of pesticides is a major concern in Thailand. However, I also get the impression that Australia has fairly strict and effective controls on the use of pesticides. I came across the following sites which addresses the issue.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

 

"Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a statutory authority in the Australian Government Health portfolio. FSANZ develops food standards for Australia and New Zealand."
 

https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2016/04/28/your-fruit-and-veg-full-chemicals

 

"Every year,  Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)  performs a residue survey, to check on levels of pesticides found in the fruit and veg that make their way to our tables. “A lot of the time, we find absolutely no trace of residue on the fruit and veg,” says Haase. “And if we do find residue, which does happen, it’s always well below the maximum limits set, which include a significant margin for differences in body weight, amount eaten and so on.”

 

"People don’t need any more barriers to eating fresh fruit and vegetables. The benefits of eating these excellent whole foods far, far, far outweighs any risk of pesticide harm."

 

Of course, one can never be certain that the vegetables one has just bought meet those official standards, which is why people are encouraged to thoroughly wash their fruit and vegetables in clean water before eating. If one can afford it, buying only organically grown fruit and vegetables will reduce the risk of contamination, but not necessarily eliminate the risk. There's always a risk of contamination with microbes and bacteria, which is why cooking or steaming is the safest option.

 

Recent research has shown that soaking the fruit or vegetables for 10 to 15 minutes in a solution of Baking Soda (Sodium Bi-carbonate) can be more effective that just washing in clean water.

 

Regarding fresh meat products, in the Australian supermarkets one is usually given the choice of cheap Caged Eggs or  more expensive Free Range Eggs, Free Range chicken meat, and grass-fed beef.
 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! The goal posts have now changed again. The issue has now become one of pesticide control, the potential harmful effects of pesticide residue on fresh fruit and vegetables, and the effects of hormone injections used to increase the production of the meat products we eat.

 

These are genuine concerns, but the problems are more serious in some countries than others. I get the impression, from this forum, that the over-use of pesticides is a major concern in Thailand. However, I also get the impression that Australia has fairly strict and effective controls on the use of pesticides. I came across the following sites which addresses the issue.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

 

"Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a statutory authority in the Australian Government Health portfolio. FSANZ develops food standards for Australia and New Zealand."
 

https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2016/04/28/your-fruit-and-veg-full-chemicals

 

"Every year,  Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)  performs a residue survey, to check on levels of pesticides found in the fruit and veg that make their way to our tables. “A lot of the time, we find absolutely no trace of residue on the fruit and veg,” says Haase. “And if we do find residue, which does happen, it’s always well below the maximum limits set, which include a significant margin for differences in body weight, amount eaten and so on.”

 

"People don’t need any more barriers to eating fresh fruit and vegetables. The benefits of eating these excellent whole foods far, far, far outweighs any risk of pesticide harm."

 

Of course, one can never be certain that the vegetables one has just bought meet those official standards, which is why people are encouraged to thoroughly wash their fruit and vegetables in clean water before eating. If one can afford it, buying only organically grown fruit and vegetables will reduce the risk of contamination, but not necessarily eliminate the risk. There's always a risk of contamination with microbes and bacteria, which is why cooking or steaming is the safest option.

 

Recent research has shown that soaking the fruit or vegetables for 10 to 15 minutes in a solution of Baking Soda (Sodium Bi-carbonate) can be more effective that just washing in clean water.

 

Regarding fresh meat products, in the Australian supermarkets one is usually given the choice of cheap Caged Eggs or  more expensive Free Range Eggs, Free Range chicken meat, and grass-fed beef.
 

The goal posts have NOT changed.  I originally assumed that most well-informed people understood the definition of "processed food" was not limited to foods manufactured entirely of artificial ingredients.  Apparently, you did not. 

 

No offense but don't accuse me of changing the "goal posts" when the fault is yours for not understanding what "processed foods" really means

 

You can continue to deny there are problems with processed foods in Australia by citing this article and that if you wish, but anyone who is really being open-minded and objective can not help but see there is a very real danger to public health and it is indeed a GLOBAL problem, not one confined only to the USA.  That's my position and I believe in it.  If you really believe there is no problem, that's you right.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

The goal posts have NOT changed.  I originally assumed that most well-informed people understood the definition of "processed food" was not limited to foods manufactured entirely of artificial ingredients.  Apparently, you did not. 

 

It seems confusion reigns. I don't recall ever eating any food that consisted entirely of artificial ingredients. I've always assumed that all processed foods consist, originally, of natural, whole foods which have been put through a processing chain to make them as tasty and appealing as possible. 

 

Whilst there's no doubt that many added ingredients, such as preservatives and taste-enhancing chemicals, might be entirely artificial, the major percentage of the food in a can, jar or package, tends to be natural. The beans in a can of beans are not artificial, but some of the additives probably are. 

 

You can continue to deny there are problems with processed foods in Australia by citing this article and that if you wish, but anyone who is really being open-minded and objective can not help but see there is a very real danger to public health and it is indeed a GLOBAL problem, not one confined only to the USA.  That's my position and I believe in it.  If you really believe there is no problem, that's you right.

 

I have never, ever denied there is a problem with processed foods. I challenge you to quote anything I've written that states such. I try to avoid processed foods as much as possible, but it's difficult to completely avoid them whilst also being sociable, accepting invitations to dinner, and/or eating out in restaurants.

 

I also like the occasional glass of wine, which is of course a processed drink. I justify drinking the occasional glass on the grounds that the benefits (of red wine at least) probably counteract the harm. I'm not certain this is really the case with wine, but I don't consider it a major issue provided moderation prevails.

 

Okay!?

 

[WaveHunter]

.

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

It seems confusion reigns. I don't recall ever eating any food that consisted entirely of artificial ingredients. I've always assumed that all processed foods consist, originally, of natural, whole foods which have been put through a processing chain to make them as tasty and appealing as possible. 

 

Whilst there's no doubt that many added ingredients, such as preservatives and taste-enhancing chemicals, might be entirely artificial, the major percentage of the food in a can, jar or package, tends to be natural. The beans in a can of beans are not artificial, but some of the additives probably are. 

 

I have never, ever denied there is a problem with processed foods. I challenge you to quote anything I've written that states such. I try to avoid processed foods as much as possible, but it's difficult to completely avoid them whilst also being sociable, accepting invitations to dinner, and/or eating out in restaurants.

 

I also like the occasional glass of wine, which is of course a processed drink. I justify drinking the occasional glass on the grounds that the benefits (of red wine at least) probably counteract the harm. I'm not certain this is really the case with wine, but I don't consider it a major issue provided moderation prevails.

 

Okay!?

 

I think you are missing my point entirely, and have been with all my posts.  Perhaps I haven't made my points concisely.

 

#1 World population being what it is, most people do not have the choice of whether or not they will consume processed food.  Many MUST consume them.  They are here to stay whether people like it or not.  Processed food is simply an economic reality of supply and demand given the world population today.   

 

#2   Processed foods are a result of economic reality, not simply for the enhancement of flavor.  If natural foods were altered or synthetic ones created from natural food bases, simply to make them "as tasty and appealing as possible", as you put it, then I'd have no big issue, but there is far more going on. 

 

The use of high fructose corn syrup, or other additives which intentionally cause people to over-consume, pesticides, and other chemicals that enhance yield and speed up crop turn over, all have potentially serious effects on public health, and they are there for only one reason and that is to enhance profits for the food producer.

 

#3  Worse, in order to protect their bottom line, food producers do everything possible to keep actual facts from the public.  The use completely misleading marketing, deliberately manipulate nutritional food labelling, and have powerful lobbying capabilities and resources with government regulators and watchdog organizations that should be protecting the public but instead are protecting the profits of the food producers are at play.

===

 

There is an epidemic of obesity and Diabetes-2 going on today.  It may be worst in the USA but no country in the developed world is immune.  

 

You can claim that anyone has the “choice” to eat healthy but that’s not really true.  What about the person who eats processed foods and believe the marketing and nutritional deceptions on food labels.  They think they are eating healthy when in fact they might not be!

 

#4  Obesity and Diabetes-2 are VERY real public health issues today.  Processed foods are an important part of most people’s diets in developed countries of the world today, not out of choice but out of necessity.  I don’t think it’s merely a coincidental link between increased dominance of processed foods and the rising levels of such metabolic based diseases.

 

Some will disagree and fall back on adages like “Everything in moderation” is the key to a healthy life.”  That might be true with “organic” foods, but not at all when it comes to the current state of many processed foods.  Things like high fructose corn syrup, pesticides, chemicals used to enhance crop yields and accelerate crop turnover all can have cumulative effects on the human body.  Studies are proving that to be a fact…and many studies supported by the food producers are trying to distort these fact!  It’s all no different than what the tobacco industry did up until the 1990’s.

 

#5  It’s not a question of avoiding processed food.  They’re here to stay whether people like it or not. 

 

The real question should be how will food producers find ways to make processed food healthy and still produce profits for their shareholders  (which of course is their prime responsibility).  They’re not going to change anything unless they are forced to through an informed public that leads to government action to correct the situation 

 

In simple terms that’s all I am saying.

[robblok]

@wavehunter

 

Sorry I agree with VincentJ your constantly shifting goal posts and have diverted away from what is generally understood with processed food.

 

That you have your own definition and agenda is nice but in a debate its nice if words mean what they should mean not what you think they should mean.

 

Vegetables with fertilizer is not processed foods in the general term neither is it when pesticides are used. 

[WaveHunter]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

@wavehunter

 

Sorry I agree with VincentJ your constantly shifting goal posts and have diverted away from what is generally understood with processed food.

 

That you have your own definition and agenda is nice but in a debate its nice if words mean what they should mean not what you think they should mean.

 

Vegetables with fertilizer is not processed foods in the general term neither is it when pesticides are used. 

I'm not changing the "goal posts" at all.  Rather, you guys are improperly defining "processed foods in the first place, and then accusing me of changing the definition to fit my agenda when I correct you.

 

Any food that is altered by Man (from what nature intended) from the time it is grown to the time it is consumed is "processed" IMO.  If the alteration is with natural substances like purely natural fertilizers that's one thing, but it's entirely different when you're talking about synthetic ones, especially some of the newer ones that are pretty controversial as to their long-term effects on health. 

 

You guys are taking too much of a myopic view of what processed foods really are, and when I correct you,  you accuse me of "changing the goal posts". 

 

You yourself inferred that I was only talking about "fast foods" in one of your replies, and then you said in another post that the only difference between processed and unprocessed foods was the use of "HCS" (high fructose corn syrup I think you meant).  How else should I react other than to correct you on what I see "processed" foods to mean.  That is hardly "changing the goal posts".

 

And now you make the blanket statement that fertilizers or pesticides do not classify a food as processed.  I'd agree with you if you're talking only of natural ones that have been used for hundreds of years, but not the current synthetic ones that have been highly engineered to increase crop yields and accelerate crop turn-over, and for which the long-term effect on human health are currently unknown.

 

Please don't accuse me of trying to re-define my definition of "processed foods" to fit my own agenda, when you guys are incorrectly defining "processed" foods in the first place.  That's just unfair!

 

I have to say, I'm sort of confused about your negative view of what I'm saying here.  I mean, considering that you say you try and avoid processed foods, why else would you be doing that?  All I am saying is that they are unhealthy and explaining why I feel they are.  You seem to be saying they are unhealthy simply because they are, without a reasonable explanation of why they are.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

19 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I think you are missing my point entirely, and have been with all my posts.  Perhaps I haven't made my points concisely.

 

Okay! I'll try to address your points in the interests of encouraging rational thought on the issue. ????

 

#1 World population being what it is, most people do not have the choice of whether or not they will consume processed food.  Many MUST consume them.  They are here to stay whether people like it or not.  Processed food is simply an economic reality of supply and demand given the world population today.  

 

I've traveled a lot in my life, and I've never come across any location where only processed food is marketed, and fresh fruit and vegetables are not available in the vicinity, in small shops and stalls, or whatever.
I've never come across a supermarket which does not have a fresh fruit and vegetable section, but I have come across places which have local vegetable shops but no supermarkets selling processed food.

 

If your statement that most people don't have the choice is true, then you need to give me some specific examples. Can you do that?

 

#2   Processed foods are a result of economic reality, not simply for the enhancement of flavor.  If natural foods were altered or synthetic ones created from natural food bases, simply to make them "as tasty and appealing as possible", as you put it, then I'd have no big issue, but there is far more going on.

 

Everything in our lifestyle is a result of economic reality, and that economic reality is dependent upon creating a demand for a product, whether the product is a motor car, fashionable clothing, iPhone, or food, and so on. The modern economy also relies upon competition among the various producers. 

 

Of course, taste and appearance are not the only factors, but they are major and essential factors. Other factors are price, and for those who are health-conscious, any labeling on the processed product that mentions health attributes such as , no artificial ingredients, organic, cold-pressed, and so on, will also have a competitive edge.

 

#3  Worse, in order to protect their bottom line, food producers do everything possible to keep actual facts from the public.  The use completely misleading marketing, deliberately manipulate nutritional food labelling, and have powerful lobbying capabilities and resources with government regulators and watchdog organizations that should be protecting the public but instead are protecting the profits of the food producers are at play.

You can claim that anyone has the “choice” to eat healthy but that’s not really true.  What about the person who eats processed foods and believe the marketing and nutritional deceptions on food labels.  They think they are eating healthy when in fact they might not be!

 

That situation applies to most products in our modern economy where advertising plays a crucial role. The purpose of advertising is not to present a balanced view of the product being sold, mentioning all the positives and negatives, but to emphasize just the 'cool' and attractive features.

 

Deliberate lying about a product in advertisements is illegal in Australia. However, misleading statements are sometimes difficult to categorize as 'lying', because a lot depends on the interpretation of the viewer. In the case of processed food, the situation is further complicated because there's so much difference of opinion among the various health authorities on what constitutes a healthy food. Foods containing saturated fats is an obvious example of conflicting opinions.

 

All choices on all matters are affected by our own understanding of the benefits of the various options offered, and of course the availability.

 

#4  Obesity and Diabetes-2 are VERY real public health issues today.  Processed foods are an important part of most people’s diets in developed countries of the world today, not out of choice but out of necessity.  I don’t think it’s merely a coincidental link between increased dominance of processed foods and the rising levels of such metabolic based diseases.

Some will disagree and fall back on adages like “Everything in moderation” is the key to a healthy life.”  That might be true with “organic” foods, but not at all when it comes to the current state of many processed foods.  Things like high fructose corn syrup, pesticides, chemicals used to enhance crop yields and accelerate crop turnover all can have cumulative effects on the human body.  Studies are proving that to be a fact…and many studies supported by the food producers are trying to distort these fact!  It’s all no different than what the tobacco industry did up until the 1990’s.

 

No disagreement here. If you have a medical condition which you want to cure through a change in diet and lifestyle, instead of becoming reliant upon artificial drugs, then just doing 'everything in moderation' will probably not be sufficient.
 

#5  It’s not a question of avoiding processed food.  They’re here to stay whether people like it or not. 

The real question should be how will food producers find ways to make processed food healthy and still produce profits for their shareholders  (which of course is their prime responsibility).  They’re not going to change anything unless they are forced to through an informed public that leads to government action to correct the situation.

 

You are making contradictory statements. Processed foods are not here to stay if people don't like them. The economy does not work by selling stuff that people don't like.

 

Processed foods are here to stay because many people like the taste and the convenience, and that taste and convenience, for most people, tends to dominate concerns about health.
 

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You are making contradictory statements. Processed foods are not here to stay if people don't like them. The economy does not work by selling stuff that people don't like.

 

Processed foods are here to stay because many people like the taste and the convenience, and that taste and convenience, for most people, tends to dominate concerns about health.
 

Look, all due respect, Nothing I have said is contradictory.  People do not buy processed food simply because it tastes good and is convenient.  They buy it because of necessity.  You can cite how there are plenty of stores to buy healthy foods but in a macro-economic sense, there is not not enough unprocessed food available to meet the current population of the world.  Processed food is necessary to fill the gap.  It's not my opinion; it's just a matter of economic supply and demand.

 

When it comes to taste and convenience, sure, that's what motivates consumers to buy many of these foods.  Many processed foods are intentionally engineered to not only motivate people to buy them but to also over-consume them...and that's why people get obese and sick from eating many types of processed foods, and THAT is where my issues are.

 

Because processed foods are essential to feed the world's population, producers need to be held to a higher standard than they currently are; A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD!

 

I'm not saying food producers are necessarily evil.  Commercial producers are first and foremost business enterprises.  As such their responsibility is first and foremost to their shareholders, and then to consumers.  Not the other way around.

 

Their goal is to produce the highest possible profit by cutting costs and increasing demand as much as possible.

 

My issue is that they go WAY TOO FAR. In an ideal world, government and watchdog agencies are supposed to prevent this from happening but often that's not the way it works.  Billions and billions of dollars in profit are at stake, and food producers will do everything they can to protect profits, and often they step over the line...way over the line!  

 

There's always a tug-of-war going on between private enterprise and those charged with controlling their practices.  For instance, Car makers decide whether or not to fix a lethal design flaw, NOT on the basis of whether it will save lives but based on a spreadsheet analysis of what will be least expensive; the cost of a recall or the cost of paying out legal claims.  I mean, c'mon...this is the REAL world, not an ideal make believe world where everybody does the right thing for virtuous reasons.

 

Food producers are no different.  They use deceptive advertising to promote the healthiness of their products, pushing it right to the edge of what's legal and often beyond, and they use elaborate trickery (also pushed as far as they can possibly get away with) to deceive consumers about the nutritional content of their products.  They sponsor scientific studies to counter legitimate studies that suggest their practices are unhealthy.  And they pay billions of dollars to lobbyist to help them push the envelope in these regards. 

 

The result is profit for the industry but very unhealthy products that contribute to rising obesity and metabolic-based disease that has grown worldwide (not just in the USA) as processed food consumption has evolved.  You can deny this connection if you wish but it's there for anyone with an objective open mind to see.

 

You can believe that processed foods are not essential and bought only for pleasure and convenience but that would be to deny the economic reality of supply and demand for the current world population.  You can believe that food producers have the health and well-being of their customers in mind over the demands of their shareholders for profit if you like but that would be to deny how Capitalism really works.

 

There is nothing at all contradictory with what I am saying; nothing at all!

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Look, all due respect, Nothing I have said is contradictory.  People do not buy processed food simply because it tastes good and is convenient.  They buy it because of necessity.  You can cite how there are plenty of stores to buy healthy foods but in a macro-economic sense, there is not not enough unprocessed food available to meet the current population of the world.  Processed food is necessary to fill the gap.  It's not my opinion; it's just a matter of economic supply and demand.

 

With all due respect you seem very confused, WaveHunter. The amount of unprocessed food that is grown, world-wide, is far greater than that required to feed the world population. The World Health Organization estimates that around 14 billion dollars worth of food is wasted each year, world-wide.

 

There are many causes and sources of such wastage. One of them is the food wasted as a result of processing. For example, during the production of fruit juices, the remaining fiber, which also contains nutrients, is wasted. When whole grain rice is processed to create white rice, the remaining fiber, which also contains nutrients, is wasted. When whole grain wheat is processed to produce white flour, probably a lot of the fiber it is wasted, but fortunately some of it is sold in health food shops as 'Wheat Germ', as is 'Oat Bran' from the processing of whole grain oats.

 

In Australia, huge quantities of bananas are wasted each year and used for compost, because they are not cosmetically pleasing and would be rejected by the supermarkets. This reinforces my concept that food is all about 'appearance and taste', for most people.

 

Food is also wasted due to inadequate storage facilities in undeveloped countries and lack of adequate roads for transportation.

 

In developed countries, lots of food, especially processed food, is thrown away because it's passed its theoretical 'use-by' date, or 'best by' date, which is merely a guideline.

 

Your concept that people buy processed foods because it's a necessity, is not true. However, it might be true that many people buy processed foods because they 'imagine' or 'kid themselves' it is a necessity. See the difference?

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

With all due respect you seem very confused, WaveHunter. The amount of unprocessed food that is grown, world-wide, is far greater than that required to feed the world population. The World Health Organization estimates that around 14 billion dollars worth of food is wasted each year, world-wide.

 

There are many causes and sources of such wastage. One of them is the food wasted as a result of processing. For example, during the production of fruit juices, the remaining fiber, which also contains nutrients, is wasted. When whole grain rice is processed to create white rice, the remaining fiber, which also contains nutrients, is wasted. When whole grain wheat is processed to produce white flour, probably a lot of the fiber it is wasted, but fortunately some of it is sold in health food shops as 'Wheat Germ', as is 'Oat Bran' from the processing of whole grain oats.

 

In Australia, huge quantities of bananas are wasted each year and used for compost, because they are not cosmetically pleasing and would be rejected by the supermarkets. This reinforces my concept that food is all about 'appearance and taste', for most people.

 

Food is also wasted due to inadequate storage facilities in undeveloped countries and lack of adequate roads for transportation.

 

In developed countries, lots of food, especially processed food, is thrown away because it's passed its theoretical 'use-by' date, or 'best by' date, which is merely a guideline.

 

Your concept that people buy processed foods because it's a necessity, is not true. However, it might be true that many people buy processed foods because they 'imagine' or 'kid themselves' it is a necessity. See the difference?

I'm not confused at all about this.  I'm aware of the statistics and I agree that theoretically it's possible to feed the world from natural sources, however the fact remains that it is not the practice in place today.

 

For whatever reason, people today rely far more on processed foods than they do on natural ones for the bulk of their diet.

 

Processed food is cheaper to produce and can be manipulated to make people over-consume it.  It is therefore more profitable to producers, so they do everything they can to get people to buy it, rather than more healthy foods, and people do exactly that. 

 

We are both getting too carried away with all sorts of fine points in debating this.  All I am saying is that a significant part of the population's nutrition is based on processed foods today. 

 

You can argue this point if you want to, but even if that were not the case, processed food producers should still be held to a much higher standard than they currently are, because right now, profits are their main concern, and health of consumers is a distant second.

[cooked]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

I'm not confused at all about this.  I'm aware of the statistics and I agree that theoretically it's possible to feed the world from natural sources, however the fact remains that it is not the practice in place today.

 

For whatever reason, people today rely far more on processed foods than they do on natural ones for the bulk of their diet.

 

Processed food is cheaper to produce and can be manipulated to make people over-consume it.  It is therefore more profitable to producers, so they do everything they can to get people to buy it, rather than more healthy foods, and people do exactly that. 

 

We are both getting too carried away with all sorts of fine points in debating this.  All I am saying is that a significant part of the population's nutrition is based on processed foods today. 

 

You can argue this point if you want to, but even if that were not the case, processed food producers should still be held to a much higher standard than they currently are, because right now, profits are their main concern, and health of consumers is a distant second.

This is getting very tiresome, why don't you guys meet up somewhere and iron it out? Or PM?

[Destiny1990]

@Waverunner

 

Out of curiosity what your stance on Melatonan II peptide.

 I considering this  substance as i got some discoloring in my face and I don’t like the real sun much and than this stuff gives me a sun tan look and it thickens my epirmedal skin also suppression of hunger and another side effect can be more frequent errections.

all-together i have taking meds with worse side effects than that.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I'm not confused at all about this.  I'm aware of the statistics and I agree that theoretically it's possible to feed the world from natural sources, however the fact remains that it is not the practice in place today.

 

I think you are confused. It's not just theoretically possible to feed the world from natural resources, we actually do feed the world from natural sources. Those natural resources are the fundamental source of all food which enters the food-processing chain. During that processing of the food, a significant percentage of the food is discarded, as I've mentioned before.

 

Why do you find these facts so difficult to understand?

[wilcopops]

Here's hat science based medicine says about intermittent fasting

" Fasting might help, maybe

People who can tolerate periods of hunger might find intermittent fasting helpful for weight loss; it is simpler to not eat than to try to decide what to eat.

Although some of the evidence for intermittent fasting sounds promising, we don’t yet know whether it will prolong life or improve health.

It may be OK to skip breakfast.

We don’t yet know what the optimum meal frequency and timing are in health or in disease.

More research is needed, particularly well-designed human trials comparing various fasting regimens to the traditional three meals a day."

 

However you need to take into account the mental state that makes people so obsessed with health that they try this and any other idea that comes along - the overall effect is OCD and detrimental health effects.

 

Like the current cannabis fad, fasting is largely unproven.

"Basically, intermittent fasting has potential benefits for anti-aging, cancer, cognitive function, inflammation, hypertension, and the metabolic syndrome; but the evidence so far is insufficient to justify making clinical recommendations." [Sciencebasedmedicine.]

 

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you are confused. It's not just theoretically possible to feed the world from natural resources, we actually do feed the world from natural sources. Those natural resources are the fundamental source of all food which enters the food-processing chain. During that processing of the food, a significant percentage of the food is discarded, as I've mentioned before.

 

Why do you find these facts so difficult to understand?

Look, fact is, I think you, Robblok, and I actually agree on the important thing, even though we're all too bull-headed to admit it, and that is ... the way many processed foods are made today, they are just unhealthy to consume if long-term effects are a concern, and many people in the developed countries rely on these foods as a significant part of their diets.

 

Granted , many processed foods may start out as "natural food" but once they have been seriously altered by synthetic chemicals used in the growing process (and that will eventually find their ways into out bodies as consumers), or in the processing plant where vital nutrients are stripped such as with grains (enriched bread) or fruits (concentrated juices), they are no longer "natural", and they are no longer as nature intended them to be.  They are no longer healthy!

 

Can we at least agree on that?

 

If you really cut to the chase, all that I'm saying is that:

 

1) Processed foods are a significant part of just about everyone's lives to some degree in most developed countries.

 

2)  Producers of these foods are motivated by profit first, and the health of consumers a distant second.  They are just cutting too many corners in the interest of profit over long-term consumer health.  High rates of obesity and metabolic disease associated with such foods are clear indicators of a problem that exists.

 

3) The situation must change; food producers need to be held to a higher standard than they currently are; a much higher standard.

 

Is this something we can agree on, or not?

 

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, cooked said:

This is getting very tiresome, why don't you guys meet up somewhere and iron it out? Or PM?

Truth is, I agree with you.  This isn't the right thread for this debate to have gone on to the depth that it has.  Fact is, I think all three of us are more in agreement on what's really important then we care to admit but we're all just too bull-headed to admit it.  So, I've had my say and will stop here.  Sorry about that ????

 

 

[VincentRJ]

31 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

 

If you really cut to the chase, all that I'm saying is that:

 

1) Processed foods are a significant part of just about everyone's lives to some degree in most developed countries.

 

2)  Producers of these foods are motivated by profit first, and the health of consumers a distant second.

 

3) The situation must change; food producers need to be held to a higher standard than they currently are; a much higher standard.

 

Is this something we can agree on?

Well, yes, agreed, but these points are rather obvious. Higher standards are always better and I imagine that some countries need much higher standards to be enforced than other countries.

 

The main problem as I see it is that children are not properly educated about the fundamentals of a healthy diet and lifestyle, and are not led by example by their parents. As a consequence they tend to form bad eating habits from an early age and just assume that such habits are normal and healthy.

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, wilcopops said:

Here's hat science based medicine says about intermittent fasting

" Fasting might help, maybe

People who can tolerate periods of hunger might find intermittent fasting helpful for weight loss; it is simpler to not eat than to try to decide what to eat.

Although some of the evidence for intermittent fasting sounds promising, we don’t yet know whether it will prolong life or improve health.

It may be OK to skip breakfast.

We don’t yet know what the optimum meal frequency and timing are in health or in disease.

More research is needed, particularly well-designed human trials comparing various fasting regimens to the traditional three meals a day."

 

However you need to take into account the mental state that makes people so obsessed with health that they try this and any other idea that comes along - the overall effect is OCD and detrimental health effects.

 

Like the current cannabis fad, fasting is largely unproven.

"Basically, intermittent fasting has potential benefits for anti-aging, cancer, cognitive function, inflammation, hypertension, and the metabolic syndrome; but the evidence so far is insufficient to justify making clinical recommendations." [Sciencebasedmedicine.]

 

I agree with what you say.  Nothing about fasting is etched in stone but it's something to consider by anyone who feels that their metabolic health is not what it should be.  I think it's especially true for those who are obese. 

 

Still, everyone reacts differently to the fasted state.  Some (like me) feel it has distinct health benefits.  Others do not.  It's really up to the individual to decide that for themselves.

 

I'm not a big fan of fad diets or any sort of weight loss diet at all for that matter.  If you are obese, that's an indicator of an underlying health issue, and that's what should really be addressed rather than simply going on yet another diet.  Many who are obese just go on one diet after another, loosing some weight and then gaining it all back.

 

This is just my personal opinion but one of the virtues of a short-term fast (i.e.: 72 hours) is that it sort of "resets" the metabolism.  It allows for a sort of "spring cleaning" of intra-cellular junks that has accumulated (i.e.: autophagy). 

 

At the end of the fast, if a person can then start eating in a healthy way for the long-term and becoming more physically active, natural loss of excess body fat can be achieved better than any fad diet can achieve.  Just my point of view, but I think it's a more healthy way to approach obesity than many of the fad diets that come and go.

 

Eating "healthy" means many different things to different people.  Some are into Vegan, some into Paleo, some are into Keto.  They each have pros and cons.  They all can be healthy.  It's just up to the individual to decide what works best for them. 

 

I think that all that's important is to avoid eating habits that are universally accepted as bad, such as too much sugar, too much processed foods, etc.  Everyone really knows deep inside what's bad for you.  Just learn listen to your body; it will tell you everything you need to know.

 

[WaveHunter]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, yes, agreed, but these points are rather obvious. Higher standards are always better and I imagine that some countries need much higher standards to be enforced than other countries.

 

The main problem as I see it is that children are not properly educated about the fundamentals of a healthy diet and lifestyle, and are not led by example by their parents. As a consequence they tend to form bad eating habits from an early age and just assume that such habits are normal and healthy.

Agree!  And yeah children are key!  Food producers target them directly though and it's hard for a parent's message to compete with very clever advertising and marketing efforts aimed directly at their children. 

 

I know I keep harping on this, and already promised people in this thread I'd shut up, but I can't say how important I think it is that food producers stop being allowed to influence the public with cleverly disguised and deliberately misleading health claims about their products, and using advertising and marketing techniques associating their products with health and vitality, and targeting specific audiences least knowledgable about healthy nutrition such as low socio-economic groups (the "Micky-D" slogan aimed at African-Americans by McDonalds), and the use of the Ronald McDonald character, aimed specifically at children.

 

Much of their advertising is outright propaganda targeted specifically at children, such as the use of cartoon characters as mascots for sugary breakfast cereals, such as "Cap'n Crunch", "Tony the Tiger", "Trix Rabbit", "Fruit Loops", just to name a few of the dozens that are used.  Their boxes depict massive portion sizes, and they are clearly designed to encourage massive over-consumption not only as a breakfast cereal but as snacks as well.  These type of ads are very powerful ways to use children in order to persuade parents to buy these products, and they are incredibly effective. 

 

So, I agree with you that everyone has a choice in how to eat, but it's awfully hard to make the right choice when faced with this kind of powerful manipulation by the powerful food industry as it exists today.  All I'm saying is that needs to change.  Processed food is not going away; it's here to stay.  What needs to change is that the food industry needs to act more responsibly.