23 replies to this topic

[GMO]

I'm sure that other UK based food manufacturers have been looking at the increasing chat in the media about ultra processing and having that "Mitchell and Webb" thing... "Are we the baddies?"  (Look it up, it's funny.)

 

Through no fault of our own, we've been working on products for years to make them more delicious.  To use advanced processes to reduce fat, salt, sugar... all the things dietitians asked us to do.   And obesity rates have rocketed.

 

The premise is, for those not aware, is that Ultra Processed Foods (which includes pretty much anything pre prepared) are bad for you but not just bad, worse than the macronutrient content would suggest.

I'm partway through reading a book on it but am already aware of various potential reasons including:

 

Emulsifiers impacting gut microflora:  Frontiers | Dietary Emulsifiers Alter Composition and Activity of the Human Gut Microbiota in vitro, Irrespective of Chemical or Natural Emulsifier Origin (frontiersin.org)

 

Sweeteners impacting gut microflora The artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium affects the gut microbiome and body weight gain in CD-1 mice | PLOS ONE

 

Softer foods leading to greater intake Slow Food: Sustained Impact of Harder Foods on the Reduction in Energy Intake over the Course of the Day | PLOS ONE

 

That's before you get onto hydrogenation of oils, use of heat processing removing many of the beneficial bacteria etc.  Then even the form of the food.  Did you know that chewed almonds and ground almonds or almond butter (with nothing added) are not processed by the body in the same way?  The body extracts more fat and energy from the ground option.  Food processing and structure impact the metabolizable energy of almonds - Food & Function (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C6FO01076H

 

etc etc.

 

The frustration is that many of the changes that food scientists have made is due to dietetic advice which was, let's face it, flawed.  But I look at what most people consider a good Mediterranean diet is, and most of it is unprocessed.

 

I'm not naïve, there has been consumer pressure for easy to prepare foods and if we stopped making processed foods in factories for supermarkets, people still buy even more processed foods from takeaways.

 

But this has all left me deeply uncomfortable with the conversations I'm having with colleagues.  Many are openly dismissive (and they're right to say cause and effect hasn't yet been established) but as I ate my unprocessed and minimally processed home made salad for lunch followed by dried fruit and seeds, it made me think.  What if it is all true?  If so, this is the biggest bloody scandal since tobacco.  If all that is claimed is true, food science has done more to reduce life expectancy than... well what?  Possibly worse than tobacco?  

Are we the baddies?

[olenazh]

That's not your personal choice to make that food - but it's a consumers choice what to buy.

I've always been against sweeteners: they're not natural, taste terrible, and induce thirst. That's why "diet" coke is a huge hoax.

[Scampi]

I have had the great pleasure in ONLY having worked at whole food manufacturers   (natural cheese, whole protein, table eggs etc) by pure happenstance (ok and maybe geographical location)

 

We are not the baddies-------our civilization is and people's need to be "busy"-----this has been manufactured  and I believe is a choice.  In my house we both commute and have young children, spouse volunteers and we share responsibility of a family farm---and I still have/make time to cook from scratch 5 days a week

 

If folks can no longer find the time to cook from scratch (and let's face it---lots can't even boil water) they still need to eat---and the majority of folks will reach for heat and eat every time

 

Aspartame has been known to be detrimental to our health for a very long time---this is not new research and sugar is added to more things than people realize because it's cheap and makes things "taste good" (until you taste the alternative)

 

Ultra processed foods have also been linked to increase cancer risks

 

We grow acres and acres and acres of corn----------not food food, not even for food for our food------to turn into sugar

 

The more you know--the more you will cook from scratch    

 

Sorry for the diatribe but I feel passionately about this----------I remember watching the show when Jamie Oliver took the British school lunches to task---------children need nutrition, not empty calories 

[MDaleDDF]

I also try and keep all of our formulations as clean as possible.  I don't use any preservatives and I've even turned down customer requests to add such things.   I no longer develop things with artificial coloring, etc, though some of the stuff that was done before I was here is still around.

 

My normal breakfast is an avocado and two slices of toast.  I try to prep healthy foods for my family and I, and I like to cook anyway (most days) so that's no biggie.

I'm pretty sure I undo all the good with whiskey and cigarettes though...

[GMO]

That's not your personal choice to make that food - but it's a consumers choice what to buy.

I've always been against sweeteners: they're not natural, taste terrible, and induce thirst. That's why "diet" coke is a huge hoax.

 

Ah the old personal choice...  I have also said the same.  But what if the data we're giving around the choice is wrong like you've said on diet coke?  What if the processing makes the food more bioavailable?

[GMO]

I have had the great pleasure in ONLY having worked at whole food manufacturers   (natural cheese, whole protein, table eggs etc) by pure happenstance (ok and maybe geographical location)

 

We are not the baddies-------our civilization is and people's need to be "busy"-----this has been manufactured  and I believe is a choice.  In my house we both commute and have young children, spouse volunteers and we share responsibility of a family farm---and I still have/make time to cook from scratch 5 days a week

 

If folks can no longer find the time to cook from scratch (and let's face it---lots can't even boil water) they still need to eat---and the majority of folks will reach for heat and eat every time

 

Aspartame has been known to be detrimental to our health for a very long time---this is not new research and sugar is added to more things than people realize because it's cheap and makes things "taste good" (until you taste the alternative)

 

Ultra processed foods have also been linked to increase cancer risks

 

We grow acres and acres and acres of corn----------not food food, not even for food for our food------to turn into sugar

 

The more you know--the more you will cook from scratch    

 

Sorry for the diatribe but I feel passionately about this----------I remember watching the show when Jamie Oliver took the British school lunches to task---------children need nutrition, not empty calories 

 

I don't disagree and have also worked with minimally processed foods.  I remember the Jamie Oliver series too.  He did one in the UK then in the US.  The differences were shocking with some US kids even more prepared to carry on eating processed foods and the hands of lobbyists far more evident.  

 

I agree that people make choices about "busyness" and I make most of my food from scratch.  More since I've been reading more about it recently.  I do think there is something circular though.  We make food for busy people which makes busyness possible.  Then there's knowledge... but also food companies are marketing ultra processed foods as healthy.  So why would we think people would avoid them to be healthy?  Not everyone is as interested in all this as we are.

[GMO]

I also try and keep all of our formulations as clean as possible.  

 

Now that's an interesting one.  Most UK retailer products went "clean dec" about 15 years ago.  It's not only the additives which are believed to be of concern but the texture as well and physical processing...  Clean dec might mean nothing...  That's the super scary thing for me.  That everything we've done so far might have made things look better but not actually be better.  Encouraging people to eat things with a health halo but not actually as good as home made.

[olenazh]

Don't take it personally, it's not your fault that people choose easy way to go. Laziness is the mother of progress, and due to laziness a lot of good and bad things have been invented, including processed food. However, a grown and educated person still has a choice: save time and consume fast food OR dedicate their time to cooking. 

[G M]

...

The premise is, for those not aware, is that Ultra Processed Foods (which includes pretty much anything pre prepared) are bad for you but not just bad, worse than the macronutrient content would suggest. ...  If so, this is the biggest bloody scandal since tobacco.  If all that is claimed is true, food science has done more to reduce life expectancy than... well what?  Possibly worse than tobacco?  

Are we the baddies?

 

Convenience is a choice, usually.  I'm no specialist, but I believe most of the research around the effect of highly processed foods.  People tend to presume we collectively know more than we actually do, but there is a long way to go in understanding the fine details of nutrition and the long term effects of food additives.

 

Does that make processed food or the people making and marketing it evil, or unscrupulous? No.  Those items are still better than malnutrition, and if given a written test I doubt many average people would report thinking they were better than whole commodity type foods.  That won't stop a bunch of them from pointing fingers and blaming someone else for their poor choices though.

Edited by G M, 30 May 2023 - 03:05 PM.

[olenazh]

And don't forget commercials! People "consume" TV ads without critical thinking, especially if it's big brands. One lady tried to convince me that D yogurts are best choice ever. I argued that these yogurts are full of starch, which is not that good for health - unlike ours made of just milk. Her last argument was "If your products are so good - why they're not on TV?" 

[GMO]

It's all very true.

 

I once went to a manufacturer event and we talked about salt reduction.  The speaker said that "all diet improvements have so far been achieved via stealth".

 

It's not been a hidden reality that more fruit and vegetables would be a good thing for your diet.  That has never changed, even when other advice has.  But yet at my work canteen, I can't see a single item which isn't beige or baked beans.  

 

But if we make things which are ultra palatable and easy to overeat, isn't there a way where we should be forgiving some of the poor choices people make?  Especially if we then make TV adverts to emphasise those poor choices?

 

Many years ago there was a company I went for an interview with who were researching the longevity of elderly Japanese people.  They noted that there was an association between long life and eating natto for breakfast.  For those unaware, natto is a fermented soy bean product which is an "acquired" taste.  

 

This company were aiming to research what was the chemical in the natto which was making these old Japanese people so healthy.

 

And therein lies the problem with it all.  We do this all the time.  Reduce the fat.  Increase the fibre.  Homogenise to make it creamier seaming without fat.  Add starches or, as in this case, isolate that "one thing" then add it to other foodstuffs.

 

But it's such a reductionist simplistic viewpoint.  What if it's not about the chemical but the matrix it's in and the synergistic effects of the starter culture with other wild strains naturally present?  

 

I genuinely think that in as few as 5 years time there will be a huge cultural shift on this and I don't genuinely see myself as the bad guy but I do see some of the products I've made over the years as uniquely depressing "foods" lacking in anything meaningfully nutritious. 

 

Apart from cheese.  How I miss cheese!!!!

[qa_maddy]

I know I'm coming from the US but I feel like this conversation isn't taking into socioeconomic factors that feed into people's lives and their choices around food. If you're working multiple jobs, commuting via public transit, and live in a food dessert - what are you supposed to do? 

 

There's also a big push from food lobbying groups that fund studies, and legislature to promote the "health benefits" of their food when that may not always be the case. (Marion Nestle talks a lot about this) 

 

Ultra processed convenience foods may not be the answer but people need to eat. I don't think that puts the onus on those of us that work in those spaces because arguments could be made for any part of the food industry and the harm they could theoretically or actually cause (human labor in the agriculture, the environment impacts in protein processing). I do absolutely think it's worth striving for more wholesome foods available conveniently but at least in the US it can feel like an uphill battle. 

[mgourley]

I'm cynical enough to say that many of the "healthy" options out there (speaking just from a USA POV) simply cost too much.

I don't see any value in spending $1 more for a pound of carrots that are "organic".
"Healthy Food" is a big dollar business. Slap on a marketing tag line on your packaging and some people will pay the premium to eat something that is not necessarily better for them.

 

Is a McDonald's hamburger any more or less "healthy" than some celery sticks? I would argue that it is. As with all things, moderation is the key.

If you eat a McDonalds burger every day, you are more than likely going to end up being "unhealthy". By the same token, eating nothing but celery sticks every day is going to kill you, simply because there is insufficient nutrition to allow your body to function properly.

It all comes down to personal choice and responsibility. I know the gluten free sandwich cookies we make are not "healthy" but I don't loose any sleep over people buying them.

 

Marshall

[pHruit]

Are we the baddies?

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have ordered hairnets emblazoned with skulls

 

I'm not sure that we're the baddies, but that doesn't mean that we aren't part of the problem in some way. We're stuck trying to balance our individual morality against those of the businesses who pay our wages, and in most cases their aim is to sell more products.

 

"Success" for us in a simplistic sense is when the food leaving the sites we oversee is safe and meets the relevant regs, and that is what our employers ask of us (ok, some of our employers are idiots and make that far harder than it needs to be, but that is theoretically the general aim).

 

Maybe we should consider shifting the idea of "safe" food from the current situation of "if I eat this item it won't make me unwell" to one of "if I eat this item three times a week, is it going to shorten my life expectancy and/or reduce my quality of life compared to the situation if I didn't eat it?" - the latter is obviously far more complex and strays a long way outside our professional remits. I don't mean that in the sense that we should hide behind this to shirk our responsibilities, but rather that the problem is bigger than us, bigger than just the food industry. Many people have lifestyles that favour easy food that has necessarily been processed fairly heavily, or haven't been taught to cook from actual real ingredients, or are constrained by their economic situation, or have limited/no understanding of what a healthy diet actually looks like - I'm led to believe that a combination of Facebook and marketing blurb isn't always the most reliable source for dietary advice

 

Equally I do support the personal responsibility / personal choice arguments that others have made. I guess my reservation about these is that I'm not sure consumers are fully empowered to make those choices. I don't believe governments and food companies should be e.g. banning Big Macs or Mars Bars, but something broader is perhaps amiss if these are an overly large proportion of someone's diet.

 

I'd like to think that we could also be part of the solution to some of these issues, at least the ones that the food industry is able to influence directly. I just have this lingering concern as to exactly how this will play out - maybe it's the cynicism that goes with the job, but I'm slightly worried that the "solutions" will be those that benefit company sales and marketing agendas rather than actually trying to improve things. Maybe those two things aren't always mutually exclusive...?

[jfrey123]

Ever since I learned about the sugar industry paying to manipulate studies almost 60 years ago, and then correlated to how things like the US food pyramid were built by lobbyists trying to generate profit for grain farmers, it's made me rethink almost everything I learned about eating growing up.

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat : The Two-Way : NPR

 

I'm not perfect, but we do try and avoid processed foods in my house.  Of course, I'm not militant about it:  kiddos deserve some chewy bars and a bit of candy here and there.  Meal times are usually a clean prepared protein from its raw form, some cooked fresh vegetables, and a clean starch like potatoes or rice (and of course Mac n Cheese occasionally).  I appreciate how much growth there has been in the "natural" snack options this past decade or so, that does make me feel better about letting kids be kids and not give my 5 year old a complex about a granola bar.  I'm lucky both my daughters will choose a bowl of blueberries over a bag of chips about 90% of the time.

 

The more I learn about the harms that come from processed foods, the more I've come to believe that we humans didn't evolve to eat some of the garbage that is sold as "food".  I'm glad to see that changes are coming.

[olenazh]

If you wanna change something - start with yourself, then - those in hand distance. How much we can really do? Let's be realistic: nobody would go parading with banners "Eat healthy food!", "Stop consuming trash, start eating good!" and so on. But even if anybody do - how many people, do you think, would believe and follow? I think, that's because laziness and habits overcome, in all meanings, from our body to our brain. 

[Brothbro]

If by "we" you mean food scientists and product developers, I think not. I don't work in R&D, but from what I've seen these departments don't have a huge amount of control over what types of products they're asked to create. At my former job that had a sizeable R&D department, decisions on what new products the company should make came from marketing and the executive team. They determined what was trendy and marketable, R&D's job was to try and figure out how to do it in a cost-effective manner and in a way that hit all the specs they were looking for ("we want a protein bar with X% protein and in this color and texture, and it has to taste like smores, oh and it can't use any dairy, do it!"). Even if a food scientist does their best to use certain "healthy" ingredients, if the cost doesn't fit the project or the end result isn't desirable then the company will never approve of the formula. Can you blame these teams for following instructions? If they didn't they'd simply be replaced by others. Outside of R&D, food science is simply the pursuit of producing safe, wholesome food. Of course this isn't so simple, it's a massive undertaking in the modern food industry. Ensuring food safety and quality has so many moving parts these days, parts that we are all well acquainted with. I'm sure I speak for many of us here when the thought that runs in the back of my mind when I do my job is "What are the food safety risks associated with this?" and not "How can I get our consumers to eat and buy as much of this as possible?"

 

On the whole the food industry works the same as all the other industries in the world. You need to create products that keep people coming back. You see philosophy in many industries: why have customers pay once when they can keep paying forever? You don't buy movies anymore, you subscribe to streaming services. Hardware electronics have built-in obsolescence. "Smart" devices come with proprietary software that tracks your data so it can be resold for more revenue after you've purchased the product. These tactics could be seen as predatory, but the reality is they're the norm. To stay competitive and attract investment, the food industry has to rely on great tasting and cheap foods to keep consumer coming back. Thank god we haven't figured out how to upload software to a snickers bar yet (edible nanomachines are thankfully still science fiction).

 

Unfortunately like many others have said, everything has to come back to personal responsibility. Consumers have to decide for themselves how much of anything they consume. It would be impossible to regulate that companies "be good" or only sell "healthy products" because the concepts of health and morality are so often up for debate. Much like your eating choices, your choice of employment is also your own responsibility. It's up to each one of us to determine whether they feel their current job is a net positive on the world. Personally, I think the popularity of this thread speaks to the fact that we're conscious of our positions and do have the intent to "do good".

[kfromNE]

Are we the baddies?

 

Side note: Thank you GMO from across the pond for teaching me a new word - baddie. I feel as if I should try and use it in a conversation now

[SoupsNStuff]

Thank god we haven't figured out how to upload software to a snickers bar yet (edible nanomachines are thankfully still science fiction).

 

If I could reply with images, we'd have a nice "You Wouldn't Download a Snickers" meme here...

 

As they say, you (intentionally or unintentionally) vote with your dollar. Whenever I see the grocery store featuring new gluten free products or companies, I buy some to show that these things are actually wanted and appreciated. People unintentionally vote for the unhealthy option if that's all they can afford. 

 

Everything is interconnected, so I have no idea where you would even start. It's easy to say "Kids in school should get adequate nutrition education so they can make informed choices!" But then you need a properly trained/certified nutrition teacher. But most schools can't or won't afford that. So fix the board of education? Or school funding? And also pay teachers more so you'll actually have someone getting that certification to teach? Of course you now have to make sure the nutrition information they are learning/teaching is current and accurate and not biased. And then fix minimum wage so people can buy healthier things? And then???

 

To paraphrase olenazh, start with personal change and try not to feel guilty about it.

[GMO]

I've started with the personal change and I do eat relatively healthily but what is "healthy" in my mind has shifted in the last years.  I no longer reach for low fat items and I'm far more cautious about the types of processed food I will eat.  But to my mind, that doesn't make me noble but a hypocrite.  I'm not uncommon in the food industry as being someone who doesn't actually eat the products I make.  By nature food will attract foodies.

 

I think the point about personal responsibility that many have made is interesting.  It's one I used to make.  But what if the kinds of foods we're inadvertently making are difficult to stop eating due to years of consumer research on what is preferred and marketing?  Nobody has fancy packaging and an advert to sell a carrot.

 

The point about price is also important.  To my mind though it's a horrible state of affairs that we have cultures in the UK and the US, two of the world's biggest economies where people cannot afford to buy basic unprocessed foodstuffs or can't afford the time to make them into meals.  So yes, that is a wider cultural and societal issue.

 

Additionally to that, many of our cheapest food ingredients are by-products or from processing of cheap commodities making foods containing them particularly cheap, e.g. whey powder, HFCS etc.

 

Education and "will" does play a part.  Some people don't have the skill having had parents who lived on UPFs as well.  It has also become a habit that fast is better. It is going to have to take some strong messaging to help people realise that proper, fresh foods are better.

 

Lastly I think there is the problem that dietetic advice, at least in the UK is focused on specific nutrients not whole foods.  So it means that by common sense, companies will adapt their foods to meet the advice.  For example, the HFSS (high fat, sugar and salt) and sugar tax has led to greater use of artificial sweeteners.  The HFSS laws has lead to salt reduction on snacks but not people eating lower numbers of snacks.  Thinking is going to have to change.

 

I genuinely think in a decade, we will look back at this time and be horrified.  

 

With my magic wand for the world, this is what I'd do.

• Find a way to make basic foods cheaper, especially fruits and vegetables and stop supermarkets using them for margin.  
• Ensure that the poorest in society have a way to access these basic unprocessed foods like unprocessed vegetables, fruit, fish and meat.  (Healthy start vouchers are intended for this but I'm not sure that they are that accessible.)
• Invest into research into food processing to understand causal relationships.  I'm doubtful in a way about this one because it could be twisted to make some unhealthy foods look healthier.  But it could at least lead to stopping using some ingredients where there is emerging science on the impact to our bodies and gut health, e.g. sweeteners, emulsifiers and I don't think the "belief" will be there in many people until we do.
• Educate people on the risks of a processed diet and the benefits of a less processed one.  Encourage minimum of one meal a day for example.
• Ensure that wider policies are looked at so the poorest are not left behind but also we start to focus on time.  If time is the issue and we have huge epidemics of obesity and mental health problems, let's see health holistically?
• Minimum nutritional standards are set too low for schools and need to be raised including the resource and facilities to do that.  But also applying that to work canteens.  

I don't think we'd look at factory managers and technical people in the tobacco industry in the 70s in a completely benign way.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not losing sleep over this to any great degree but what I am doing is not encouraging my child into this industry.  I genuinely think we're closing our eyes to the facts we are doing real harm.  

 

I started this thread a bit tongue in cheek because I do love the "are we the baddies?" sketch.  But it did make me think that sometimes when knowledge starts to shift, it may take some time for everyone to catch up.  I have also been party to many discussions at work where we've discussed UPFs and the discussion has gone something like this:

"Well if bread is an UPF pretty much everything is."
"Only bread with emulsifiers."
"Oh it's just too hard.  It's probably all b*llocks."

 

What if it's really not and we're being dismissive of the fact that most of our industry is making people sick?  What if some of the foods we make are as addictive as tobacco?  What if the next generations are going to be even worse off?  (UPF consumption by kids is even higher than adults.)

 

I'm glad it's prompted discussion but my parting shot is we've been telling people that they need to eat more vegetables for years.  We've known the Mediterranean diet of pretty much entirely unprocessed foods is great for some time.  Telling people this hasn't worked.  So to my mind, personal responsibility of consumers will not work.  So change will have to come from a combination of government, retailers and manufacturers at some point.  Even if you take out the moral cost, the financial cost of obesity to the economy is huge.

[GMO]

For those unfamiliar with the sketch.

 

https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU

[olenazh]

About "educating people": not many know how to read NFT properly, there's no proper understanding of values reflected on NFT. For instance, a lot of people at church (I distribute donated yogurts to our parishioners) say they won't take it because "it has sugar" - though, that sugar is not added one, but natural sugar from milk. Another thing - Carbs: people don't know how to differentiate "sugar" carbs from starch ones. Then - Proteins: people get suspicious when see high proteins in yogurt, thinking there's something added - though, natural high protein level comes from pressing yogurt. Sodium - consumers think it's added salt - though, it's natural one. High calories - not always bad, and opposite - zero cholesterol's not always good. And again, people start arguing that "ingredient list is lies, producers put in products whatever they want" When I start explaining they look at me sometimes like "Don't give me that bullshit!" 

[GMO]

Ok, this is one I heard about today... You know when the tobacco companies were funding research into trying to prove that their products didn't cause cancer?  This is not some conspiracy theory rubbish... Coca Cola funded research into energy balance.  From The Lancet:

 

Coca-Cola's funding of health research and partnerships - The Lancet

 

"Coca-Cola has previously given an unrestricted gift to the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), which promotes the energy balance model as a framework to prevent obesity. The energy balance model states that weight gain is caused by an imbalance between the amount of calories in and out. GEBN further mention that “not many people can sustain energy balance at a low level of physical activity (maintaining a sedentary lifestyle and eating fewer calories)”."

Basically they funded research which focuses on sedentary lifestyle as a cause of obesity.  While it is no doubt part of the picture, it has more than a hint of "look over there" about it.  It's not like Coca Cola have anything to do with exercise...  

For those not familiar with RPDR, I'm expanding your cultural horizons in this thread   

Rupaul's Drag Race S12 - Choices 2020, The Best of The Debate - YouTube

[olenazh]

Ok, this is one I heard about today... You know when the tobacco companies were funding research into trying to prove that their products didn't cause cancer?  This is not some conspiracy theory rubbish... Coca Cola funded research into energy balance.  From The Lancet:

 

Coca-Cola's funding of health research and partnerships - The Lancet

 

"Coca-Cola has previously given an unrestricted gift to the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), which promotes the energy balance model as a framework to prevent obesity. The energy balance model states that weight gain is caused by an imbalance between the amount of calories in and out. GEBN further mention that “not many people can sustain energy balance at a low level of physical activity (maintaining a sedentary lifestyle and eating fewer calories)”."

Basically they funded research which focuses on sedentary lifestyle as a cause of obesity.  While it is no doubt part of the picture, it has more than a hint of "look over there" about it.  It's not like Coca Cola have anything to do with exercise...  

For those not familiar with RPDR, I'm expanding your cultural horizons in this thread   

Rupaul's Drag Race S12 - Choices 2020, The Best of The Debate - YouTube

You forgot to add quotation marks to a word "cultural":)