this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
528 points (97.5% liked)

World News

53271 readers
2249 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
 

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
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, Cheerios. The heart-healthy cereal that people give to infants. That's an "ultra-processed food", because the phrase is bullshit.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Real quick, define heart healthy. Tell me what the Cheerios people actually mean when they say that.

That phrase actually is bullshit. It's marketing wank designed to illicit an emotional response from worrisome mothers and evidently specific dudes on the Internet.

And while there's no firm definition of a UPF, there is an actual general understanding of what that term means. No one is going to look at a bag of lettuce and call it ultra processed. In the same stroke, you can't look at a bag of Chex mix and tell at a glance what they're made out of. About half the ingredients on the bag are synthetic. The rest have been reduced to their component atoms and reassembled in a way that's still technically edible.

And brother, if you think we're not giving UPFs to babies you've got a very rude awaking coming to you. Almost all of the foods marketed towards infants and toddlers are UPF. That's actually a big problem and a likely contributor to the ongoing obesity problem we have.

As it happens the product you're seeing babies eat isn't generally Cheerios, it's something made of rice that dissolves faster to prevent choking. What's the marketing for it anyway. And the fact that you and most people without kids can't tell the difference at a glance says something about the food we're feeding to kids.

For your edification, choking hazards for children are a real thing, because we've failed as a society to teach our children how to chew. Because we've been feeding them processed crap from a spoon. If you give a baby a bit of food too big for them to swallow, they'll pick it up and gnaw or gum at it for a while. Unless you put it in their mouth for them, in which case they'll instinctively try to swallow it and you'll have a problem on your hands.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world -1 points 16 hours ago

When Cheerios says it's heart healthy, it's because it has some kind of fiber that helps lower cholesterol. That's according to scientific studies and the pre-Trump FDA.

Almost all of the foods marketed towards infants and toddlers are UPF.

Except it's actually not a problem, because UPF does not mean unhealthy.

As it happens the product you’re seeing babies eat isn’t generally Cheerios, it’s something made of rice that dissolves faster to prevent choking.

Yeah, no, it's definitely Cheerios.

I've got three kids. We gave them actual Cheerios. Every parent I know used actual Cheerios. Their daycare has Cheerios on hand for when a kid needs an extra snack. They're healthy, easy to chew, and have a hole in the middle. They are not a choking hazard.

There are other cereal products specifically made for infants to snack on, but Cheerios are cheaper, more available, and just as good.

For my first two kids we did baby-led weaning (the third one is only five days old), so I know all about teaching children how to chew. And for what it's worth, my kids eat healthy as fuck. They eat more than a serving of plain vegetables with every dinner, and they enjoy it. Which is why it's not a big deal if I want to treat them to a donut for breakfast every once in a while.