Slashdot Mirror


Ultra-Processed Foods May Be Linked To Cancer, Says Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ultra-processed" foods, made in factories with ingredients unknown to the domestic kitchen, may be linked to cancer, according to a large and groundbreaking study. Ultra-processed foods include pot noodles, shelf-stable ready meals, cakes and confectionery which contain long lists of additives, preservatives, flavorings and colorings -- as well as often high levels of sugar, fat and salt. They now account for half of all the food bought by families eating at home in the UK, as the Guardian recently revealed. A team, led by researchers based at the Sorbonne in Paris, looked at the medical records and eating habits of nearly 105,000 adults who are part of the French NutriNet-Sante cohort study, registering their usual intake of 3,300 different food items. They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer. "If confirmed in other populations and settings, these results suggest that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades," says the paper in the British Medical Journal.

322 comments

  1. I thought so some years ago...A cheese example... by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    You see folks, I once tried burning cheese using a lighter flame. Guess what; I didn't melt! At that point, I threw out all the cheese I had and have never bought any again. It's been 7 years now.

    There are a number of videos illustrating this.

    Let's ask ourselves: "What are we putting in our bodies?"

  2. Compared to.... by Templer421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Deaths from Botulism or food poisoning like Cholera?

    The trade off is living long enough to get cancer.

    1. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Darwinism would take over. Look at the shit people are willing to eat, of course stupid fucks got sick and died from food poisoning. We cant even get farm laborers to stop shitting on the food we eat, literally.

      People have no concept of food safety. 100 years ago few people has refrigeration too.

      The time of the over processed, heavily preserved food needs to come to an end. Its not needed. We need to be at work less and at home more tending to our own gardens and being closer to our own food. If that could happen for even half the population; disease, depression, the worries of society and many other problems would start to melt away.

    2. Re:Compared to.... by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

      I assume you're talking specifically about nitrites/nitrates. As far as I've read, you're correct. Botulism is a more serious risk than the risk of nitrate induced cancer. Nitrates are the only effective way to stop preserved meat from outright killing people sometimes.

      The real problem is there's some worthless bastards out there when it comes to keeping consumers from knowing how processed a particular food is. "These beef stikxz have no nitrates! Except those in celery powder. Everyone knows celery is healthy. Therefore our beef stikxz are healthy."

      Spoilage alert: Celery powder contains MANY MANY nitrates. The correct solution is, unfortunately, "Don't eat any processed meat. Ever. Even though it's absolutely delicious. If they say it doesn't have nitrates, they're trying to trick you."

      I'm sorry if I'm using the nitrite/nitrate terms wrong, although I doubt the difference is significant.

    3. Re:Compared to.... by Misagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Meat that has been smoked (or cooked over an open flame) or cured with nitrites are well-known risk factors for stomach cancer and colorectal cancer.

      Modern meat processing is now so clean and safe that nitrite is not needed to prevent botulism. In practice its only purpose is to give meat the reddish colour that consumers have got used to. The meat-processing industry claims that meat with a greyish colour does not sell.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    4. Re:Compared to.... by bjwest · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're talking about ultra-processed foods, not ultra-pasteurized. Crap like all the different preservatives and emulsifiers they put in just about everything nowadays. Pasteurization is nothing more than heating to a specific temperature for a specific amount of time, something that kills both harmful and beneficial bacteria.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    5. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I've met some people who owned single-family farms over the years. A lot of them seemed kind of crabby. Maybe it had something to with waking up with the sun and all that back breaking labor. ;)

      I'm sure for some people, becoming a farmer or even having a small vegetable garden is something that is relaxing and lifts their spirits and health and whatever, especially as compared to a commute and a job in an urban center working for "the man" (I guess scaled down to a garden, its just a hobby and they still have to work for "the man". ;)). I've seen Field of Dreams, I get the appeal of the lifestyle change Kevin Costner's character's family had made at the beginning of the film- urban or suburbanites who had moved out to the country and bought a little farm.

      I don't think its for everyone, though. It'd be hell on a night owl. If you have a bad back or other health problems of that nature (or develop them), all the manual labor involved might make it impossible for you, or contribute to low level issues becoming major surgery requiring issues with time. Aslo, and I am sure Slashdot can appreciate this- good luck getting good fast wired uncapped Internet with a low latency rate out in the country, and good luck getting a consistent cell signal with any carrier, and, if you do, you might have just one or two carriers available (Likely the more costly ones) and be at the edge of their ranges.

      And while, sure, there are big issues with factory farming and the way food is processed with mass production these days- overuse of antibotics, not enough health inspectors or rigorous enough standards, etc- you can have different but similar problems on your own farm.

      You're likely on well water- so no flouride pretreatment to help protect your teeth, and I'm not sure everyone can test or filter and treat their water as well as the best municipalties can (I'm sure they can do it better than Flint, MI did, granted. ;) ).

      Also, you can't locally produce the variety of foods you might be used to, you are subject to situations where like a sickness going through your herd of cattle or a drought killing your corn off can hurt or kill you financially and, if not noticed immediately, may wind up on your plate and make you sick. Its also harder and harder to make a living doing it, and a "fix" to that problem would raise the price of food and increase overall numbers of people without enough food to eat in the world.

      I'm just saying, its a bit simplistic to sort of propose it as the answer to everything. The average lifespan since we've switched over from an agrarian to a non-agarian lifestyle has actually gone up pretty dramatically.

      There are pluses to being a farmer, but its not for everyone and its not a utopian cureall to all of society's ills.

    6. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are exactly correct on all points. Botulinium toxin can occur but only at USFDA-fail plants or uninspected facilities. In England they don't even have to refridge their eggs because they eliminated E.Coli and other things AT THE FARM.
      It's a paradigm shift needed. There are ways to do these things properly without poisons that we know cause problems. Yet "the old ways" continue because we rely on business systems rather than best practices in our standards now.

    7. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. There's a whole subregion in Italian Sardinia where greater than 50 PERCENT of the people are living over 90-100 years old. ZERO PROCESSED FOOD is but one part of that, but it truly is ZERO.

      I know, you'll say there's no correlation with them shunning modern pesticide and engineered salt bullshit and living long healthy lives. They don't give a fuck what you think though, neither do I, because they're right.

      It's not a choice between living to 50 or eating clean food you twit.

    8. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. All the monsanto bullshit is in your gmo diet providing you with food that is completely indigestible and altered to be completely foreign nutritionally. But it will make a turd for you. Yeah, cancer is in your future dumbass.

    9. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people, especially double-fat Americans*, would benefit from some physical work in their garden. Their "bad back" comes from overweight and a lack of walking. Eating tons of burgers, liters of sugary drinks and then driving the car all the time instead of walking...is not healthy.

      You can still buy the wheat from a farmer while growing your own salad, roots, tomatos and so on.

      And yeah, most city people do not have a garden, which is regrettable.

      *the entire rich world is on the same trajectory

    10. Re:Compared to.... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Deaths from Botulism

      You don't need to process food with a laundry list of chemicals to prevent this. Simply cooking it will do.

    11. Re: Compared to.... by orlanz · · Score: 2

      On the eggs thing, that is completely false. I don't know if you meant it jokingly but in case others think it is real... you cant eliminate e-coli... without killing off the chicken.

      Eggs are heavily cleaned in the US. This makes them smooth and "Disney perfect" eggy. EU... regulations don't allow eggs to be cleaned. Because there is a protective natural coating that prevents the e-coli and other nasties from the parent's waste from getting in.

      In the US, the entire supply chain from post clean to shopping cart has to be germ free. Since the EU doesn't want to regulate to that level ($$), they prevent premature cleaning. I think the store is allowed to clean and of course end user should (we don't in the US).

      Now the US egg lasts a lot longer because it's been sterilized and sits in a sterile environment. Even on the consumer end, eggs can sit for 6 weeks with no problems. But this isn't a requirement in the EU, as they purchase in smaller batches and more frequently.

    12. Re: Compared to.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He's probably confusing it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re: Compared to.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      US eggs don't last longer.
      The e-coli outside on the shells have absolutely nothing to do with the life period of eggs.
      If at all, e-coli or other bacteria that get into the egg are the problem. And inn this regard then american way of washing is counter productive as it encourages migration of microbes through the shell.

      On the other hand, the white of the egg is alkaline, bacteria usually don't survive this. Only in rare cases they manage to reach the yolk. In the yolk they strife so quickly that an "rotten egg" is immediately recognized.

      Eggs last easy half a year or longer, in stable conditions. However they dry out.

      Since the EU doesn't want to regulate to that level ($$),
      Sorry, you are completely mistaken: we have the exact same regulation, with the exact opposite wording: it is forbidden to wash eggs because of the automated washing processes that would rub the bacteria into the shell. And using hot water and even detergents on the outside would reduce the shelf life of the eggs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re: Compared to.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If at all, e-coli or other bacteria that get into the egg are the problem. And inn this regard then american way of washing is counter productive as it encourages migration of microbes through the shell.

      It discourages cross-contamination, though, which is the source of virtually all food-borne pathogens.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: Compared to.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Spoilage alert: Celery powder contains MANY MANY nitrates. The correct solution is, unfortunately, "Don't eat any processed meat. Ever. Even though it's absolutely delicious. If they say it doesn't have nitrates, they're trying to trick you."

      Sounds more like the correct solution is "don't eat celery". The vegans are gonna shit a brick.

    16. Re: Compared to.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Pasteurization is nothing more than heating to a specific temperature for a specific amount of time, something that kills both harmful and beneficial bacteria.

      Yeah, you might want to look up the meaning of "processed". Yes, in includes pasteurisation. It includes pretty much anything you do to food, other than moving it around.

    17. Re:Compared to.... by nasch · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's true. Botulism toxin is the harmful stuff, and if the botulinum has been sitting in the food producing the toxin, then cooking it will kill the bacteria but will not do anything about the toxins.

    18. Re:Compared to.... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Deaths from Botulism or food poisoning like Cholera?

      The trade off is living long enough to get cancer.

      Sorry, but stupid argument is stupid.

      It's often hard to completely avoid the risk of food poisoning unless you're going to strictly control the ENTIRE food growing and processing process.

      It's rather easy to completely avoid any risk associated with eating over-processed shit food. Just don't fucking eat it.

      And the goal is to not get cancer at all. There is no "trade-off" when you work your entire life to retire, only to hand your retirement nest egg over to the Medical Industrial Complex. Fuck that.

    19. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooking is a process.

    20. Re:Compared to.... by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Umm, the cool thing about old cooking techniques is that they tend to come with antidotes.

      Yes, absolutely, awesome montreal smoked meat is toxic. It's wonderful and incredibly nutritious, and toxic.

      It's also served with coleslaw, always, in every deli, everywhere, which just accidentally happens to be the antidote to that particular type of toxin.

      Eat complete meals, consistent with the culture in which that meal was originally eaten. There's a reason most long-lived cultures originally ate virtually nothing but a short list of foods -- those were the ones that didn't kill everyone, and that grew together.

    21. Re: Compared to.... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you might want to look up the meaning of "processed". Yes, in includes pasteurisation. It includes pretty much anything you do to food, other than moving it around.

      True, but I doubt it would be considered ultra-processing, and certainly doesn't cause cancer. Botulism is controlled by the pasteurization of foods (yes, even canned foods are considered pasteurized), not the inclusion of preservatives, emulsifiers and other compounds that our bodies have no idea what to do with.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    22. Re: Compared to.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Yep, every single meat product advertised as "uncured" contains even more nitrates than the usual bacon, ham, etc.

      It's about time the FDA cracks down on that shit. It's blatant false labeling.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    23. Re: Compared to.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      What kind of bullshit are you spreading?

      I assume you read this on naturalnews or from Dr. Oz.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    24. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not precisely true.. Nitrite does impart a difference in texture compared to using just salt. It's not just the "pink".
      Nitrate (with an a) is needed in slow cured meats (salami is a good example) because a bacteria uses it, ultimately resulting in a decrease in pH (increase in acidity), which is what suppresses pathogen growth. One can use lactic acid (from buttermilk, sour milk, yogurt, etc.), but it tastes significantly different. Proper control of nitrate/nitrate ratios should result in the nitrate being entirely consumed during the curing process.

      Now, the carcinogenicity - the issue comes not so much from cured meats per-se - but heating nitrates/nitrites to high temperatures, creating nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic.

      The statistics on cured meat correlating with cancer (colorectal, usually) are epidemiological studies drawn from populations where modern sausage processes weren't used - it takes decades for the effect, so an incidence in 60-70 year old men who ate a lot of sausage in Poland in the 40s and 50s may not be representative of modern experience.

    25. Re: Compared to.... by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Actually, try the university's good sciences department. McGill I believe.

      and, if I remember correctly, orange juice would also accomplish the same thing in this dish.

      So, remind me again, how much nothing have you read?

      Your bullshit seems to be that there is no anti-toxin to food preparation toxins. Interesting concept. A toxin with no anti toxin. I guess that's a conceivable possibility. Where did you read that?

    26. Re:Compared to.... by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I do think that there's a chasm between food factories and food poisoning. I do believe we've had a few centuries, if not millennia, of canning practice. It's not hard. But like anything, be careful and don't screw up.

    27. Re:Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NitrAtes, particularly saltpetre, have been used for centuries. There's quite a wide "activity window" between "kills botulinum" and "kills people". However, the botulinum convert nitrAtes to nitrItes, which kill them. So go cheap, and skip the nitrAtes and just straight add the nitrItes. Except there's a very narrow "activity window" for that, and it isn't self-limited by productions ceasing when any botulinum present die.

    28. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok I'm going to need some actual citations here. I've googled "montreal smoked meat toxin coleslaw" and have no hits that actually mention those words. There are certainly some toxins that come about as a result of smoking meat, but I see nothing about coleslaw being an "antidote".

                A toxin with no anti toxin. I guess that's a conceivable possibility

      Really? You never thought about that before?

    29. Re: Compared to.... by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I like how you want me to cite something that I learned over a decade ago, as though I keep a bibliography of my everyday life. That you can't find it on google is completely and utterly as meaningless as what you can find on google.

      This man:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      On this television show:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Across the street from this deli:
      http://schwartzsdeli.com/

      From inside this deli:
      http://www.maindelisteakhouse....

      Said so.

      So that's my citation. Go find the episode and date on your own if you like. I'm happy eating my dinner. I really don't care if you're happy eating yours. Feed your family whatever the hell you want.

    30. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? If I had to work in a garden, instead of an office, THAT would depress me.

    31. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if farm laborers were allowed to take time out to use an actual toilet...

    32. Re: Compared to.... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      None of which was an actual scientific study. Just some guy on some tv show "said so".

      Actually, not even that. All you did was link to the wiki page of a scientist that covers food topics and some tv show. None of those state "coleslaw from this deli is the antitoxin for cured meat".

      Though Dr. Schwarcz did debunk Uri Geller, so that makes him a pretty cool guy.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    33. Re: Compared to.... by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I quoted a guy, who happens to be an authoritarian on the subject. That is all. I'm not citing a publication of his.

      It is possible for a person to be an authority on a subject, without having ever published an article.

      It is also possible for you to learn from someone by speaking with them, or by hearing them speak, forever without a recording device present.

      Again, I could care less how you feed your family. I choose to learn from an expert directly. You can choose to disbelieve the second-hand information -- me.

      Funny thing is that the entirety of wikipedia is second-hand information. That you would believe it, and not me, is your inconsistency. Would you feel better if I published it onto wikipedia, with a citation to a random episode where he doesn't say anything? Do you even check citations when you read?

    34. Re:Compared to.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's true. Botulism toxin is the harmful stuff

      And in order to create the toxin the strain needs to live long enough to create it, something that you can prevent by ... cooking the food. Canned food, jarred food, etc all cooked for this reason according to FDA regulations for minimum temperature and duration in order to kill off precisely this bacteria. The only way to get botulism through cooked food is to effectively eat food so rotten that you have to really question your life choices in the first place.

      Bottom line, if it's fresh and it's cooked you don't get botulism. If it was fresh and cooked, and then preserved before it cooled (canned / jarred) then you don't get it either.

    35. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to be at work less and at home more tending to our own gardens and being closer to our own food.

      I don't disagree with greatly reducing processed foods but this sounds like absolute hell. My time is far to valuable to grow my own food and it is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Economy of scale still applies to farming.

    36. Re: Compared to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The episode you cite was broadcast in 1996, which explains why you misremembered it.
      What the presenter actually said was this: Meat is cured using nitrate, which bacteria in the meat convert into nitrite which is essential to prevent botulism. It also adds colour and flavour, but during cooking it can react with the meat and form nitrosamines, which are known carcinogens. When the meat is cured however, it is rubbed in with a spice mixture rich in garlic, which contains sulphur compounds which reduce nitrosamine formation. He also made a point of the fact that nowadays the meat is no longer actually smoked, so there are no longer carcinogenic compounds derived from burning wood in the meat. The coleslaw was only mentioned in passing and only relevant because of its high vitamin C content, which was one of several chemicals which can reduce nitrosamine's carginogenicity.
      Now, there are several points to add to this story. Schwarcz has stated himself that nutritional concerns of specific foods can be greatly reduced when consumed with well-chosen other foods, but that, contrary to what you maintain, good combinations may go against tradition.
      Another point is that in mice (and presumably us metabolically similar humans) nitrite reduces hypertension. Many regional diets that are well-known for being healthy are in fact rich in cured meats, so at the very least they aren't the devil they're made out to be. And often cured meat bought in shops contains additives that prevent nitrosamine formation.
      A final thing to keep in mind is that nitrite can also be vegetable in origin. And although toxic in larger doses (I cannot remember if Schwarcz talked about that on the show) we actually produce nitrite ourselves, from nitrate in vegetables and such. There's just no way of avoiding it completely and meat actually contains relatively little nitrite compared to some other dietary sources, as long as consumed in responsible quantities.
      And a final thought, from Schwarcz, a noted lover of smoked meat himself: ‘I don't think that every morsel of food that slides down the oesophagus has to be evaluated in terms of its nutritional value.’

    37. Re: Compared to.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      More of a problem is salmonella, which is a natural inhabitant of chicken ovaries. Chicks are treated with tetracycline at 2 weeks old to effectively eliminate this.

      Eggs last longer in storage in the U.S. because some (not all) producers coat the eggs with wax (a natural substance) to prevent air exchange, which is really what ages the eggs. I have personally seen eggs thus sealed last 9 months in the fridge, and still be perfectly usable. It is MUCH more effective than the eggs' natural sealant.

      Also, some producers have a large backlog in storage, and the eggs are already several weeks old by the time they reach retail.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    38. Re: Compared to.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I quoted a guy, who happens to be an authoritarian on the subject.

      So he's bossy. That doesn't mean he's right.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    39. Re:Compared to.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's a whole subregion in Italian Sardinia where greater than 50 PERCENT of the people are living over 90-100 years old. ZERO PROCESSED FOOD is but one part of that, but it truly is ZERO.

      Really? They don't eat any salami or ham?

      Are you sure this subregion isn't an immigrant camp full of muslims?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re: Compared to.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      TFA defines "ultra-processed" as using ingredients you wouldn't find in a normal kitchen. My personal definition would be containing stuff that you can't recognize using your natural senses.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    41. Re: Compared to.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes and no,
      as you are supposed to wash your hands after dealing with eggs.
      And more inportant: cross contamination is only relevant for raw food, or fresh food. E.g. you deal with eggs and then make a salad. e-coli could ccome into the salad. However they likely find nothing to strive on, so even if the slalad is outside on a BBQ for a few hours, it does not matter. Depending on dressing, it does not matter anyway as baccteria would noot strife in acid (balsamico etc.)
      The main problem still are the eggs and stuff made from the eggs, like home made mayonaise or mouse au chocolate etc.
      As we Europeans learned long ago: cleaning the eggs has nearly no effect on the speed how e-coli will be unhealthy on a humid warm afternoon in dishes that contain raw eggs.

      And strangely: the US have an absurd hig amount of cases of food poisoning caused by eggs, close to 100k cases per year.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. This is not new information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And there have already been many studies, spanning decades. Do better research next time.

  4. In other news... by fred911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. Correlation != Causality by schematix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Useless conclusion.... Is it the ingredients in 'ultra processed' foods that cause cancer, or overall poor lifestyle choices made my the types of people who consume a lot of this type of food? Or maybe something else all together?

    --
    Scott
    1. Re:Correlation != Causality by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's why it's important that there weren't upticks in all kinds of cancers. Diet, exercise, clean air, and stress management generally decrease all cancers. Something is probably going on; too soon to tell what though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Correlation != Causality by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What makes this curious, at least in my mind, is that breast cancer and prostate cancer risk are actually somewhat correlated with each other familially. A marked increased risk in breast cancer with no effect on prostate cancer, therefore, sounds a bit suspicious to me. It isn't impossible or anything, given that breast tissue is mostly fat, and thus has the potential for storing fat-soluble contaminants in ways that the prostate really doesn't, but it still seems... odd. I'll be curious to see whether these results can be reproduced in studies performed in other countries.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Correlation != Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Useless conclusion....

      Is it the ingredients in 'ultra processed' foods that cause cancer, or overall poor lifestyle choices made my the types of people who consume a lot of this type of food? Or maybe something else all together?

      Those that are working out an exercising regularly often find that eating SHIT food doesn't give them the results they need.

      This also tends to prove that SHIT food still has an impact. You can't just exercise the risk of cancer away when you repeatedly poison your body.

    4. Re:Correlation != Causality by Megol · · Score: 1

      Lifestyle choices? In the real world people eat things that they have money for, have time to prepare etc. Often people are living stressful lives eating cheap easily prepared food not by choice but of necessity.

      I absolutely hate that phrase as it is disconnected from realty and in most cases are used in a judgmental way. Drug abuse is a lifestyle choice, being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, working two jobs to feed the family is a lifestyle choice etc.

      However with that (huge) reservation I fully agree.

    5. Re:Correlation != Causality by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      What makes this curious, at least in my mind, is that breast cancer and prostate cancer risk are actually somewhat correlated with each other familially.
      You are mistaken. Breast cancer affects mainly women and prostate cancer mainly men ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Correlation != Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Failing science has gone astray because no scientists ever adjust there studies for other possible causes. Every time someone promotes a "study" like this claiming to proove some kind of causaltion I always think of DOZENS of things they didnt think of that could be causing it, and I am not a scientist! If I can so easily disprove their "studies" then why are these scam artists getting BILLIONS of dollars of funding? This is what happens when you let librals run things.

      The only one's making BILLIONS here are those who are poisoning our food supply. It doesn't take decades of studies to understand that eating shit food can and will result in damage to your body, no matter the lifestyle. If exercise was all that was needed to stave off all forms of disease, then you wouldn't have nutritionists insisting that diet AND exercise are the components of good health. And you'll notice that diet is always listed first and prioritized when it comes to nursing someone back to good health.

      You know what, fuck it. Enjoy your processed food. Eat up. Watching Captain Obvious battle Ignorance is getting old and tiresome, and perhaps it's best we get rid of those who want to argue everything with the Correlation != Causation defense, no matter how much common sense is involved. That shit worked out so well for millions who died when cigarettes were being pimped by fucking doctors for years. At this rate I'm sure we'll start believing the sugar and salt mafia as they work hard to dismiss the risks of diabetes and high blood pressure in favor of profits.

    7. Re:Correlation != Causality by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      According to TFP they used data from over 100,000 people, and adjusted for various factors such as the nutritional quality of the food.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Correlation != Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interviewed today on the Today Programme, the lead author confirmed that they had attempted to match lifestyles in the study.

    9. Re:Correlation != Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should eat a plate of MSG for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

      Let me know how that works for you :)

    10. Re:Correlation != Causality by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What part of "familially" did you miss? I'm saying that there are overlapping genetic causes.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Correlation != Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Maybe not "poor choices" but definitely life situation. High stress and or long work hours has been proven to cause cancer.

    12. Re:Correlation != Causality by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Did not look like you wanted to claim ovverlapping genetic causes.
      And if you were, why did you not point them out?
      There hardly can be overlapping genetic causes in cancer cases where the affected area is mostly controlled by the sexual hormones of the victim.
      It is much more likely that breast and prostata cancer is more easy/often detected and/or caused by the same ' ulnerability' to _any_ canccer and not just the two affected areas.
      Anyway ... I only wanted to make fun about your ill formulated post ... no idea about actual cancer in families. The guys who died of any cancer in my family where all smokers. And all the others get stone old. Well, mostly.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Cooking is hard by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is. I mean that. Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen. I do, and I cook most of my meals and it sucks. Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. The stove never stays level either. Your microwave is cheap and your fridge small. Your freezer smaller

    If I make a meal of eggs, potatoes & some pancakes from scratch (minus the pancake mix, which is pre made) I need to plan on a little over an hour. 10-15 minutes to heat the pans. 5 minutes to mix the pancake batter (you can't mix it until just before you use it or it screws up the pancake texture). 15 minutes to cook the pancakes (one at a time, since I only have 1 full sized burner) 5 to cook the eggs (I'm not a good cook, so if I try to juggle the eggs and pancakes I burn one or the other) meanwhile the potatoes are cooking for about 30 minutes while being flipped periodically. Then I need to sit down and eat (15-20 minutes) and then clean up (10 minutes). Of course, I have to wait at least 30 minutes to an hour to clean since the pans need to cool or they'll warp. And you can't leave the pans sitting around, especially in an apartment. You'll get roaches. Lots of them. And ants.

    Then there's the cost of fresh food. If it's not on sale it's expensive. If it is on sale it's about to go bad. You can freeze meat, but vegetables & fruits don't freeze well (fruit it tolerable in smoothies but nothing else). Packaged dinners are a great buy because they keep for months. I can buy them when they're on sale, stock up and save. I can't do that with Bananas. They're worm food in 5 days tops.

    There's a reason why women used to be home bound. Food preparation was a full time job. As pay decreases they moved into the workforce largely to make up the difference. Processed foods made that possible. But wages keep going down. So we need foods that need less and less prep time and cost less and less. There are consequences.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You sir, are a filthy liar.

      I taught myself to cook as a bachelor and it is not very hard, you are just lazy.

      For instance, you could do fetuchini noodles, they take 10 minutes to boil, as they boil you can mix ground beef up with some onion, garlic, paprika, cumin, salt, pepper, summer savory and italian spice. Takes roughly 2 minutes to cut it and mix it and you roll it into balls and pan fry it while the noodles boil. Once the noodles are done and the meat balls are done you can toss in a pre-mix pack of gravy along with diced mushrooms, takes 2 minutes to thicken, and then pour onto the noodles and meat balls.

      Total time 12 minutes.

      YOUR FUCKING LAZY

    2. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A lot of supermarkets have coolers with ready made fresh meals, and some of them look pretty decent, and not way overpriced. Not talking about sandwiches at the 7-11 either. Take a look next time.

    3. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cooking is not so hard if you do it the old fashioned way. Still practiced in frugal parts of the world like Ethiopia and India. Single pot meals (stews). Get yourself a pressure cooker or alternatively a slow cooker. Chop up meat and vegetables, whatever is on sale. Get a food processor if it takes too long to chop with a knife. Cook and eat.

      Need to eat the food elsewhere? Get a vacuum insulated food jar, it will keep food ready to eat all day long.

      Pro tip: trying to lose weight? Add more water.

      Captcha: Inherits, as in the thrifty will inherit the Earth.

    4. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH, HIS FUCKING LAZY

    5. Re:Cooking is hard by another_twilight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand your frustration, and if you're frustrated at something, you're less likely to spend time getting better at it. Working with poor tools is frustrating.

      Buy a decent pan with a thick bottom, the thicker the better. It will take longer to heat, but it will also provide a more even and consistent heat as the mass helps 'smooth' fluctuations or uneveness and 'hot spots' in your heat source. It will take some of the need to micromanage cooking out of your process. You'd be surprised how much better you'll cook when your pan is an even, consistent temperature. You'll start to get a feel for how long things take and not have to constantly check. (You mention warping and uneven heating, so I assume you're talking about relatively thin pans)

      I'd recommend all stainless with rivetted handle(s) and maybe go with a saute pan rather than a fry pan. All stainless means you can cook with it in the oven. Rivets tend to last longer than spot welding. Keep an eye on 2nd hand sales. Decent cookware is expensive, but tends to last long enough to be used and sold.

      If you really can't prep while your pan is heating, then it's free time. Time to wind down and get ready to eat. Maybe catch up on some reading.
      You've mentioned a meal with some fairly serial processes. Are there meals that better suit your cooking conditions? Finding new foods is part of the joy (for me) of cooking. I also clean as I go. There's always a minute here or there where I can wipe or rinse. You mention needing to leave the pans to cool for 30 minutes, but they are cooling as you eat and by the time you're done and ready to wash the dishes you've eaten on, the cooking gear is cool enough to wash.

      If an hour for a meal is more than you can afford (and given commute and other time costs, I understand it can be) then maybe looking at meals you can freeze and/or store. Cooking more than one serving at a time doesn't increase time linearly. You mention packaged dinners - DIY it with a stew or pasta sauce or something similar once a week. Cut them with fresh meals for variety. Make things that can act as the basis of other meals - like meat sauces for pasta.

      Like many things, especially DIY, initially the difference between what you can make and something you can have made is disappointing. Knowing that it's healthier doesn't help, and cheaper isn't always the case once you also count time. It takes time to get to the point where you're producing food that's better than you can easily buy. Like anything else, you'll have to work out if the time to get better is worth it. For something as basic and so integrally linked to health as cooking, I think it is. YMMV

    6. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooking is hard

      You're doing it wrong.

    7. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole wheat cous-cous cooks in less than 10 minutes. Add olive oil and flash frozen vegetables and you have a fool (or crappy kitchen) proof meal that is healthy and satisfying and costs a couple dollars a plate. Season to taste with salt, pepper, and shredded hard cheese.

      Sautéed garbanzo beans cook well on a non level stove and compliment the above. Another few cents per serving.

      Cooking can be hard, but you can also keep it simple. You could do mall of the above on a single burner with in under 20 min. with no skill required.

    8. Re: Cooking is hard by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      A microwave helps to at least make easy side vegetables. Take green beans for instance. They go well with many other dishes, which may or may not be preprocessed.

      Drain a can and pour it into a container. Place less than a tablespoon of butter on top. Drizzle liberally with olive oil. Microwave 2 minutes on high. Stir and serve.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    9. Re:Cooking is hard by scatbomb · · Score: 2

      Cooking isn't that hard, you just need to put some more practice and try beginner friendly recipes. Stir frys, soups, salads, curries, and many baked dishes are healthy, require very little skill, and cheap equipment will work fine. Get some good oil with a high smoke point (avocado oil works great) for extra "user friendly" cooking.

    10. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, bullshit. Fresh veggies in season are affordable. Hot house veggies are expensive and an environmental disaster. However, root vegetables in the winter and in season veggies in the spring through fall are cheap. Whole grain pasta is often under a dollar a pound, canned veggies the same. Meats, if you don't need prime loin, are affordable, and you can't eat $10 of bulk dried beans in a month.

      Of, and slow cooking is a lot slower but much more efficient user of your time than frying everything.

    11. Re:Cooking is hard by thesupraman · · Score: 0

      Lolz. Are you going for some kind of stupid award today? you are doing well!

      You pretty much covered it with your 'pancake mix', implying you dont know how to make such a trivial mixture yourself. Congratulations.
      I you cannot cook, eat, and clean up such a 'meal' (and I use those quotes intentionally, it sounds horrible...) in under an hour, then I am afraid you have nothign much to contribute here.

      And you actually think pre-prepared meals are cheaper than cooking food. There is not much more to say here.

      I assume you just buy new clothes every few days, because washing and drying your existing ones is SO much bother, or does your mum still do that for you?

    12. Re:Cooking is hard by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Buy a decent pan with a thick bottom, the thicker the better. It will take longer to heat, but it will also provide a more even and consistent heat as the mass helps 'smooth' fluctuations or uneveness and 'hot spots' in your heat source.

      Cast Iron is your friend. Big, solid, sturdy pans that keep their heat well even if you have to take them off the burner before everything's done cooking. Get them properly seasoned and never wash them with soap, and they'll last a lifetime.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    13. Re: Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really eat canned vegetables out of the microwave, wow. Is it the cost factor? Green beans too perishable, too labor intensive to wash and snap? What is it? Boiling water and straining it is unreasonable effort?

      You know they put preservatives in those cans unless they tell you otherwise... pthalates. They make your kids grow cleftpalletes or "spade penis syndrome" - you might want to get smart someday... or promise no kids.

    14. Re:Cooking is hard by m00sh · · Score: 1

      it is. I mean that. Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen. I do, and I cook most of my meals and it sucks. Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. The stove never stays level either. Your microwave is cheap and your fridge small. Your freezer smaller If I make a meal of eggs, potatoes & some pancakes from scratch (minus the pancake mix, which is pre made) I need to plan on a little over an hour. 10-15 minutes to heat the pans. 5 minutes to mix the pancake batter (you can't mix it until just before you use it or it screws up the pancake texture). 15 minutes to cook the pancakes (one at a time, since I only have 1 full sized burner) 5 to cook the eggs (I'm not a good cook, so if I try to juggle the eggs and pancakes I burn one or the other) meanwhile the potatoes are cooking for about 30 minutes while being flipped periodically. Then I need to sit down and eat (15-20 minutes) and then clean up (10 minutes). Of course, I have to wait at least 30 minutes to an hour to clean since the pans need to cool or they'll warp. And you can't leave the pans sitting around, especially in an apartment. You'll get roaches. Lots of them. And ants. Then there's the cost of fresh food. If it's not on sale it's expensive. If it is on sale it's about to go bad. You can freeze meat, but vegetables & fruits don't freeze well (fruit it tolerable in smoothies but nothing else). Packaged dinners are a great buy because they keep for months. I can buy them when they're on sale, stock up and save. I can't do that with Bananas. They're worm food in 5 days tops. There's a reason why women used to be home bound. Food preparation was a full time job. As pay decreases they moved into the workforce largely to make up the difference. Processed foods made that possible. But wages keep going down. So we need foods that need less and less prep time and cost less and less. There are consequences.

      You can get induction countertop stoves. They work really well and it heats up so fast that it actually throws off the rhythms of some quite experienced cooks.

      I now try to batch cook and make meals that will last a few days. So I don't have to cook everyday or don't have to grab something unhealthy. Huge dutch ovens or the large pressure cookers are great for that.

      Rest, exercise and cooked food are something that should never be skipped. Without your health, everything else is meaningless.

    15. Re:Cooking is hard by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Buy a decent pan with a thick bottom, the thicker the better. It will take longer to heat, but it will also provide a more even and consistent heat as the mass helps 'smooth' fluctuations or uneveness and 'hot spots' in your heat source. Cast Iron is your friend. Big, solid, sturdy pans that keep their heat well even if you have to take them off the burner before everything's done cooking. Get them properly seasoned and never wash them with soap, and they'll last a lifetime.

      I prefer enameled dutch ovens.

      You can't really wash the cast iron and it is very porous. So, it will absorb things like spices and all your meals start tasting like the meals before.

      A joke is that if you cook fish in a cast iron pan, then it becomes your fish pan forever. Many meals afterwards will have that fishy flavor.

    16. Re:Cooking is hard by techno-vampire · · Score: 1



      That's why you have to season them. It creates a layer of protection that keeps them from rusting, as long as you don't use soap, which will remove at least part of it. Enameled dutch ovens are good to, of course, but cast iron's always been my favorite.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re: Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with you. One other thing to mention is cheaper / older freezers can vary in temperature so much that occasionally frozen food will start to thaw then refreeze, ruining the quality of the food. Especially with meat or produce.

    18. Re: Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another option is to buy frozen vegetables that you can microwave in the bag. Just put the bag in the microwave - you don't have to use a pot.

      Where I live (SF Bay area), at Target, you can get a 12-oz bag of cook-in-the-bag veggies for 99 cents.

    19. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pancakes, the worlds simplest cooking after eggs and you buy it pre-made.

      Get yourself and induction hob and your heat up times become a non-issue.

      Start eat green leafy veg, eggs, potatoes and pancakes, where in the world is this a meal. Independent of additive your not going to last very long if this is a major part of you staple diet.

    20. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of crappy excuses!

      As for one that cook everyday, it does not take a lot of time and most of the time, you can do something else simultaneously (TV, talking to your wife, ...). Oh well, you cherry-picked the pancakes, cooking them takes time (but you are completely wrong about mixing them just before, it is best with a time of repose -- all the night). Chocolate mousse, 6-7 minutes preparation and 1 hour in the fridge (prepare before the main course, ready after) ; brownie, 5 minute preparations, 20 minutes in the oven (some recipes works well in a microwave-oven) ; pound cake 7-8 minutes preparations ; rice pudding, amazingly easy ; ... And I do them all by hand, never use an electric whisk.

      Main course : nothing hard or time consuming about cooking steak, chicken, or fish and some vegetables. Pasta, many recipes without much difficulties and time. Rice recipes very easy (various curries) and you can make more and fried it the next day with vegetables and eggs (same with potatoes).

      For the wage, this is again an excuse: cooking by myself cost far less that pre-processed/pre-cooked food and is far better.

      And good news, more you do it, faster you are.

    21. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have suggested you need to work on both your cooking utensils, and your skills. Unless you're really poor and can't afford buy new utensils, there are good countertop stoves you can buy that would fix part of your problem. Even a two burner one gives you a lot of flexibility. Next, pans. Thick bottomed ones are the way to go, the heat gets evenly distributed and the thick bottom acts as a heat sink, so once warm it stays warm unless you throw frozen food at it. In my experience, the time it takes to chop some onions, is about the time it takes to warm up some olive oil to cook them with, so as long as you have a decent stove you don't need 15 minutes(!) just for pre-warming.
      Finally, get a cook book intended for beginners. They tend to stick to easy recipes that involve less cookware and don't take as long to cook. One of my more beginner oriented books has probably 100 recipes you can do with two burners, that take less than an hour to make and that would impress most people on a date...

    22. Re:Cooking is hard by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Cooking is hard, but it is also something that is easily learnt. However you seem to be battling with some exceptionally crappy equipment. That is a problem for some but certainly doesn't cover the >50% of families in the UK figure that is in the summary.

      In 40 minutes I could whip up a phenomenal meal. For a long time I used to make bacon and egg crepes every single day for breakfast. That took me less than 15min including making the crepe batter from scratch.

      I can only suggest that you counter some of the negative effects of equipment with more positive ones. Buy yourself one or two nice heavy bottom pans. That will even out the temperature cooking surface. It will also mean you can start washing basically as soon as you finished eating since they won't warp.

      But there's one thing I will call you out on. There have been countless studies by consumer groups that show buying fresh food and cooking from scratch, and above all cooking healthy is far better for your wallet then buying pre-packaged stuff. A lot of people get disenchanted when they first start and realise that Spag-Bol cost them $25 to make, but then they don't take into account that herbs and spices will last them the best part of 3 months, the pasta will cover maybe 8 meals, and ultimately if you use up all the ingredients you come down to a fraction of the cost of a prepackaged spaghetti bolognese. If you reach for the pre-packaged salad it may look cheaper. If you reach for all the ingredients you get to divide the cost by the number of salads they make.

      The only time this doesn't work out in your favour is if you live by yourself without a fridge.

    23. Re:Cooking is hard by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      You poor thing. Here you go.
      1/4 cup low gluten flour
      1/4 cup huskless (white) buckwheat flour
      1/4 t cream of tartar
      1/2 t sodium carbonate
      mix thoroughly
      1 egg
      1/4 cup milk or yogurt
      1/4 cup water
      mix lightly

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    24. Re:Cooking is hard by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Also there are four screw adjustable feet on the bottom of your stove. If it wobbles you only need to adjust one.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    25. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bad workman always blames his tools

    26. Re:Cooking is hard by dwpro · · Score: 1

      If you're a pancake fan get an electric griddle at a thrift store. Good for several other dishes as well. Sometimes you need the right tool.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    27. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You sir, are a filthy liar.

      I taught myself to cook as a bachelor and it is not very hard, you are just lazy.

      For instance, you could do fetuchini noodles, they take 10 minutes to boil, as they boil you can mix ground beef up with some onion, garlic, paprika, cumin, salt, pepper, summer savory and italian spice. Takes roughly 2 minutes to cut it and mix it and you roll it into balls and pan fry it while the noodles boil. Once the noodles are done and the meat balls are done you can toss in a pre-mix pack of gravy along with diced mushrooms, takes 2 minutes to thicken, and then pour onto the noodles and meat balls.

      Total time 12 minutes.

      YOUR FUCKING LAZY

      We're here talking about the dangers of processed foods, and you suggest using "pre-mix" gravy? Have you read the ingredients in that shit? My blood pressure jumped 10 points just reading about the amount of salt you're consuming. And don't get me started on the cheap processed beef you bought at big-box store.

      Congratulations. Your ignorance missed the point here entirely. Let the adults talk now. Go back to eating your processed meals.

    28. Re:Cooking is hard by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      You have trillions of nanobots called microbes in your gut which can do the work for you. These were designed over a billion years. They can process any natural food; so move to a simple vege diet; steam veges and add spices; push in some boiled whole grains like rice and then watch your health.

    29. Re:Cooking is hard by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen. I do

      Be more awesome and you could have a better apartment with a better kitchen.

      If you were an awesome independent contractor like cayenne8 you could even claim it as a business expense if you cook in the same decade as you work.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a filthy liar.

      I taught myself to cook as a bachelor and it is not very hard, you are just lazy.

      For instance, you could do fetuchini noodles, they take 10 minutes to boil, as they boil you can mix ground beef up with some onion, garlic, paprika, cumin, salt, pepper, summer savory and italian spice. Takes roughly 2 minutes to cut it and mix it and you roll it into balls and pan fry it while the noodles boil. Once the noodles are done and the meat balls are done you can toss in a pre-mix pack of gravy along with diced mushrooms, takes 2 minutes to thicken, and then pour onto the noodles and meat balls.

      Total time 12 minutes.

      YOUR FUCKING LAZY

      Learn to spell, dude, while you'RE lecturing people on being fucking lazy. fetuchini. italian. Jesus F. Christ.

    31. Re:Cooking is hard by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Of course, I have to wait at least 30 minutes to an hour to clean since the pans need to cool or they'll warp.

      I've never had that happen, even with lightweight stuff designed for camping.

      Your burners don't heat evenly

      Have you tried cleaning the jets? Just had this (only getting a tiny flame on a quarter of the main burner) and there was a little speck of gunge partially blocking one of the crenellations[1]. Guessing she boiled over the coffee again.

      [1] Or to use the correct technical term, "them things like what you get on top of a castle".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:Cooking is hard by Megol · · Score: 1

      Any reason for selecting a low gluten flour?

    33. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is. I mean that. Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen. I do, and I cook most of my meals and it sucks. Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. The stove never stays level either. Your microwave is cheap and your fridge small. Your freezer smaller

      If I make a meal of eggs, potatoes & some pancakes from scratch (minus the pancake mix, which is pre made) I need to plan on a little over an hour. 10-15 minutes to heat the pans. 5 minutes to mix the pancake batter (you can't mix it until just before you use it or it screws up the pancake texture). 15 minutes to cook the pancakes (one at a time, since I only have 1 full sized burner) 5 to cook the eggs (I'm not a good cook, so if I try to juggle the eggs and pancakes I burn one or the other) meanwhile the potatoes are cooking for about 30 minutes while being flipped periodically. Then I need to sit down and eat (15-20 minutes) and then clean up (10 minutes). Of course, I have to wait at least 30 minutes to an hour to clean since the pans need to cool or they'll warp. And you can't leave the pans sitting around, especially in an apartment. You'll get roaches. Lots of them. And ants.

      Then there's the cost of fresh food. If it's not on sale it's expensive. If it is on sale it's about to go bad. You can freeze meat, but vegetables & fruits don't freeze well (fruit it tolerable in smoothies but nothing else). Packaged dinners are a great buy because they keep for months. I can buy them when they're on sale, stock up and save. I can't do that with Bananas. They're worm food in 5 days tops.

      There's a reason why women used to be home bound. Food preparation was a full time job. As pay decreases they moved into the workforce largely to make up the difference. Processed foods made that possible. But wages keep going down. So we need foods that need less and less prep time and cost less and less. There are consequences.

      So to summarize then, there may be an element of regression going on in society. Yes? Even though we have Facebook and the like...

      Perhaps a plethora of crappy food options and crappy food culture will soon change now that Amazon has arrived.

    34. Re:Cooking is hard by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Honestly making suggestions.

      Get a griddle and then make tablespoon pancakes (3-4 inches), they freeze well and heat well in the microwave.

      Then there is this little miracle that we discovered last year, a breakfast sandwich maker:
      https://www.amazon.com/Hamilto...

      And it can make many things other than breakfast. And those pancakes I described, they can be the bread (which is awesome).

      You are correct though, if we are having proper dinner (grilling some steak/burgers/chicken) and fresh vegetables, an hour is the minimum (with 2 kids it's close to 90 minutes not including cleanup).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    35. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your country is some sort of third world hell hole ?

    36. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get yourself a teppan. It will likely heat more evenly than a pan on a stove and it's quicker. I bake pancakes fairly regularly and I tend to eat them ‘on the run’, pipelining two: flip newest pancake, put other pancake on my plate, pour new pancake, put toppings on finished pancake and eat it, flip newest pancake, and so on. Total prep time is just a few minutes, including waiting for the first pancake.
      Also, I don't buy pancake mix, it's a waste of money and if you prepare your own mixes you can vary the recipe, e.g. by using yoghurt instead of water or milk, or by using a different kind of flour, or by putting bits of fruit or other things in the mix, or by using less sugar, or more, or brown sugar. Variety is the spice of life after all.
      Furthermore, fresh food is cheaper than packaged dinners even when the latter are on sale. (Excepting maybe things like cup noodles but those are not exactly filling.) If you find they're more expensive, you are buying them from the wrong shop. And the bananas I bought a week ago are still fine, so again I think you're buying from a disreputable shop.
      I tend to go to a regular supermarket every few days on my way back home from work. I don't even own a fridge. I'm considering buying a little one for things like ice cream, but other than that I don't really see the point. Food doesn't go off if you eat it on time.

    37. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it April Fools Day already? A reasoned, well written, helpful reply to a Slashdot comment...

      Really: thank you, I needed a reminder this morning that not everyone on the internet is a total narcissistic ignorant ass.

    38. Re: Cooking is hard by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If your freezer is doing that it isn't just older or cheaper.

      The technical term is fucked. Get rid, it's a health hazard.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    39. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. "

      One reason I like my stainless steel electric pressure cooker is the set it and forget it nature of the device. You can cook beans rice and vegetables much easier because its all cooked evenly controlled by a timer and sensors. When the food is cooked if your not ready to eat it the device keeps it at a safe warming temperature.

    40. Re:Cooking is hard by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      For instance, you could do fetuchini noodles, they take 10 minutes to boil...

      Total time 12 minutes.

      I don't think many typical apartments have a stove that gets water up to boiling instantaneously.

    41. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that hard. You're probably just doing it wrong.

      Your stove takes forever to heat up.

      I don't really believe that. Unless the heating element is bad (and if it is, replace it! If it saves you 5-6 minutes a day, it will pay for itself in a few weeks if your time is worth at least minimum wage), cheaper electric stoves with the element itself as the burner heat up almost instantly. Glass top stoves (which tend to be higher end) take a bit longer, but still on the order of seconds, not minutes. And gas stoves (typically higher end than electrics) heat directly with fire. Fire does not take time to heat up. If your stove really is an unworkable piece of junk that heats poorly, you can get a two burner hotplate of the bare heating element (hot almost instantly) type for about $11.

      you have to set them and let the pans [heat] for 10-15 minutes

      Set the heat higher on the stove. The pan will heat much quicker, and you can turn the burner down when the pan is up to the desired temperature. Another option is to get a slow cooker. I've seen these, brand new, for under $10. Not the big family-sized ones, but if you're a single person living in a crappy little apartment, that's not what you need anyway. Another tip, that works well with the slow cooker, is preparing meals ahead that just need to be reheated for a couple minutes in the microwave or on the stove top. For instance, get a cheap cut of beef, throw it in the slow cooker on medium with an onion, some celery and carrots, a bunch of potatoes and some water or broth. Go do what you want for several hours,
        and come back to beef stew. Eat some that evening, reheat the rest for several more home cooked meals through the week.

      Then there's the cost of fresh food.

      There are many fresh foods that are cheap, like the above mentioned vegetables. But canned food is also your friend. Lots of canned vegetables have only the vegetable itself, water and salt as ingredients. And while it is sensible to be careful of too much salt/sodium, it's hard to call that "ultra-processed". Similar for frozen vegetables. Because they are often flash frozen right after being picked, their nutritional content remains about as good as you can get it. And typically, those don't have anything added.

      Cooking takes some effort, but it really isn't hard. The main barriers for you seem to be low skill and a (uniquely?) bad stove. Learning and practice will improve your skill. So then you just have to deal with the edge case of a "bad" stove. Getting better will ameliorate that somewhat, as will learning to work around it, e.g. by using a slow cooker, the oven (assuming you have one), the microwave, a sandwich maker or George Foreman grill type of appliance, etc....

      It does tend to be true that the poorer you are, the more challenging cooking -- especially preparing fresh foods in healthy ways -- tends to get due to the cost of tools, implements and appliances as well as the actual foodstuffs. But there are tons of information resources available on the interwebs for doing so frugally.

    42. Re:Cooking is hard by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Also called cake flour in the USA, it's less sensitive to overmixing. If you can find one with 10g protein per 100grams, then that is awesome for cakes and pancakes.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    43. Re:Cooking is hard by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      There was a less than symbol before the 10g.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    44. Re:Cooking is hard by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You and I are in the same category: people who can, and do, cook their own food, rather than popping something in the microwave, or just going through the drive-thru. But there is one vital difference between you and I: there is a factor you're not seeing, that I see everywhere.

      People, more and more, do not know how to cook even basic foods, because no one is teaching them to. This is part of a larger problem: people not learning ANY skills of ANY kind, unless they lead to earning income. As a result people are getting dumber, not smarter, in significant ways. I'm often argued with over this, because some people see only advances in technology, and disregard things that I (and others) regard as basic life-skills, like cooking for yourself, how to clean things properly, how to be a competent driver, and so on. Worse, they're encourged to not learn these skills, because companies that make and sell 'conveniences' want to make money, of course, and go out of their way to convince people that it's just as good to pop something in the microwave, or go to the drive-thru, or have something delivered. And, of course, in the case of food, sure, it tastes great -- and what could have been a 500-700 kcal meal, with much better nutrition and healthier ingredients, is now full of sugar, bad fat, salt, crap-quality carbs, and not enough high-quality protein, for twice as many kcals. So we end up with obese, diseased people.

    45. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well trolled, sir.

    46. Re:Cooking is hard by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > a decent pan with a thick bottom, the thicker the better. It will take longer to heat, but it will also provide a more even and consistent heat

      Yes, but also, a good quality thinner pan also works. I have been a big cast iron fan for a few years. My wife recently sprung for some "All Clad" pans.

      They are quite thin, they heat quickly, and I am every bit as impressed with them as I am with my cast iron. I took over for my wife at the stove while browning some sausages.... they browned faster than normal, on a lower heat.

      I was very impressed; though, for the price, cast iron definitely wins out; but for speed, these things rock hard.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    47. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to call him a liar when he said he only has 1 burner.

      "you roll it into balls and pan fry it while the noodles boil."

      Now we have anecdotal evidence from two people, what good does that do? Thanks for not contributing anything useful.

    48. Re:Cooking is hard by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      A joke is that if you cook fish in a cast iron pan, then it becomes your fish pan forever. Many meals afterwards will have that fishy flavor.

      That's more truth than joke. I remember (probably 35 years ago) having fish flavored pancakes. I was not pleased.

    49. Re:Cooking is hard by Megol · · Score: 1

      Never thought it would make any difference, have to try it. :)

    50. Re:Cooking is hard by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      I am a computer security expert, used to be a pastry chef :)

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    51. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give that man a twinkie!

    52. Re:Cooking is hard by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Considering that GP needs 10-15 minutes to heat the pans, I'd say that 12 minutes for a dinner is a touch optimistic. Does the boiling and frying at the same time each require full-sized burners, which GP has one of?

      You've also neglected cleanup time. The pan you boil the noodles with won't take long to clean once it's cool enough, but I'm not nearly so confident of the fry pan.

      Now, consider a prepackaged meal. You take it out of the freezer and stick it in the oven or microwave, then throw away the packaging. Much, much faster.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:Cooking is hard by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you saying I was bad at programming when I had that COBOL job? I blamed that language all the time.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of shithole do you live in that you'll get roaches and ants if you leave a dirty dish out?

      Christ, if you've got a shitty stove get yourself a portable induction pad (they're like $30) and a couple of decent pots and pans with heavy bases.

      While you're at it, get yourself a slow-cooker as well so you can cook soups and stews while you're off at work. Those are good ways to use up vegetables that are on their way out.

      Also, why on earth would you buy more bananas than you can eat in a week? You can use overripe bananas to make banana bread, which will keep for a week or two in an air-tight container and makes for a nice snack.

      I get that having a shitty kitchen is frustrating, having lived for half a year in a studio that had a bar fridge, microwave and a slow 2 burner electric hob, but I made it work by adapting what I cooked to suit what I had. That meant that rice, noodle and pasta dishes.

    55. Re:Cooking is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nononono, I wish I could make you read this in the family guys faux Palin daughter voice. You should be letting the pancake batter sit. Preferably covered, for 15-20 minutes. It's bow you get the fluffy pancakes, as opposed the the hockey pucks I assume you have been eating.

    56. Re:Cooking is hard by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can get one of these portable stove tops and that should solve your heating problems at least. I'm going through a similar situation right now............

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    57. Re:Cooking is hard by dddux · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I need 20 minutes to prepare a full pot of healthy chilly beans. Not much, eh? 5 minutes to fry the onions and carrots, 5 minutes to put and fry the can of beans in it and 10 minutes when I put the seasoned tomato sauce in it. How hard is that? You get a healthy chilly beans in 20 minutes.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  7. roundup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the glyphosate.

    1. Re: roundup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glyphosphate isn't a process. It's also on everything, so it wouldn't show up in this experiment. It has also been studied a trillion times. Sorry, dude, but you're very likely wasting your time avoiding it.

  8. I'm ambivalent by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 4, Informative

    I liked that the article talked about the term "ultra-processed" and the pros and cons of using it. On the one hand, it's fairly well established that many forms of processing are harmful, and having degrees of processing as a broad category might be useful. By using an umbrella term like that, you can avoid many of the problems with bullshit statistical studies: "Green M&M's are 95% likely to cause cancer."

    On the other hand...this is basically a "common knowledge" study which serves no purpose and tells me nothing at all. Gee, "Hungry Man Salisbury Steak" dinners are bad for me? Shocking. I'm fucking stunned by your scientific revelation. Which parts of the processing are most harmful? Should I skip that damned brownie that never cooks properly? Are ensure or soylent "ultra processed?" Oh, you don't know? Thanks for nothing.

    https://xkcd.com/882/

    1. Re:I'm ambivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the newspaper said there's a 95% confidence level that green jelly beans cause cancer...or was it acne? Regardless, only a 5% chance of coincidence!

    2. Re:I'm ambivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem I see is with you focusing on green M&M's as a foil. In fact some food colors are waaay more toxic than others, most of the popular red-orange-yellow and 2 blue ones are very likely carcinogens as lab mice show.
      Those aren't quack studies, the publication in Time magazine or some dumb shit with the dumb headline focusing on the dumb shit to sell copies is what makes it unworthy. The studies are getting to a truth, these chemicals are risky.

      Each one is an unstudied/understudied chemical and we give them to KIDS every day for years.. we truly are the largest running experiment in organic chemistry, we really ought to be documenting all the data for future computers....
      Millions of years of bug fixes took place before we made these massive updates lately. Now we have huge problems in every direction because we thought none of this shit mattered. Green M&M's probably not, but something will.
      We are poisoned in novel ways each day. Consumerism.

    3. Re:I'm ambivalent by dfm3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand...this is basically a "common knowledge" study which serves no purpose and tells me nothing at all.

      Welcome to science. A vast majority of research takes place simply to collect additional data to test a hypothesis... very few "groundbreaking" discoveries in a given field are made on a daily basis, and those that do happen must then be further tested with repeatable, verifiable experiments before they can be considered more than just a statistical anomaly.

      Nearly everything that we consider "common knowledge" was once not so, and had to be backed by the weight of scientific evidence observed over a vast number of experiments. For example, less than a century ago, smoking and red meat were considered healthy, but now it's common knowledge that we know better. It's because of the hard work of many, many scientists that we now know this, but you never hear about the countless hours of labor that the research takes, or the endless experiments that have to be repeated simply to verify that the results are consistent. You do read about the "breakthrough" stuff in the news quite often, but there are two reasons why: 1) there are so many different fields of scientific research going on simultaneously, and 2) many news outlets jump the gun by using a single publication as the basis for an article about how "a scientific study suggests!" before the experimental results can be verified through repetition by other scientists.

  9. On the plus side by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    After you’re dead, your family doesn’t have to rush as much to make sure you’re buried before you start to decompose.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  10. Older study came to similar conclusion, so new stu by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1
    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  11. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it wasn't "cheese product"? I almost picked that up at the store the other night before realizing my mistake and swapping it on the shelf for some ACTUAL cheese.

  12. False dychotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Or option 3, each normal food.

    It's not potnoodle OR botulism, as if they're the only choices.

    1. Re:False dychotomy by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 0
      It's not potnoodle OR botulism, as if they're the only choices.

      They will be if Trump continues to have a say in things.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:False dychotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crooked Hillary lost the election. Get over it.

    3. Re: False dychotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still people bitching about Obama or Bush. You are just going to have to suck it up and get over people complaining, sunshine.

    4. Re:False dychotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Josephina Stalin lost the election to Adolf Hitler. Get over it.

      FTFY

    5. Re:False dychotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did you bring her up?

  13. Wow! what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We evolved to eat certain foods. Hell we evolved grain and rice. Sheep, bovines, chickens. Alcohol is an evolved trait on humans have a tolerance for; we convert the starch to food. No other life form does that. In less than two centuries we changed that diet radically. It's a body count issue and supplying enough food to everyone. That was a function of time; time to get food to people.
    Why is it a surprise our bodies haven't caught up. Solution. Back out of all the long term packaging. In the 50's getting a loaf of bread not to mold for two weeks while sitting on a shelf was an achievement. Deliverer was an issue. But our supply line is better now. Most stuff stays on the shelf for days. A simple adjustment. We don't need all the additives and removing them? Won't change the shelf price so up the profits for not including them. Hell if the American public could get rational about irradiation of food we could reduce power for keeping meat cold. More savings.

    1. Re:Wow! what a surprise by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes, our lifespans have decreased dramatically in the past two centuries.

      except they haven't.

      refrigeration of food is a small part of my electric bill; refrigerators are insulated well

    2. Re:Wow! what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were going by rational, you'd have stopped eating meat already or at the very least made it about 10-20% of what you're currently eating. Irradiation vacuum

  14. Been there by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    at least where I am those are _very_ expensive. I can go to a restaurant for the cost. My one saving grace is Trader Joe's dough balls. I can make two pizza meals out of that for about $6 or $7 bucks (vegetables instead of cheap processed meats). It's still time consuming. It takes me a long time to cut the vegetables, toss the dough and get everything assembled. If I count for the trip time to buy ingredients about 90 minutes. But at least I get two meals out of it.

    Fish is OK too, but with mercury I can't eat that much of it (I'm in the States, not sure about the rest of the world but here you have to keep it to about once a week). A fish fry takes forever. I could cut the time down though with a better deep fryer. A bit of salmon pan fried isn't too bad, but it kinda stinks up the whole apartment. And it's got the same pan heating delay as the pancakes.

    I don't generally eat meat, especially the cheap stuff. Mostly because I never cared much for the stuff, but also it keeps me away from fast food. A lot of the quick and dirty meals out there are just frying up some beef. It's hard to screw that up. Chicken's a lot harder since it's easy to cook it until it's dry and tasteless. I tried for years to cook it for my kid and could never get the hang of it. But part of that is my crap stove. I used to live in a house with a decent stove before moving for work and it was a _lot_ easier. I miss having a gas range. There's a reason cooks swear by it. You can use a high end electric range too (Induction? I forget) but you're not going to find those in any apartment I could afford. Maybe after my Kid's out of college I can finally buy a house again. That 2008 market crash still stings.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Been there by labnet · · Score: 1

      I cook once a week to give my wife a break.

      The kids love a curry. The trick is buy thigh fillet and not breast meat. Chop it into cubes. It always stays tender. Use a good quality pre made spice mix. Fry up some onion and I usually top up the spices and add coconut cream.
      We have a high end induction range and it is amazing. I can get a pan searing hot in 30 seconds. You can buy single and dual portable induction cooktops.
      Another tip is to use a pressure cooker. This is great for making cheap cuts of meat tender.

      --
      46137
    2. Re:Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered purchasing a benchtop induction stove? I believe a decent single burner can be purchased for around US$50. I had one when I had a poor quality stove and found it worked reasonably well. It's still not gas, but it means no more 10+ minute wait to boil water.

    3. Re:Been there by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It takes me a long time to cut the vegetables, toss the dough and get everything assembled. If I count for the trip time to buy ingredients about 90 minutes. But at least I get two meals out of it.

      My brother, get a pressure cooker or an Instant Pot. Once you learn techniques, you can cut up vegetables in no time. I get bored with cooking, but I like to eat, so I've got maybe half a dozen dishes that are super easy that I know how to prepare. take some meat, throw it in the pot and brown it on both sides. Doesn't matter what it is. Chicken, beef, pork, horse meat, I don't care. Cut an onion into four pieces. Cut a few carrots into 1 inch circles. Throw in some potatoes, a little salt and pepper, cayenne, turmeric (if you like it) and maybe 1/4 wedge of cabbage. Half a glass of water. Cover the pot and wait until it starts to hiss or the little button pops up. Turn the heat down and wait 15-19 minutes. Turn off the heat, let the pot cool until the pressure goes down and you've got three or four delicious meals. You can wash the vegetables if you want. It's probably a good idea. All together, maybe 10 minutes of preparation time for several healthy meals. If you're lazy, you can even throw the pressure cooker pot in the fridge so you can have the leftovers the next day so you don't even have to mess with plastic containers. If you're single, you need a pressure cooker. If you're married and buy a pressure cooker and make a meal, you may get gratitude sex from your spouse.

      Don't eat pizza all the time. Trust me. Oh, and when you get your pressure cooker, RTFM. The Instant Pot is even easier, because you can program it like a coffee maker and it has anti-burn fuzzy logic in it (or something).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >You can buy single and dual portable induction cooktops.

      This. Definitely this. They're not expensive, and because the top surface of the induction hob only gets heated indirectly (because it's touching the pan), food will not burn on to it and you can wipe it down the moment you're finished cooking so that you don't need to leave it lying around to cool down. Get one, store it in your room, and take it down to the kitchen only when you need it along with the rest of your cooking implements.

      I have one, I love the crap out of it. It's more efficient than any other electric hob and is about as responsive as a gas flame hob. I've been using it exclusively for many years now even if that means cooking things in multiple pans in sequence - it's just that much better than the crappy, filthy fixed hob in my house. Just make sure that you keep the power cable away from the induction zone on top, otherwise your circuit breakers will not be pleased.

    5. Re:Been there by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      The lack of a decent sized freezer sucks. When I was single, I used to make stuff that froze well. Made big batches of everything and froze them in single serving sizes. Then most days I could just pull something out of the freezer and heat it up.

      I am super slow chopping veggies. Prep time kills me. I have a hell of a time getting more than one thing on a plate and all be hot.

  15. Does it have to be one or the other? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't I just say no to Botulism _and_ cancer?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Does it have to be one or the other? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      You've got to kill the botulinum somehow... if you don't use chemicals/salt/sugar then you'll use heat. Did the heat turn the food into carcinogenic chemicals or degrade its nutritive properties?

    2. Re:Does it have to be one or the other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you live long enough you're likely to get one of the two. Multiple times even. Until you stop living.

    3. Re:Does it have to be one or the other? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask that question the way Trump says "Who knows", as if there weren't a way to find out. There have been lots of studies over the last decades to answer your question. Pasteurization kills germs, preserves most nutrients and is not carcinogenic. Irradiation may be even safer but there is prejudice against it.

    4. Re:Does it have to be one or the other? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Food micro would be a lot easier if that was all there was to it. Its like the guys upthread stating to eat only natural foods, and that poison is poison, ignoring that natural foods are full of (natural) poisons, and that many necessary nutrients are poisonous in some contexts.

    5. Re:Does it have to be one or the other? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      ..if you don't use chemicals/salt/sugar then you'll use heat. ...

      Or X-rays.
      Or Gamma.
      Or Ebeams > 10Mev

  16. Good question by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    except you've loaded your post with a remark questioning the moral character ("lifestyle choices") of the people who rely on over processed food. I'm not even sure you know you're doing it. But it's basically dismissing the issue by claiming its the fault of the person impacted. The same logic was used against smokers while cigarette companies were hiding the dangers involved. Again, don't take this the wrong way. You might not even realize the message you're conveying, but if you don't then, well, you do now, and need to think about it in context.

    Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you. You will _never_ find a doctor who says they're A-Ok. At least not one that isn't on the payroll of one of the companies hawking this stuff. The question isn't so much "are they bad for you" it's "how bad and why".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Good question by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you.

      Everything is bad for you in the correct dose. Most vitamins and minerals your body needs to function are toxic in high doses. The question isn't if they are bad for you, the question is if they have some sort of negative impact on your health in low doses.

      The overwhelming evidence for the majority of additives and preservatives is that they are safe in the levels found in processed foods.

      You can choose to deny this evidence, or believe some health guru when he pulls out one (shoddy) study that shows some preservative causes cancer when there are dozens of studies showing it does not. Read up on p-value hacking for more on that. But you would be using the same logic that climate change deniers, young earth creationists, and flat earthers use to defend their positions. Instead of looking at the majority of the evidence and basing your conclusions on that, you are rejecting said evidence based on preconceived notions and buying into whatever evidence you can find to fit into your narrative.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re: Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That was an obnoxiously hostile response. Don't be that guy.

    3. Re:Good question by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you are saying that at the same time there is TONS of evidence that these foods are bad for you (with the associated implication that everyone should know that), while simultaneously claiming that no one should be able to question the "lifestyle choices" of people eating those foods...
      I can only assume then that you think these people are making an informed decision to eat food they know is bad for them, and therefore you are implying they are stupid.
      Thats rather judgemental of you, dont you think?

      Then of course there is your use of "rely" as if these people are incapable of enough life control to eat other food..

      Your complete logic-fail of trying to link something you claim is common knowledge to something that you claim was behind actively hidden is rather special however.

      I think that perhaps you are the one who doesnt realise what message you are conveying, or perhaps you do realise that the message is 'rsilvergun is an idiot'?

    4. Re:Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are..

      Your exact words were: Useless conclusion.... Is it the ingredients in 'ultra processed' foods that cause cancer, or overall poor lifestyle choices made my the types of people who consume a lot of this type of food? Or maybe something else all together?"

      That itself implies their actions are at least in part, if not THE cause.

      What people are getting at is, lets not tell the lie that these foods are SAFE.. They may not be bad as say drinking draino.. But we really have never done any long term studies that relate to these ultra-processed foods and what their effects on the body are. The way the industry works, is if it doesn't kill you (and more than 80% of the consumers) within a 90 days in a manner that can be directly attributed to their product, then its considered safe.

      The marketing around these products is that they are safe products that help to eliminate the complexity/cost around traditional cooking.. (and given that everyone is starving for more time.. people look for shortcuts when/where they can).

    5. Re:Good question by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That itself implies their actions are at least in part, if not THE cause.

      I think you missed the "or something else altogether" part. For an example of a way that it could be something else entirely, I would point out that people living below the poverty line are less likely to be able to afford to buy fresh foods. Therefore, they almost by definition eat more processed foods. Poverty is correlated with a higher rate of a lot of diseases. Therefore, you would expect an increase in processed food consumption to be correlated with a higher risk of those diseases unless poverty is explicitly corrected for.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Good question by Solandri · · Score: 1

      except you've loaded your post with a remark questioning the moral character ("lifestyle choices") of the people who rely on over processed food.

      He didn't load anything. You're arguing as if he only specified the "lifestyle choices" explanation. He didn't. He gave three possible explanations based on the correlation that was found. That the processed food caused the cancer. That the lifestyles of the people who tended to get cancer also encouraged eating processed foods. Or some other relationship.

      Without more evidence than a correlation, all three are equally valid, and he presented all three. By choosing to critique only the "lifestyle choices" explanation, you're the one exhibiting bias. By presenting only the processed foods explanation, TFA is exhibiting bias.

      Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you. You will _never_ find a doctor who says they're A-Ok. At least not one that isn't on the payroll of one of the companies hawking this stuff. The question isn't so much "are they bad for you" it's "how bad and why".

      I see people making this mistake all the time. The proper question is "are they worse for you than the alternative?" You can't compare to a nonexistent zero base state (one where nitrates are simply deleted from the diet but everything else magically remains the same). You have to compare to the nearest realistic alternative. In this case it means if you delete nitrates, you incur all the other risks that the nitrates were helping prevent (e.g. botulism as has been posted elsewhere).

      When United 232 crashed one of the fatalities was a lap child. This is a baby who was flying without a ticket and thus didn't have a seat, and was held on a parent's lap. When preparing for the crash landing, the mother asked what to do with her baby. The stewardess followed procedure and told her to put the baby underneath the seat in front like luggage. The mother and stewardess survived; the baby did not. Racked with guilt, the stewardess campaigned for nearly two decades to prohibit lap children, and require all babies and small children to have a paid seat. When the FAA concluded their review of her proposal, they rejected it.

      You see, she was comparing to a nonexistent base state - one where lap children are prohibited, but everything else remains the same. The FAA analyzed it correctly and looked at the nearest realistic alternative. If parents were forced to pay for an extra seat to bring a small child, the higher price would cause more of them to opt to drive instead of fly. And driving is much more dangerous than flying. So even though the lap child policy killed a baby in this one case, it was saving dozens if not hundreds of babies every year by preventing them from dying in car accidents. (The NTSB suggested an alternative where restraints for lap children are carried aboard for use in emergencies.)

    7. Re:Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, fvck you SJW. I'm not equating morality with food choices.

      Then what exactly are you equating food choices with?

      But the food you put in your mouth *is* a choice. It might be cheaper and/or easier to put trash processed food in your mouth. But it is *your* choice to eat cheap trash instead of eating smart.

      Ah, so you're in the same camp as the GP:

      Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you.

      The GP does bring up the point about cigarette companies trying to hide the truth about smoking, but the question about processed foods is a lot less clear. There's no single chemical (or process) to point out but a whole host of them, grouped into having different intended purposes. The whole idea that doctors don't say they're A-Ok should be true nearly across the board: 6 Secretly Poisonous Plants We Eat All the Time There's very little you can eat in nearly unlimited quantities or continuously over an unlimited time without negative health effects.

      So, really what are you claiming? Processed food == fat people == cancer? Because even that parallel is false. I'd really like to know exactly what "smart" way people are supposed to eat, unless there's some intelligence in eating fresh for fresh sake, even if you can't prove any health benefit.

    8. Re: Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a fucking nazi, kick him in the smooth spot where his balls should be and forget him.

    9. Re:Good question by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is it the ingredients in 'ultra processed' foods that cause cancer, or overall poor lifestyle choices made my the types of people who consume a lot of this type of food? Or maybe something else all together?"

      By a process of elimination "something else"= having cancer causes you to eat crap.

      Unlikely, but it's possible. It could be that a genetic predisposition to cancer also causes you to eat processed food, dress like a colour-blind kleptomaniac and have tattoos that look like they were done with a biro and a panel pin.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Good question by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The same logic was used against smokers while cigarette companies were hiding the dangers involved.
      but you do know that this was an american thing ... in the rest of the world everyone knew that smoking gives you a high cancer risk, particular lung cancer and circulation problems, particular smoker's legs etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Good question by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The overwhelming evidence for the majority of additives and preservatives is that they are safe in the levels found in processed foods.
      Uh? You don't know the difference between your opinion and evidence?

      Ha ha, coming with logic (flat earthers and that) and then writing something like this: when there are dozens of studies showing it does not. You can not show/prove the "absence" of something. How many hundred years do you want to conduct a test that you can be confident a certain substance does not have a certain effect? How many people/animals/test subjects do you want ton involve?

      Yes, we make many tests, at some point "we give up" and conclude it is save. However if you would look at how many substances are forbidden in the EU but allowed in the US, that should make you wonder what actually is safe and what not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The overwhelming evidence is produced by scientists and other "elite literates" and therefore deeply suspect.

      You should respect the opinion of the illiterati - they are only interested in your well being.

      ---
      Darwin made a spelling mistake: It should be "survival of the fattest" every American knows this instinctively.

    13. Re:Good question by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      You don't know the difference between your opinion and evidence?

      https://www.webmd.com/diet/fea...

      Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, and Sodium Benzoate are safe:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      Azodicarbonamide is safe:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      Aspartame is safe:
      https://jamanetwork.com/journa...

      No evidence that organic based foods are safer than regular foods (a review of 240 studies)
      http://annals.org/aim/article-...

      No evidence that GMOs pose health risks:
      https://www.csicop.org/si/show...

      What is actually going on here:
      https://sciencebasedmedicine.o...

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    14. Re:Good question by fox171171 · · Score: 0

      No evidence that organic based foods are safer than regular foods

      Organic food was "regular food" for millions of years. The crap we eat today is does not deserve the term "regular food".

    15. Re: Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool everyone is either a SJW or a Nazi. You both can go fuck each other.

    16. Re:Good question by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Aspatam is safe?
      It is known since decades that it increases cancer risks and is about to be forbidden as a food additive in the EU.

      Actually I don't ccare about your links.

      As I pointed out: you can not prove absence of a risk. You only can prove risks.
      If you don't know that you don't qualify for discussions about this.

      So good luck with your pro GMO and anti organicc food agenda :)

      Hint: organic food can not contain any ill causing stuff, otherwise it would not be called organic (or it would be illegal), GMO food sometimes does contain ill causing stuff, albeit in low concentrations, like that corn with poison in the outer skin. So calling one safe and the other same safe is idiotic ... but up to you :)

      Hope you don't die from eating the wrong food, medicals, etc. Would be a shock to learn on the death bed that benzyl alcohol can kill you, or?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. "processed" is so vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making a sandwich could be considered processed.

    But the real question is why TF is this on Slashdot?

    1. Re:"processed" is so vague by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      Man, I know what you mean. Once I got the bacon-ranch Dorito dust off my fingers, I finished my red bull and sent a letter of complaint to the management.

    2. Re:"processed" is so vague by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Making a sandwich could be considered processed.

      But the real question is why TF is this on Slashdot?

      Depends on the bread you are using. Article states that some breads are ultra-processed.

  18. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just tried the same thing with some water and it didn't melt either. It even ruined the lighter. If it can do that, just imagine what it's doing to your body. That's a lot of damage!

  19. I wonder if they should have also checked by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    NA beer, Decaffeinated coffee and teas?

    I usually buy fresh vegetables and fruits. Farm markets when in season. I don't each much beef, except when I make tacos.

    I spend about $2 a meal.

    1. Re:I wonder if they should have also checked by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

      Modern decaffeination is done with super-critical CO2. It's effective and doesn't alter the quality of the food. That's the point of using it; it doesn't ruin the flavor or texture of the beans/leaves. Contrast this with, say, orange juice, where they have to add in "flavor packs" after processing.

    2. Re:I wonder if they should have also checked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not getting away from anything. I'm pretty sure those Fruits and Veggies you buy have been sprayed with some kind of insecticide and are probably grown from GM Seeds.

      No one is safe.

  20. Tofu? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Tofu is ultra-processed. Does it cause issues as well?

    1. Re:Tofu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not considered ultra processed by the same standards in the article, it's not similarly engineered. There are other quasi-similar issues with tofu, soy fert/pest buildups, not to mention the pseudoestrogine factors.
      You shouldn't eat processed anything at the level some do, because your body has a certain amount of 'binding' digestive enzyme in a limited reaction - if you run out you can't expel it anymore, it builds up, issues.
      That's lipiologically what alcoholism is, they drink until their liver runs out of B vitamins to process the toxins, the toxins build up and they get sick. It's true with anything in excess, water can kill you. captcha:regent

    2. Re:Tofu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tofu is not an ultra-processed food, it is just processed, just like most varieties of cheese. A simple rule of the thumb is that if you can make a product in your own kitchen, it is not ultra-processed. The only additive needed to make it is magnesium sulfate (epsom salt), which can be easily substituted by some edible acid like lemon juice or vinegar.

  21. Everything is linked to cancer by gweihir · · Score: 1

    That is unfortunately a fact. The only sure protection against cancer is being dead.

    Also, this much more reads like "too much sugar and salt is linked to cancer". Personally, I cannot, for example, buy sweet baked goods (far too much sugar for my taste) and lots of processed foods have too much salt for my taste. Yet these high levels seem to be what people want.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Everything is linked to cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's not a fact, although anything in dire excess of your capability to expel it will cause something. Some issues = cancers. But you're right to trust your tastes to a certain extent, if you don't crave it don't eat it.
      You can't get cancer from clean H20. But if you drink more than your body has salts (and other things) to process and hemeoregulate your body, you will die quickly. Balance in all things, some things we need a lot less of.
      Processed foods are bad because of the salt/fat/preservative bound compounds that interact with eachother in the body and build up unnatural compounds not easily expelled, basically. It's science. Stop whining.

  22. Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    A recent study shows that there may be a link between guns and mass shootings. However, due to the controversial nature of this issue, the CDC Is legally forbidden from conducting any further research until we can get more extensive data on the number of mass shootings that are committed with knives and bombs.

    In other news, Florida Governor Rick Scott rushed to the scene of today's high school shooting in Florida to make sure that the guns were OK.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      heart attacks and head-in-ass syndrome.

      That reminds me, here is a list of members of Congress who get the most money from the NRA:

      https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

      All of them offered "thoughts and prayers" after today's mass shooting.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Controversial study by sexconker · · Score: 0

      And? Guns are guaranteed to us by the constitution.

    3. Re:Controversial study by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      The constitution isn't like the laws of thermodynamics; it was created by people it can be changed by people.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recent study shows that there may be a link between guns and mass shootings. However, due to the controversial nature of this issue, the CDC Is legally forbidden from conducting any further research until we can get more extensive data on the number of mass shootings that are committed with knives and bombs.

      In other news, Florida Governor Rick Scott rushed to the scene of today's high school shooting in Florida to make sure that the guns were OK.

      If you don't want a gun, then you don't have to get a gun.

    5. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - let's start with banning your so-called right to free speech - you only can do that because I say so.

    6. Re:Controversial study by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I hear Scott also said his thoughts and prayers are with the victims' families.

      No doubt they're touched that such an important man is spending his time thinking about them.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heart attacks and head-in-ass syndrome.

      That reminds me, here is a list of members of Congress who get the most money from the NRA:

      https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

      All of them offered "thoughts and prayers" after today's mass shooting.

      "LOL Congress sucks and they're corrupt!!!"
       
      Say, what are you going to do come Election Day? Stay home? Vote straight-ticket? There's a reason these piles of pigshit somehow manage to remain in office despite their obviously being bought-and-paid-for, and that's that the dumbasses keep letting the fuckers trick them into voting Democrat OR Republican, by scaring them into "thinking," if it can be called thinking, that if you don't vote for ONE PARTY'S corrupt loser, their even MORE corrupt loser will win office, and take away your BIRTHDAY, meanwhile getting people to ignore or forget that BOTH CANDIDATES are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the RICH, corporations, and their puppet-strings are being pulled by them and their goddamned fucking money.

      Wanna change things? STOP VOTING FOR ASSHOLE REPUBLICANS OR WEAK, USELESS, SPINELESS-LOSER DEMOCRATS! Show up, VOTE, and vote for someone who does NOT take corporate money or big legalized BRIBES. OR , don't, and continue to whine when the vast majority of the country agrees on stuff, and politicians ignore the will of the people and put in law policies that are THE OPPOSITE of what THE PEOPLE want, because the ONLY opinions that the assholes in office give a fuck about are the opinions of the fuckers bribing them.

      DUH.

    8. Re:Controversial study by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A recent study shows that there may be a link between guns and mass shootings.

      There's also a historical, well-proven link between disarmament and fascism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "be changed by people."
      Good luck with that.

    10. Re:Controversial study by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Mass shootings could never occur in Paris because guns are forbidden there.

    11. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what PopeCrapso? Are you against free speech now? The NRA isn't allowed to lobby for support of gun rights because your penis is too small?

      More people die from car wrecks while driving distracted but I don't see you demanding cars be banned or mock people for offering prayers for the dead from a distracted driver.

      Hell I don't even see you making offtopic rants in other posts about the high black on black deaths in all of the cities INCLUDING gun crimes where strict gun control is the law of the land.

      Although i'm sure you care deeply about your fellow black man though - right?

      Captcha: obstruct

    12. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us how US citizens got to privately own guns for 250 years, machine guns for about 80 years and the dreaded AR15 for 50 years, but why school shootings started only 20 years ago and went crazy numerous since then.

      There is a problem, but it's not the guns.

    13. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be changed by people with a qualified majority. Go on, campaign for it.

      Tell peaceful law-abiding people that giving up their guns protects them from crazy maniacs. Some people may fail to see the fallacy in that and believe you. They may fail to notice that "no guns" is impossible to achieve, because guns cannot be un-invented - and the only thing you can possibly hope to achieve is "guns only for the government". They may also fail to notice that "the government" is responsible for many hundred million deaths in the last 120 years.

      Others will tell you that the threat from crazy maniacs and politicians changing the consitution is exactly why law-abiding people should hold the 2nd amendment dear. And that any government that cannot be removed by its citizens always develops into a tyranny over time.

    14. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee guns.

      The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment, with some pretty specific caveats that most people tend to gloss over, lets take a look: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      A well regulated militia, not just regulated but well regulated, because even the founding father knew that civilians stockpiling arms without rhyme or reason was a bad proposition. Even now most everyone in congress agrees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms HAS to be infringed, it is just a matter of degrees. An M82 LAW Rocket? A minigun? a Nuke? no you may not bear those kind of arms. (and yes; there are those who argue that civilians should be able to own any damn arms they well please)

      I cannot speak for the intent of the founding fathers, i was no there, but i imagine that they intended for the civilian population to be armed and ready to be mobilized in case of invasion(France, Spain and England were just around the corner) or insurgency(plenty of Loyalists still hanging around) and no standing army was yet in existence(the very concept was rather novel at the time). The was also the fear that their new home grown form of government (for, by and of the people) might just turn into tyranny(see what happened in France) fortunately this never really came to pass(some argue that the Federal government IS tyrannical and should be overthrown because reasons).

      We now have a modern professional army, ready to take on all threats foreign and domestic, real or imagined. A relatively stable government for by and of the people that didn't fall into chaos. The very nature of arms has changed, significantly, and if you think that your hoard of M16s in the basement is going to fend off government tyranny or a foreign invader you are deluding yourself.

    15. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that, due to lack of any kind of clear plan that would increase safety without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens leading to a general lack of support, most people are trying to find ways to circumvent the constitution instead of amending it.

    16. Re:Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      but why school shootings started only 20 years ago

      School shootings go back a lot longer than 20 years.

      https://www.history.com/this-d...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Controversial study by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Isn't it quaint to think private ownership of firearms will prevent fascism? With modern tech, they'll drone organized units of opposition, and ferret out disorganized groups by monitoring their comms and put them in our plentiful prisons. Even with private small arms you'd need to turn over an armory to get anywhere, with the militarization of the police.

    18. Re:Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There's also a historical, well-proven link between disarmament and fascism.

      There is also an historical well-proven link between corporations and fascism.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then try to change it.
      Gun grabbers know they can't get an amendment passed, which is why they lie about "Common Sense Gun Laws" and try to claim that "Something Must Be Done! For The Children!".

      When the Democrats actively try to pass a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, you'll know they're being honest. Every other case is a lie.

    20. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CDC studies gun violence all the time. They just aren't allowed to dole out cash to political activist groups anymore.

      Incidentally, in 2013 the CDC has found that private ownership of guns in the US prevents somewhere around 1.5-2 million crimes per year.
      The Brady Foundation for Handgun Control disagrees - they say it's only 500,000 crimes.
      The NRA claims guns prevent over 3 million crimes per year.
      By the way, there are only about 300,000 crimes involving guns per year right now in the United States.

      People like you that want to ban guns are saying that you'd rather have 500,000 more people every year, mostly women and elderly, be victimized rather than feel bad for a few thousand innocent shooting victims. Why do you hate women, Ratzo? Why do you want them to be raped, beaten, and abused?

      You heartless bastard.

    21. Re:Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, in 2013 the CDC has found that private ownership of guns [nap.edu] in the US prevents somewhere around 1.5-2 million crimes per year.

      The paper doesn't say anything remotely like that, you lying bastard.

      The Brady Foundation for Handgun Control disagrees - they say it's only 500,000 crimes.

      No, they don't. Never did. You're lying again.

      The NRA claims guns prevent over 3 million crimes per year.

      Well, of course they do. They're a terrorist organization that is complicit in the deaths of school children. They'd say anything.

      By the way, there are only about 300,000 crimes involving guns per year right now in the United States.

      You're way off.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Controversial study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you are calling law abiding citizens in the US terrorists, without proof?

      I'm not sure there exists a bigger piece of shit than you are. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a criminal. You are the reason people don't want the DNC in charge anymore, they think criminalizing political opinions is acceptable.

      You are a fascist.

    23. Re:Controversial study by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Now you are calling law abiding citizens in the US terrorists, without proof?

      They are complicit in the murder of children. The NRA is not a "law-abiding" organization. Unfortunately, our current leaders are too dependent on the NRA's money to do anything about it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Controversial study by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As an amateur historian, I'd be interested in finding out about that link. I haven't encountered any in my reading.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Controversial study by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And If I don't want to be shot by someone else's gun, I don't have to get...what was that again?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Controversial study by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Tell peaceful law-abiding people

      Stephen Paddock was law-abiding. Until that day when he wasn't.

      that giving up their guns protects them from crazy maniacs. Some people may fail to see the fallacy in that

      The fallacy here is a strawman, and it's yours.

      I merely pointed out that the constitution is not a law of nature, therefore "it is" is not equivalent to "it has to be, for ever". You can buy beer now. Try it, it might calm you down.

      Now I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in England, Canada, Australia and the like - you know, countries where you can put your foot down without tripping over a gun - because it has. But it's not twice a month.

      They may also fail to notice that "the government" is responsible for many hundred million deaths in the last 120 years.

      War? What's that got to do with it?

      And that any government that cannot be removed by its citizens always develops into a tyranny over time.

      Some places have these things called elections.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Controversial study by alexo · · Score: 1

      Nice interpretation. Pity that SCOTUS does not agree with it.

  23. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 0

    Hey, you know how dangerous that dihydrogen monoxide stuff can be. Thousands of people a year die from it.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  24. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    did you also try melting butter with a lighter? .....

    anyways. ultra processed is not that new a thing. most of our school food was pretty heavily processed 20 years ago.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  25. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if I would trust two morning-show goofballs to scientifically demonstrate this non-cheese melting phenomenon. They are using a candle that was nearly flooded with its own melted wax. The flame was already on the verge of going out on its own when they smothered it with the cheese. When they used a lighter flame, they couldn't manage to keep it in one place for more than a second. There was no indication of how cold the cheese was to start with.

    Of course, if you put the flame under a pan, and leave it there for several minutes, I bet you could melt the cheese in the pan, and I'm sure the cheese melts in the microwave.

  26. Yes, because correlation is causation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    It's how being on food stamps makes you much more likely to become a criminal.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  27. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a silly reason to avoid something. Almost as silly as pretending "processed" means something. It means nothing. And, like "toxins", its usage is strongly correlated with how much chemistry a person does not know.

  28. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Toxin peddler!

  29. Sounds like those Organic Libtards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next youre going to tell me that vaccines actually have stuff in them that I should try to avoid...

    1. Re:Sounds like those Organic Libtards... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Organic != not preprocessed.

      Organic food can be processed. Unprocessed food need not be organic.

  30. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't funny in 2nd grade science class bruh, but I'll fight to the death for your right to... wait...

  31. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago we bought cheese and made pizza but whatever brand it was was absolutely terrible. The was a plastic film covering the melted "cheese". Needless to say, we didn't eat it and got a refund.
    Note on grated cheese products the ingredient "cellulose". Some kind of filler I guess.

  32. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    It is not funny. It is true.

    Lots of people drown.

  33. Food should be always be linked to lifestyle by Max_W · · Score: 1

    If a man (or a woman) works in say a mine, eight hour a day, with a heavy hammer, then he can eat about anything he wants.

    But it is very different for an office worker. The problem is that we engineered out the physical movement from our lives. And any food becomes dangerous in such circumstances.

    The best way to deal with it is to widen sidewalks, build bicycle trails, nice stairs in buildings, etc. So that we can start move again regularly.

    1. Re:Food should be always be linked to lifestyle by geekmux · · Score: 2

      If a man (or a woman) works in say a mine, eight hour a day, with a heavy hammer, then he can eat about anything he wants.

      Putting aside the "healthy" mining job for a moment, no they cannot merely eat anything they want. That may maintain one's weight, but weight is not the only metric when measuring ones overall health and risk of cancer.

      But it is very different for an office worker. The problem is that we engineered out the physical movement from our lives. And any food becomes dangerous in such circumstances. The best way to deal with it is to widen sidewalks, build bicycle trails, nice stairs in buildings, etc. So that we can start move again regularly.

      If an active lifestyle would actually enable you to exercise the risk of cancer away, we wouldn't hear of people getting cancer in countries where most citizens are active, and do not suffer from an obesity epidemic. This is not the case, and reducing or eliminating the risk of cancer starts with eliminating the habit of putting poison in our bodies via the food we consume. There is a reason that the medical community beats the Diet and Exercise drum, because both are required to maintain a healthy life, and one cannot be merely eliminated by the other.

    2. Re:Food should be always be linked to lifestyle by Max_W · · Score: 1

      I lived for quite a while in a poor country, and even there people overeat and do not move enough nowadays. There are a lot of cases of obesity in poor countries too.

      Massive automation and mechanization are global phenomenons.

      I agree with you that there should be strict food control on toxins, infections, etc. Still, if a person does not move and overeat, any food would be dangerous.

  34. Re:It was a French study by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    What sort of Frenchman would put ultra processed rubbish in their mouths? Unlike the English, the French care about what they eat. Not for health (heaven forbid) but for pleasure. They think that there is more to eating than just filling the gut.

    Counterpoint. I have one word for you: snails. When is the last time anyone from England looked down at something slimy that crawls on the ground and thought, "I bet that would go great with butter and shallots?"

    Besides, the French invented canning (appertisation), which is practically the foundation of modern processed foods.

    If there's a culinary moral high ground, I'm pretty sure the French aren't standing on it any more than the Brits or us Yanks. Just saying. :-)

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  35. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad analogy, you can drown in semen, lots of things. But you can't make a competent douche without dihydrogen oxygenide jokes.

  36. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by war4peace · · Score: 3, Funny

    you can drown in semen

    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  37. Sous-vide is easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://anovaculinary.com/what-is-sous-vide/

    Sous-vide is the better way to cook foods like fish.

    1. Re:Sous-vide is easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off hipster

  38. Where are the #GoVegan comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that an article involving a food group hasn't had a single comment from the Cult of Veganism yet. They must still be in bed.

    1. Re:Where are the #GoVegan comments by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the subject has nothing to do with veganism?

      Vegan food can be just as processed as non-vegan food.

  39. simple test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the researchers can explain the exact processes involved, and make disprovable predictions, then it's SCIENCE.

    If they cannot, then all they have is another of the thousands of causality/correlation papers that should be lining the bottom of a bird cage.

    This one seems to be in that latter category; no proof of anything, and no proof of the supposed mechanisms involved in the supposed causality.

    1. Re:simple test by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      "If you're explaining ... you're losing"

  40. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you a lighter in your digestive tract? Have you tried the same experience with water, vinegar, eggs, meat, ...?

    -1 insane.

  41. Fat by sexconker · · Score: 0

    They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer.

    It's the fatness of the people eating the food, not the "ultra-processed foods".
    The fact that breast cancer rates elevate and other, more common cancers aren't should be the dead give away.

    1. Re:Fat by geekmux · · Score: 2

      They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer.

      It's the fatness of the people eating the food, not the "ultra-processed foods".

      Uh, a diet of "ultra-processed" food usually causes obesity. There's a rather obvious correlation there when you shove SHIT food in your body all day vs. eating raw/non-processed foods.

      The fact that breast cancer rates elevate and other, more common cancers aren't should be the dead give away.

      There's nothing that is a dead give away here when talking about three cancers out of dozens. It took us half a century to admit and accept that cigarettes cause cancer. We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics, and excess amounts of sodium creates high blood pressure. Is it really going to take another few decades of study for us to admit and accept that processed food should be avoided? I sure as hell hope not.

    2. Re:Fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics,

      "We" don't. Most Type 1 is an auto-immune problem that destroys beta cells that make insulin, it's the far more severe form of diabetes. And it's triggered by types of flu. Type 2, which is 20 times as common, is mostly insulin resistance. The *treatment* is weight control exercise, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc. High carb diets with no fat to slow the food aggravates the hell out of it, like using poison ivy as toilet paper aggravates matters. But early onset of Type 2 often includes bouncy blood sugars and increasingly high insulin levels. *That makes you hungry!!!!* As you eat in response, you gain weight, which makes insulin less effective, and you get a positive feedback loop.

      Do not get me *started* on Klinefelter's syndrome as a cause of diabetes. They've XXY chromosomes, genuinely "non-binary" as opposed to most of the politically non-binary people I know, and have a variety of other medical issues. Their biology is like trying to mount a motorcycle front wheel and steering on a mini-van. Errors happen.

    3. Re:Fat by geekmux · · Score: 1

      > We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics,

      "We" don't. Most Type 1 is an auto-immune problem that destroys beta cells that make insulin, it's the far more severe form of diabetes. And it's triggered by types of flu. Type 2, which is 20 times as common, is mostly insulin resistance. The *treatment* is weight control exercise, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc.

      I said we understand that excessive sugar intake can cause diabetes, which the link to sugary drinks has been proven. No doctor or nutritionist looks at the soda addict facing the onset of diabetes and says "Oh, you drink a gallon of soda a day? Yeah, no problem. You can keep drinking that, just exercise more."

      Yes, there are many other causes of diabetes, but there's little left to dispute the influence of sugar.

    4. Re:Fat by SandorZoo · · Score: 1

      They adjusted for at least: age, sex, body mass index, height, physical activity, smoking status, energy intake, family history of cancer, and educational level. So no, it's not the "fatness" of the people eating the food.

    5. Re:Fat by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Please define "ultra-processed".
      Please tell us which ingredients cause cancer, and in what amounts.

      The fact is overeating and being overweight are far more dangerous to your health than processing and preservatives that make your food safe to eat by the time it gets to you. There are plenty of things I avoid, such as soy (most commercial soy is produced in an unsafe way because proper fermentation takes longer, also I don't exactly need estrogenic shit all up in me) and HFCS (your typical 55/45 blend is far enough off from the expected 50/50 that it can cause issues, but the main reason I avoid it is to limit the quantity of sugar overall because it's unnecessarily added to so many things). But you clowns are worrying about food coloring because rats given a full pint of it showed a 2% increase in cancer risk, and you're treating "processed" foods as evil despite not understanding that the various processing involved is what makes it so you can have bread without mold and meat that doesn't make you puke your own feces.

    6. Re:Fat by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Please define "ultra-processed". Please tell us which ingredients cause cancer, and in what amounts.

      What would it matter? The masses didn't want to believe that cigarettes were harmful for the better part of a century, despite millions dying from it. I already know that it would take at least two dozen studies and a few million deaths in order to define "ultra-processed". I really don't understand the logic of always defaulting to the "It's bad, but not THAT bad, right?" defense when it comes to food. Have we not heard a greedy food industry LIE enough to defend profits? Is it THAT difficult to look for a benefit in food instead of justifying the lethal threshold? I mean, damn.

      The fact is overeating and being overweight are far more dangerous to your health than processing and preservatives that make your food safe to eat by the time it gets to you.

      So, a handful of cigarettes a day isn't so bad, right? I mean, it's not like I'm gorging myself on two packs a day. Bottom line is it wouldn't matter if we actually DID prove that the food you eat matters as much as the weight you maintain. Millions would have to die in order for mentalities to change. And given the obesity epidemic, I doubt it would even change then.

      There are plenty of things I avoid, such as soy (most commercial soy is produced in an unsafe way because proper fermentation takes longer, also I don't exactly need estrogenic shit all up in me) and HFCS (your typical 55/45 blend is far enough off from the expected 50/50 that it can cause issues, but the main reason I avoid it is to limit the quantity of sugar overall because it's unnecessarily added to so many things). But you clowns are worrying about food coloring because rats given a full pint of it showed a 2% increase in cancer risk, and you're treating "processed" foods as evil despite not understanding that the various processing involved is what makes it so you can have bread without mold and meat that doesn't make you puke your own feces.

      So, you understand and are adverse to certain known poisons, but you simply blindly trust the food industry with other questionable additives?

      I guess statistics and common sense get in my way of believing that the food processing industry holds my safety over their profits, especially as people tend to cure common ailments and achieve good health when they start AVOIDING all that "Grade-A" processed shit the industry labels "safe". To each their own I suppose.

  42. Isn't this already known? by campuscodi · · Score: 1

    Isn't this knowledge/research kinda old? I remember hearing about this in the 90s. That's one of the reasons I never had more than 2-3 Macs in my entire life.

  43. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is: why doesn't he want to try to melt TNT with a lighter?

  44. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck a cock botch.
    These stupid scientists allow thousands of people get cancer by letting them eat (and breathe) junk with carcinogenic toxic chemicals. For fuck's sake, retarded capitalism is the enemy of humanity.

  45. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Megol · · Score: 1

    Probably as it breaks down to some somewhat nasty vapors? With protective gear it's not dangerous and the dangers without isn't AFAIK significant - not something one should do every day but as a one-off thing shouldn't do much*.

    But it will not explode.

    (* disclaimer: research this yourself before trying)

  46. Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some people miss the point. While they're busy cowering in fear of everything that can give them cancer, cowardly people think that to live the LONGEST life is and should be the goal of every person, and not making sure to enjoy life. Pussies worry about making it last as long as humanly possible might think they're enjoying life. OTHER people, incomprehensibly to the weak, actually LIVE and enjoy life, and aren't giving themselves stomach ulcers worrying about how many seconds they have left to live. The cowards want to live to be over a hundred years old, without, ironically, actually LIVING during that entire century, while people getting fingers wagged at them for living a "unhealthy" life-style, often aren't worried about that kind of bullshit; they drink, they smoke, they fuck, they often die young, and they aren't scared to death of dying, like all the whiny little cunts eating yogurt and kale, and telling themselves over and over again how great their tiny, empty, meaningless little lives are.
     
    LIVE A LITTLE. Eat Cheetos, Ding Dongs, and drink Coke on occasion, smoke once in a while; cigs, weed, whatever, get drunk, and enjoy life! Don't worry too much about the consequences, because let me tell you something. No matter what you do, life is 100% fatal, you are going to be just as dead, for just as long, and no matter what the fuck you do, after you're dead, little will be different because you were alive within even one generation, and within ten, you and everything you touched will be dust--dead, gone, and forgotten. Also, don't forget we could all die any fucking minute because someone let a fucking reality-show retard and his crime-family pretend to run this country, and they could provoke a world-ending nuclear conflagration at any second, or kill us all out of sheer incompetence, plus they're studiously pretending we are not destroying the Earth with our greed, stupidity and wastefulness, which we so totally and obviously are to anyone who isn't a complete fucking moron, so even if you avoid every possible carcinogen, every virus, every pathogenic bacterium... you're still totally going to die, and in the history of the human race, it will be in about a blink of an eye. In geological time, the Earth will never even notice we were here, so...

    Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowl.

    1. Re:Cowards by dddux · · Score: 1

      I'll just say this: how old are you? When you're 50, if you get to be 50, then I'll want your opinion again. ;)

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  47. Cooking isn't hard by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    it is. I mean that. Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen.

    It sounds more like your kitchen sucks. Can you buy a kettle or a second plug in burner? What about an electric frypan? or a pizza cooker, a second microwave? A vegetable steamer, a slow cooker? A press grill? You've got some options.

    I do, and I cook most of my meals and it sucks. Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. The stove never stays level either. Your microwave is cheap and your fridge small. Your freezer smaller

    It's a shame to hear, I truly find cooking to be one of the great joys in life. It de-stresses you and you can crank up some music while you do it. A crappy kitchen does make it hard but not impossible.

    I'm guessing you live in a city and space is a premium. Setting up a good kitchen is the heart of anywhere you live. I set mine up in a triangle (fridge, bench, stove). Can you find another place? Decent food is so important to your well being.

    If I make a meal of eggs, potatoes & some pancakes from scratch (minus the pancake mix, which is pre made) I need to plan on a little over an hour.

    Not good, it does sound like a crap kitchen. I hope you don't mind a little tip. If it's cold where you are it's pretty easy to chop vegies up in a bag (or pre-chopped) grab a handful out of the bag, boil water in the kettle while you are cooking some meat on the hotplate, a few spices soy and in 10 minutes you have a nice soup that is really healthy. The randomness makes it different all the time.

    In 10 minutes I cook a 600gm steak, a pot of vegies (corn, brocolli, bean and mushrooms) and enjoy that with a beer. Same amount of time for a stir fry that I just ate for dinner. In an hour I cook for a week (bolognese, spicy mince, pumpkin or other soup) and then freeze it so when I come home it's 10 minutes until I have a good healthy dinner. In every case I can I try to ensure a healthy meal takes 10 minutes to prepare by planning in advance.

    Do you have an oven? Use that in winter and cook a roast leg of lamb, roast potatoes, carrots and pumpkin, soak the potatoes in water for an hour or two and they will be really crunchy when they're roasted. stab the leg of lamb and stuff anchovies and garlic into the holes. Also heats up the rooms. Leave the left-overs in the fridge, cut some off and nuke it when you want to eat some 2-5 minutes tops. or sandwiches. Your kitchen may suck, but you can still buy decent pots and pans.

    Then there's the cost of fresh food. If it's not on sale it's expensive. If it is on sale it's about to go bad. You can freeze meat, but vegetables & fruits don't freeze well (fruit it tolerable in smoothies but nothing else).

    You can blanch the vegies before you freeze them and that will help.

    Also you can cut up fruit and freeze that. Combine with milk, honey, raw egg, nutmeg, cinnamon in a blender and you have ice cold smoothie. In summer, this is better than dinner because it cools you down (especially in an apartment) and helps keep the kilos off. You'll also sleep deeper because your digestive system isn't working very hard.

    Packaged dinners are a great buy because they keep for months. I can buy them when they're on sale, stock up and save.

    Which is where you use the blanched or fresh vegies. Get a rice steamer, and while the packaged dinner heats chop up the vegies (beans, snow peas, mushrooms whatever) into one inch chunks, rinse them in the rice cooker add some spices and seal it. The packed dinner should be ready and then nuke the vegies - suddenly packaged dinner is not bad at all, 5 minutes.

    I can't do

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  48. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Quite rational comment. Too many people blame their over-eating and under-exercising on evil machinations of the food corporations. When Coke came out, 200ml was considered "enough for the whole family". Now they hand 1l or more to a single person in a burger restaurant. Little wonder the body will transform this huge amount of excess sugar into fat.

    Generally speaking, rich world people over-consume energy and do not have enough exercise. After all, why take a walk in the cold if you can drive a car ? Never mind our body has evolved during stone age and earlier to roam distances of kilometers. Convenience !!!!

  49. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a world dominated by the BS memes which are handed down from the 1% cynics to the plebejans (via the Mass Media), lots of people have to find a purpose in their life. So what to do ?

    Become a SJW or an AJW (Animal Justice Warrior) !

  50. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ate the premise of the article hook and sinker. Whatabout quantity ? Maybe over-eating causes cancer ? Maybe those who eat processed food also eat too much ?

    1. Re:Meh by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You ate the premise of the article hook and sinker. Whatabout quantity ? Maybe over-eating causes cancer ? Maybe those who eat processed food also eat too much ?

      Poison is poison. And it makes little sense to put it in your body regardless of quantity. While we may argue the correlation of this study, there are NO studies out there claiming that over-processed foods are good for you (at least not yet; I'm certain the Meat Mafia will chime in soon).

      When it comes to food, simplicity is key, and there should be enough evidence of the benefits of that logic by doing nothing more than looking at the community of people who stick to a healthy diet and combine that with some exercise. That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.

      No, we should not fall victim to correlation automatically defining causation. But when it comes to our food supply, there is far too much evidence that proves that greed and corruption will bend facts and defend their poison-ladened profits to the death. To each their own. Life is full of risk. I simply see some risks as utterly pointless, and therefore avoidable.

    2. Re:Meh by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Poison is poison. And it makes little sense to put it in your body regardless of quantity.

      Anything is safe at sufficiently low dosages, and sufficiently much of anything will kill you. Vitamin A will trash your liver if you eat too much of it, so it's a poison. You also need it in lower dosages.

      That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.

      One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Meh by geekmux · · Score: 1

      That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.

      One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.

      100 years ago cancer affected 3 out of every 100. Today if affects 1 in 3. The government declared a War on Cancer well over 45 years ago (1971), which has basically done nothing to the ever-rising impact of cancer. We certainly have a lot of evidence that points to the shit we've added to our food supply. In 1935, there was but one case of cancer reported in the last half century from Eskimos living in Alaska and Canada. After they began adding processed foods into their diet, the cancer rate exploded until it was eventually equal to us "modern" folks killing ourselves with food.

      GMOs and insecticide use, fat-free diets, synthetic estrogen, polyunsaturated fats, HFCS and refined sugars...all of these play their role, with corruption silencing any evidence that even hints at a negative impact on our health due to the massive profits made within these powerful industries. Of course we can't overlook the largest factor that created the Cancer Industrial Complex; the disease of Greed. A cure for cancer? Yeah, that will never be allowed to happen.

      We've seen many of our most common afflictions reversed with nothing more than converting to a good diet and exercise regimen. Yes, it CAN that simple. The masses simply refuse to believe it, and greed and corruption prevent this simple truth from perpetuating.

    4. Re:Meh by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of things that have happened in the last century. One thing that happened is that we got very good at curing diseases and avoiding injuries that would kill people before they got old enough to get cancer (which is predominantly an old person's disease). You name a lot of things in modern diets, but you don't mention a host of additional changes that may influence the cancer rate. You also don't provide any links with anything you said and cancer. It's likely that some of those have some influence on cancer rates, but there's no indication of which.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  51. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sky is falling and people now die at 79. Never mind they died at 72 in the 1950s.

    Lets scare the hell out of people for some sort of political reason.

  52. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "You see folks, I once tried burning cheese using a lighter flame. Guess what; I didn't melt! "

    Why should you melt if you heat some cheese?

  53. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That cellulose is wood pulp. Enjoy!

  54. Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try to live like your grandparents did. They were in most cases not inflamed by BS books from Marxists and other SJWs. Neither were they inflamed by the BS factory called Hollywood. Feminism and Ecology-Nazis were non-existent.

    Go for a walk in the forest. Enjoy the plants and animals. Own a cat and play with him. Maybe get to know a girl and start a respectful relationship. Stop getting your thoughts from the corrupt media and the corrupt "NGOs" which in reality promote the interests of the finance or war industries. Stop trying to understand and fix national politics, instead have your own family and try to find your personal happiness. Know your place in the system and try to make it nice for you. Stop fighting windmills.

    1. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to live like your grandparents did. They were in most cases not inflamed by BS books from Marxists and other SJWs. Neither were they inflamed by the BS factory called Hollywood. Feminism and Ecology-Nazis were non-existent.

      They were too busy killing Nazis to worry about that.

    2. Re:Or by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Try to live like your grandparents did. They were in most cases not inflamed by BS books from Marxists and other SJWs. Neither were they inflamed by the BS factory called Hollywood. Feminism and Ecology-Nazis were non-existent.

      I am not sure how old you are, or where your "reality" comes from. Marxism was a big thing in the 1940's and 1950's. Feminism is far older it was big in the 1920's and 1930's, but had its origins earlier than that. Your grandparents probably took Hollywood more seriously than people do today.

      People have been campaigning for social justice since at least the time of Jesus Christ, and probably even earlier - you might remember a guy called Moses saying "let my people go". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDw1QF-9ko? Not all people trying to stop their surroundings being actively destroyed are "Ecology-Nazis" although clearly some are.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Or by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try to live like your grandparents did.

      Eat a lot of fried food, use butter and/or animal fat when cooking just about everything, and smoke unfiltered cigarettes?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for me.

    5. Re:Or by nasch · · Score: 0

      Don't forget not sharing bathrooms with black people.

    6. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to live like your grandparents did.

      Eat a lot of fried food, use butter and/or animal fat when cooking just about everything, and smoke unfiltered cigarettes?

      Essentially yes, except the smoking part. Butter and animal fats have been shown in studies to be perfectly fine for human consumption. Especially when compared to hydrogenated trans fats.

      Another good goal to have is to reduce your intake of processed sugars. These have been around for hundreds of years, but evolution isn't that fast.

      Gut biome studies are also interesting reading. It's amazing how much the "nutrition experts" of just a few years ago didn't actually know.

    7. Re:Or by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Like Judas kissing Jesus, I can't convey how much it makes me cringe to read you refer favorably to Jesus as a social justice warrior.

      Jesus wasn't trying to help society or even advocating on its behalf. He was helping his neighbor and commanded his followers to follow his example.

    8. Re:Or by erapert · · Score: 1

      People have been campaigning for social justice since at least the time of Jesus Christ

      I agree that all this has been going on for thousands of years.
      But the modern difference is that the SJWs of today are self-righteous, privileged, and self-entitled scumbags interested not in making the world better but purely interested in virtue signalling, bullying, and gaining power for themselves... Much like the pharisees of Jesus' time come to think of it. So, basically, you're totally right and I agree.

    9. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you be passing out free fish, wine, and bread to everyone instead of posting on slashdot? THAT is what Jesus would do.

    10. Re:Or by dddux · · Score: 1

      And so was Snow White. Why do people not take her more seriously? I don't get it. Jesus and Snow White are so cool.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  55. Study seems badly defined IMO by Megol · · Score: 2

    The concept of "ultra-processed" seems similar to the precision in "non-natural" processing - processing that isn't commonly done in nature or traditional cooking methods.
    Without actually defining _why_ some type of processing should be considered ultra-processed and some others shouldn't I can't see this as a homogeneous group without some "natural magic" added. And nature isn't magical.

    One very common example of ultra-processed (using the vague definition given) is pre-processed starches of which there are many variants. One that is commonly used is pre-gelled starch: one takes a starch and treats it like it would be when cooked (heating in water) which generates a gel which is then dried and pulverized. This means that when one add the processed starch into water it will produce a gel without needing heating and with much less tendency to clump.
    Doing this saves time but gives the exact same result as if one would take a non-processed starch, add it to a water-based liquid and then heating the result!

    That fact haven't stopped people claiming that using this kind of processed starch is somehow bad, if not in some magic non-natural way then as a way of "cheating" consumers from properly prepared food.

  56. Re:Cooking is hard - Not really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a wood burning stove. Cooking starts with lighting a fire. Our kitchen is in a mess currently since we are renovating it - there are no tabletops or other work areas, I have to chop stuff at the kitchen table. Now we have running water indoors but a year ago I had to get water from a hand pump outside.

    I still managed to cook a meal from scratch for my whole family in less than an hour. Something quicker like pasta in 30 min.

    Food preparation can indeed be a full time job, but only if you are completely self-sufficent and grow everything yourself. Cooking can only be a full time job if you are working in a restuarant or are completely incompetent!

  57. Orange juice by sjbe · · Score: 2

    You see folks, I once tried burning cheese using a lighter flame. Guess what; I didn't melt! At that point, I threw out all the cheese I had and have never bought any again. It's been 7 years now.

    In a similar vein I stopped buying orange juice that isn't fresh squeezed from oranges right in front of me. Basically most orange juice sold these days is stored in oxygen free vats for up to a year which removes all the flavor and then the "flavor" is reintroduced using so called flavor packs which ensures it all tastes exactly the same. I'm not a fussy eater but I'll just make my own orange juice if I want some thanks.

    Yes I'm aware that a lot of stuff we eat is probably similarly disgusting but gotta start somewhere right?

  58. Not sterile by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eggs are heavily cleaned in the US.

    This is true and not necessarily a good thing. It's also arguably unnecessary if you design the supply chain properly. As evidence see how eggs are handled in other countries without the same amount of washing. Most places in the world do not bother with the expensive cleaning and refrigeration systems the US supply chain requires.

    In the US, the entire supply chain from post clean to shopping cart has to be germ free.

    Not even remotely true and not possible either. The supply chain does have safe food handling regulations including cleaning and refrigeration and testing but safe handling does not equal germ free. If it was germ free it would be FAR more expensive.

    Now the US egg lasts a lot longer because it's been sterilized and sits in a sterile environment.

    A) They aren't sterilized. Some (but not all) eggs are pasteurized which isn't the same thing. Those that aren't are cleaned but nothing remotely close to sterile.

    B) Eggs are most certainly not stored in a sterile environment nor are they handled in a sterile manner in most of the supply chain. Especially once they reach the grocery store. People open literally almost every egg carton to ensure no breakage prior to purchase so they are a LONG way from sterile by the time you get your hands on them.

    C) Eggs in the US demonstrably do not last longer and because of how they are processed they have to be refrigerated which is not required other places. I own chickens and eggs that aren't cleaned (which removes the protective coatings) actually can sit on a counter for weeks without ill effect even without refrigeration. US eggs are refrigerated which makes a difference but you can refrigerate uncleaned eggs too and get the same effect. Once you refrigerate an egg though it has to stay refrigerated until you use it.

    1. Re: Not sterile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally like not having to clean the chicken shit from my eggs when I get home from the store.

    2. Re: Not sterile by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Ok, saying germ free is an exaggeration. But it is a pretty pristine environment. No one physically touches the eggs from truck load to shelf placement. The temperature after packing is required to be less than 40F from pack to display. UK that is under 68F. And US eggs are pasteurized and sanitatized (steril was the wrong word).

      UK doesn't even recommend refrigeration, nor do stores do it for the display. They are left at store temperature (normally less than 70F). Refrigeration is also looked down upon by consumers because it changes the taste (personally, I think it is the 90C US pasteurization).

      So while a US egg lasts 5 weeks after packing (regs wise); UK eggs last 3 weeks. 4th if you refrigerate at home. UK supply chain is designed for egg consumption in 2-3 weeks from packing. US is designed for 2-5 weeks from packing.

      Part of what you say is true, a US treated egg going through a UK supply chain probably won't make the one week journey to the store. It will also probably break. Both of these are due to the loss of that protective coat and thinner shell. Our eggs won't stack in wire baskets like the rest of the world.

      Also, our washing may seem expensive to others around the world, but keep in mind that at the end of the day, the prices are about the same with UK eggs just a percent or three higher.

  59. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism/anarchy would of course fix that...

  60. One study? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1, Informative
    That is it? No corroborating studies?

    Beyond nutritional composition, neoformed contaminants, some of which have carcinogenic properties (such as acrylamide, heterocyclic amines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), are present in heat treated processed food products as a result of the Maillard reaction

    The Maillard reaction is what gives ALL browned foods their distinctive flavors. This implies that ALL foods that have been browned, say a chicken breast in a skillet, will have those same "neoformed contaminants".

    Participants were invited to complete a series of three non-consecutive, validated, web based 24 hour dietary records every six months (to vary the season of completion), randomly assigned over a two week period (two weekdays and one weekend day). To be included in the nutrition component of the NutriNet-Santé cohort, only two dietary records were mandatory. We did not exclude participants if they did not complete all optional questionnaires. We averaged mean dietary intakes from all the 24 hour dietary records available during the first two years of each participant’s follow-up and considered these as baseline usual dietary intakes in this prospective analysis.

    This is pretty sloppy research methodology. It contains a form of self-selection and has two few data points. In order to be included in the study only two data points are required over two years and the participants chose when and whether to provide information.

    How did this pass peer review? Get back to me when you have some real science.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  61. Good start, but itâ(TM)s worse... far worse by Evergreener · · Score: 1

    Refined carbs / processed foods are the devil. S.A.D. - Standad American Diet. Add greatly increased risk factors for heart disease, obesity, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and the list goes on.

  62. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe instead of not eating cheese (which has been made for 7500 years or more, so not exactly some newfangled "ultra-processed" food) anymore, you should consider eating higher quality cheeses? I use cheese (many different types) all the time when cooking, and don't have any trouble getting it to melt. But then I usually buy decent quality cheeses (that are actually cheese, and not "processed cheese food product").

  63. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese exa GNAA by f3rret · · Score: 1

    ...alright...

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  64. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    ultra processed is not that new a thing. most of our school food was pretty heavily processed 20 years ago.

    Well, that certainly brings up some potential causes to explain what's wrong with millennials.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  65. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by gnick · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "cancer merchant". Best announced whilst pelting your target with cigarettes.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  66. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    Years ago we bought cheese and made pizza but whatever brand it was was absolutely terrible. The was a plastic film covering the melted "cheese". Needless to say, we didn't eat it and got a refund.

    They're called "cheese slices", and you're supposed to take them out of the plastic wrappers before you put them on the pizza.

  67. Best practices by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I personally like not having to clean the chicken shit from my eggs when I get home from the store.

    So don't clean it off. Seriously, it isn't necessary except in rare cases and it's unlikely to harm you in any way. Washing in many cases actually increases the risk of getting salmonella and other pathogens into the egg so I prefer eggs that are actually safe and produced with best practices. 90+% of the world doesn't wash eggs the way they do in the US and they get similar to better results. A lot of egg producers vaccinate their birds against salmonella.

    I raise my own chickens and eat the eggs they lay. Sometimes the shells have a little poop on them and there is vast evidence that this does not present a serious health risk if the birds and eggs are handled properly. If this grosses you out then you are a bit of a weenie and you aren't basing your behavior on actual evidence.

    1. Re:Best practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand that a fag like you is used to the taste of shit, but I am not.

    2. Re: Best practices by orlanz · · Score: 1

      The majority of the consumers in the US do not have the same opinion. Thus our regulations.

    3. Re: Best practices by sjbe · · Score: 1

      The majority of the consumers in the US do not have the same opinion.

      The majority of consumers in the US haven't given the matter a moment's thought and they certainly aren't informed on the facts. The regulations regarding eggs in the US were passed before most of them were born and they've never see or even considered an alternate option.

  68. *SIGH* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, more correlation that idiots assume to be causation. YAWN

  69. Meanwhile GMO is yet to be impeached by mi · · Score: 1

    found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind.

    Oh, wow, science... Meanwhile, the supposed dangers of Genetically Modified foods remain unsubstantiated FUD.

    Unfortunately, one seeking to buy foods without the actually dangerous contaminants must also pay for them being non-GMO. Because, at least in the US, "non-GMO" is a prerequisite for "USDA Organic" certification.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  70. I've been through all this by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Stainless is hard to clean. Probably because I live in a place with water so hard soap barely lathers but my stainless all stains. I have caste iron and good quality non stick pans. They help some but there are limits to what they can do.

    It's not free time because in the back of my head I'm waiting for a hot pan. I need to keep an eye on it. I suppose I'm more than a bit neurotic in that regard, be even if I wasn't 15 minutes isn't enough time to relax.

    The trouble with freezing is a) I'm already a bad cook and freezing the food doesn't help and b) small apartment freezer.

    And I've been at this for years. I'm at the limits of my skill level. Being color blind doesn't help, nor does my poor sense of smell / taste. A lot of what makes people good cooks are sharper senses than I actually have. It's one of the reasons I gave up on Chemistry and went into IT. Still, I don't think I'm not uncommon a type of person. Maybe a little extreme ( I sometimes have to go by 'use by' dates because I can't always tell if something's gone bad, can't see green and what not) but I get the sense there's lots of folks with less extreme cases of what I have going on.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I've been through all this by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      I wanted to jump all over your first post, but this:

      Being color blind doesn't help, nor does my poor sense of smell / taste.

      OK, for you cooking might actually be hard. I can totally believe that presents challenges I would never think of.

      --
      Nope, no sig
  71. Context matters by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're making the best choices they _can_ make in the context of their lives. Low pay, long hours and constant stress puts them in a position where these foods are a logical and reasonable choice.

    The message I'm conveying is that the working class, particularly the working poor, are being set up to fail. We're doing terrible things to them for the sake of profit and using the phrase 'lifestyle choices' to push the blame onto them so that when our empathic response kicks in we can tamp down on it and keep doing the bad things we want to do for profit. Otherwise we'd have to admit that their lives suck and that their choices make sense in the context of an awful life in an awful world and that we're complicit in making that world and that life.

    Basically, the upper middle class and well to do know they're doing something wrong and they're coming up with logic to justify it. There's even a name for it: Prosperity Gospel. Google it, lots of articles on it.

    Sorry to be so pedantic, but it was clear my message wasn't getting through.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Context matters by epine · · Score: 1

      Low pay, long hours and constant stress puts them in a position where these foods are a logical and reasonable choice.

      Constant stress promotes many things, but "logic" is not one of these. Perhaps what you meant is "natural" choice.

      And what would that mean, anyway? In many circumstances, natural choices are life threatening. For example, attempting to swim to shore in frigid water accelerates heat loss from the core, despite the extra physical exertion.

      Many of these yucky cake eaters have ten to twelve years of public education, but they still somehow manage to leave school with an A in ignoring received wisdom. These people did not grow up as street urchins in Mogadishu. I'm not 100% buying this pretext.

      Regardless of stress (which is real), the effect is still at least 50% attributable to Alfred E. Neuman street culture.

    2. Re:Context matters by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      they're making the best choices they _can_ make in the context of their lives. Low pay, long hours and constant stress puts them in a position where these foods are a logical and reasonable choice.

      That myth has long been debunked.

      I was once one of those low-pay, long-hour, high-stress workers. Yes, I had to be on food stamps for 2 months to keep my family fed. And yes, I spent less on healthy choices than other recipients spent on unhealthy ones - so much so that at the end of the 2 months I still had over $200 in my account (I tried to give it back but they wouldn't let me).

      Compare the cost of 6 apples to the cost of a 6-pack of apple-flavor Fructose cakes.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Context matters by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The "debunk" is only for low pay. Still waiting for debunking for the long hours and constant stress aspects.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  72. What about Oxygen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear that's related to cancer. Should we stop using it?

  73. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    Ultra-processed foods include pot noodles

    What are "pot noodles"?

    I've not heard that term before....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  74. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese exa GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    G_N_A_A

    My opinion of the parent poster.

    Maybe he should involve himself in MAGA instead of playing with lighters.

  75. Too bad moose cock sucker APK hasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why hasn't moose cock sucker APK drown? He must be really good at sucking that moose wang to not choke on it. Then again that is all natural food and to keep himself regular he receives daily moose seaman enemas.

  76. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cup o' noodles... ramen. The Brits call them pot noodles because they call the container a pot.

  77. Don't Worry, Be Happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't get too worried. In a few years a study will come out saying ultraprocessed foods are not that bad for you and might even be good for you when consumed in moderation. See red wine, eggs, coffee, fats, salt, sugar.

  78. Farms by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    and that's why I moved thirty minutes out of the big city, and shop directly from, wait for it, farms. Taste, texture, cost, ease, all far better than any grocery store.

  79. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exa GNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah finally something that makes sense

  80. ultraprocessed doesn't mean what you think it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ultraprocessed is carefully defined in the BMJ paper - it does not refer to pasteurization, for instance - it's more about the use of things like modified food starch, and materials that would not be found in your kitchen.

  81. He doesn't sound lazy to me! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Lazy would be someone who never bothers to try to make their own hot breakfast with pancakes and eggs! This guy says he cooks "most of his own meals".

    Personally, I never cook things like that.... Maybe you can call me lazy, but I'm just not a fan of breakfast OR a morning person. If my alternate is sleeping in a bit later, I'll pick that any time over getting up extra early to make breakfast. I grew up eating cold cereal and toast with some juice for breakfast -- and I'm still ok with that if I actually want to eat that early in the morning. I rather like saving hot breakfast as something for special occasions like vacation trips.

    On the other hand, I was out until 11:30PM or so fixing circuit issues at one of our offices, at work .... so again, no so sure you can label me "lazy".

  82. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What part of "imitation" in the product description made you think that was actually cheese?

  83. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    ... I'm not even supposed to be here today!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  84. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by gnick · · Score: 1

    You could have probably found this in less time than it took to ask. There's lots of neat stuff on Wikipedia. Give it a chance.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  85. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by gnick · · Score: 1

    Who uses cheese slices on pizza? "Grated" seems like the only reasonable option. Admittedly, I've never TRIED putting cheese slices on pizza, but it sounds like a terrible idea.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  86. Think of the role of preservatives.. by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    One main use of preservatives is to destroy or resist-proliferation of bacteria, of course, good and bad. But when we eat this food-substitute, guess what actually breaks down and processes the food ?? Bacteria!! ( ok... ok.. Acid helps too! ) So.. How does our Gut Flora like being treated with Junk FOod that doesn't ever need to be refrigerated!??!?! Here is a challenge... identify why Peanut butter doesn't need refrigeration, and another: can we treat our food with good/benevolant/nutritious bacteria that would keep our food protected from Bad Guys (tm) ? (( While on topic, is it good to eat anerobic bacteria strains, and why is it good to eat yoghurt? ))

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  87. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I believe that their slogan used to be 'a refreshing alternative to food'. Basically, cardboard in the shape of noodles, with a little packet of MSG and other flavour enhancers, that you pour boiling water over to get something that has several properties in common with food.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  88. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Hint: If the thing describes itself as 'cheese', rather than as a specific kind of cheese, it is probably not cheese. Similarly, if you buy a bottle whose label tells you only that it's 'wine' or 'beer', then it probably isn't.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  89. Anecdotes vs evidence by sjbe · · Score: 1

    And US eggs are pasteurized and sanitatized (steril was the wrong word).

    Most eggs sold in the US are washed but most are NOT pasteurized. According to the USDA less than 3% of eggs sold in the US are pasteurized though that number is rising.

    So while a US egg lasts 5 weeks after packing (regs wise); UK eggs last 3 weeks. 4th if you refrigerate at home..

    Citation needed. The times you quote are at best guidelines from egg producers and are not based in rigorous independent studies. Eggs can and do last a lot longer than 5 weeks after packing and they usually take a week or two to get to a store and get purchased. I routinely eat eggs that are older than 5 weeks which are perfectly good. I raise my own chickens so my information is from both first hand experience and from credible sources who have actually researched the issue.

    Part of what you say is true

    Far more than a part of what I say is true but thanks for the backhanded compliment/insult.

    a US treated egg going through a UK supply chain probably won't make the one week journey to the store.

    So what? It wouldn't be legal (or smart) to sell a US egg in the UK because of the handling differences. Once you wash it the clock starts ticking unless you immediately refrigerate it. You're making a strawman argument here.

    Also, our washing may seem expensive to others around the world, but keep in mind that at the end of the day, the prices are about the same with UK eggs just a percent or three higher.

    A few percent matters a lot. Margins in food production are thin to begin with so every little bit matters. Farmers and supermarkets live on just a few percent margin and modest differences in prices make a big difference in total sales. The reason you don't notice the price difference much is because US eggs are prohibited by regulation from competing with UK eggs and it's more complicated than just washing versus not because the supply chains are substantially different from beginning to end.

  90. Re:I thought so some years ago...A cheese example. by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Do you own a cheese-burning stove? Is that why you tried to light it? What's wrong with burning wood? I'm dreadfully confused.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  91. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese examp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. But a *balanced* level of socialism and market regulation *would* fix that.

  92. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What are "pot noodles"?

    A sort of instant stomach filler.

    If you buy Korean ones, you hope they're not poodles.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  93. Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese exampl by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I do. Why not?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  94. "may be" "linked" by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    So they "may be", which also means "may not be". Yeah, that pretty much covers the possibilities.

    And "linked to" not "a known and important cause of". Because linked could even all sorts of things, not just causation -- in that direction. It could mean that cancer causes people to eat ultra-processed food, long before the cancer is detectable.

    I wouldn't place any bets on that being how things shake out, ultimately. But "linked to" does include that, and a lot of other things, not just the conclusion people jump to.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.