The term “processed foods” reminds me of the BPA issue. BPA is just one of many chemical additives that have similar negative effects on human hormone levels. Instead of talking about the root of the problem, the estrogenic properties of these plastic additives, the FDA and industry were willing to make one of them the scapegoat in order to calm the public and continue doing business as usual.
I have sat in the store myself wondering, how do I identify this “processed food” that causes colon cancer so I can avoid it. I am not sure this column makes it much clearer. Having more information is great, but it makes no difference if the manufacturers don’t have to label their products in a meaningful way; it’s just mystery meat. Where is the FDA when you need them?
I think your link is what prompted the question, DC.
Yeah, Unca Cece wasn’t super helpful there, but covered the basics. The chief problem with processed food is the removal of fiber content and reduction of nutrients along with the addition of salt, sugar, and fat. That point kind of gets lost because the column is sidetracked trying to mediate the word “processed.”
Apologies if this is on wrong place, Would a moderator please fix it.
On a related thread " How did bread get invented? " I suspect compassion as one missing link.
Meaning chewing grains makes sense, leading to being able to swallow them. Babe in arms does not have teeth, but Mum / shared parents chewed up grains for child. Child being clumsy at eating results in splattering.
As grandparents have lost teeth they used things in the environment to grind up the grains instead or chewing to feed themselves and the children in the tribe. These tools, the grinding rocks were dropped where ever. Someone noticed - probably several someones - that the tools with ‘flour’ left in the rock crevices and then left by the fire then used again produced the tastiest ground grains.
Add time , rain, splattering by children / adults with no or few teeth you eventually get bread.
OK, I’m not going into full-blown crisis of faith, the SD is tumbling, CECIL-DOUBT, although I’m shook up. I’ll chalk it up to the problem of evil under a benevolent Creator, or, if I may be sacrilegious, recognizing even Homer nods:
This about the French study. That about the French study. Another thing about the French study.
Say it ain’t so! Maybe it’s just the mobile version that doesn’t display any cited sources? (Can anyone confirm?) But yeah, no more than “big French study” is not what one would expect from The Master.
Seriously, number of ingredients is part of the definition of “processed”? So if I take fresh brown rice, fresh kidney beans, fresh onions, fresh cheese, or fresh tomatoes by themselves, that’s good, but if I mix them all together, suddenly that’s “processed” and therefore suspect? Yeah, yeah, that’s not the entire definition, but why would they even include number of ingredients at all?
No, I think that if you take fresh produce and cook up your casserole or stir fry or whatever, that is called “prepared food”. It differs from processed food in that the result is meant for timely gnoshing rather than at some later date. You do not go to Chez Limace to dine on processed food.
Really? I thought it was nitrites and nitrates whether natural or not? The story I remember making headlines was “processed meats” cause colon cancer. The reason they do was never addressed much. And certainly meats don’t have fiber removed. I would love to have clarification on this topic. I still hit the store wondering of i can go back to buying smoked ham and bacon.
Which is why it was posted. The post could also have included the customary “It’s customary to include a link to the post in question when commenting on Columns/Reports. It’s on the front page now, but threads will live forever.”
Gosh, you know, I think the whole point of the question was misunderstood here. It was never about processed foods. It was about processed meats, thus the reference to chicken nuggets. The research into processed meats is what’s been in the news lately because they have been linked to colon cancer. Somehow Cecil got sidetracked into processed foods and then into talking about what processed really means.
And thank you for adding the link to the original article.
They do not cause cancer, as such. There is evidence of carcinogenesis in lab animals, but the stats are not entirely conclusive. The active agent are metabolites called nitrosamines. There is some evidence that vitamin C can effectively break them down, except, when there is high fat content, it promotes them instead.
It is confusing and complicated. Your best bet is enough fiber to push that shit through with due speed. The more time it hangs around, the more damage it can do.
Interestingly, nitrosamines are also a major factor in tobacco carcinogenicity, even when it’s not smoked and inhaled. As with meats, it has everything to do with how the tobacco is cured and processed.
*These nitrosamine carcinogens are formed from nicotine and related compounds by a nitrosation reaction that occurs during the curing and processing of tobacco.[1] Essentially the plant’s natural alkaloids combine with nitrate forming the nitrosamines."
It should have. As it read to me, the link was posted as the answer to the OP question rather than providing a reference, as the context was left open.
The fact that the thread was posted in a forum called “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” wasn’t enough context for you to infer that it was probably a comment one of Cecil’s columns?
Context aside, I wish the “comment on this column” link took logged-in users to a composition page pre-populated with a link to the column in question. Alternatively, when someone tried to create a new thread in this forum, a little PHP script could check the first post for a valid link to a column. If there’s no valid link, vBulletin refuses to create the thread. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
I’m sorry that you’ve been around this board for at least 5 years, but… you must be new here. And by “here”, I mean this sub-board. A very large percentage of these threads fail to abide by the general rule to link to the Column being commented on, and almost invariably the first reply in such case will be someone providing a link to the column, or in the case where it’s unclear, asking the OP to link to the column. It’s so common that I don’t fault someone posting such a link for not being a junior mod and adding that a link to the column in question is part of the topic creation rules.
A better solution going forward would be to have a new thread created by the admins each time an article goes up and have the “comment on this column” link go there. For the classic articles, they can probably find one that already exists.
Eh, maybe, but it seems like “This is the place to comment on this column” would make for a boring OP. And when the comments do come, sometimes they’re on such wildly different points that it makes sense for them to be in different threads.
