Should We Eat More Processed Foods?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 авг 2022
- Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust - and invest - in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?
FOR THE MOTION:
Amy Webb
Futurist & Author, "The Genesis Machine"
Michael Gibney
Professor of Food and Nutrition
Former President, Nutrition Society
AGAINST THE MOTION:
Kevin Hall
Nutrition & Metabolism Scientist, National Institutes of Health
Marion Nestle
Author, "Food Politics"
Academic
#iq2us #opentodebate #debate #processedfood #food #ultraprocessing #beyondmeat #beyondburger #impossibleburger @IFTlive #partnership
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
I didn't really care for the "NO" side's arguments, but logically I agree with them. If the question had been "Should we eat processed foods?" I would have a different opinion. The little addition of "MORE" changes the whole premise, and no, I don't think we should be eating MORE processed foods. They aren't necessarily an evil product of capitalism, but they have their important place in society and economies, we just don't really need to be consuming MORE of them.
Honestly these opposite sides seemed like a they were debating strawmen for most of the debate. But it seems like the Yes side was trying for an optics win more than just showing up and agreeing that people abuse processed foods.
This whole debate fails because the motion isn't well defined. Don't bother.
this is true for other debates i've watched on this channel. adding insult to injury is that aggressive us of straw -manning. iq2 debates are generally low-information nonsense catering to an audience that overestimates its own intelligence and understanding.
I was very disappointed with the debate.
1. What does "processed" mean? Is it chemical/genetic modification or is it just taking natural ingredients, putting them in a blender and wrapping the mixture in foil?
2. There wasn't a food chemist on either team that could discuss the metabolic differences between complex vs. simple carbohydrates or the effects of artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup.
3. There was no discussion of the gut microbiome, fermented foods and whether certain types of processing impacts our ability to properly digest food due to the impact on the microbiome.
4. What happened to the audience question period? I was hoping that there would be an intelligent attendee who could focus the debate on the food rather than on the industry.
I think this debate could have reached much further into the weeds of the conversation. The premise was already awkward as they were not really arguing about the same foods, but they should have gone deeper and talked about the fact that healthy nutritious and easy to make foods don't have to processed. Using lots of anecdotal evidence was very weak. It's an odd one for I².
I agree. And there is the anti-diet culture (starvation diets) which is very in depth based in science. According to this culture, which i am closer to believing , there is no such thing as obesity and BMI is not science based. these scientific facts exists . I read a book by Caroline Dooner who wrote "The Fuck It Diet Book." SHe is funny and it is packed with scientific evidence. just to name one resource. One of the purposes of Anti-Diet Culture is to be more accepting of different body types and how the medical field is not caught up or willing to catch. Weight Loss is pushed a lot in the medical Field. I should say the North American Medical Field. I would say Processed food is not good generally speaking. I am feeling very confused watching this. yeah and your comment spoke to me.
On my basis of a casual reading of the research on nutrition prior to this debate, my bias is for team Nestle/Hall. Looking forward to a vigorous debate. I always learn something.
UPDATE: Just heard Amy Webb's intro where she says "edible parts of plants and animals." Wait, back up...unless you're eating raw blood and muscle tissue, that "edible" animal part requires some pretty extreme modification for the modern palate. So yes, definitions certainly matter.
UPDATE 2: Why does it sound like everyone is ignorant of context? Webb/Gibney are literally talking about starving orphans and ultra-marathoners eating gel mid-race. Surely there's...another category of active people eating a wide variety of whole plant foods, supplementing B12 who simply check in on any potential deficiencies with a physician from time to time. For those people...does adding more processed foods help or harm their health? Pretty clear it harms...right?
I'm embarrassed to share a profession with Webb...cringed when she said "I'm a social scientist, I do experiments too." Yikes.
well a debate on whether we should eat more processed food struck me cause NO. Even though i know many marginalized, low income , poor , seniors have to rely on it. let me see what this is all about.
yeah this is confusing to listen to. there are so many areas and angles missing about foods.
These debates would be so much better if the political ideology of the debaters was not immediately glaringly obvious within 15 second of them opening their mouth.
It would be great on the debate about non political topics if you had no idea what the person’s politics was. Unfortunately, some people clearly feel it is necessary to loudly proclaim their team and signal to their fellow team mates “I am one of you!!!” Before even discussing their argument. It really sets a tone that they don’t think their argument alone will be sufficient, and they need to rely on tribalism in the crowd to sway more support their way.
Disappointed.
Professor Michael Gibney linked with the Sackler family... Might have some import.
Zu weel eat bugs and ze happy
I find that whatever side I vote for in these debates loses, somehow. My mind is blown.
Must have some rather un-kosher positions
The significant problem that I feel the opposition did not answer is that sarvation is a problem. No one addressed it, but it remains a problem none the less.
It's kinda frustrating that the "yes" side has to fight the public stigma of processed foods rather than really engaging with the question. I understand why but I also think it's probably because if they agree that people abuse processed foods that will be an optical loss. You essentially need to make an argument for more self control.
Everyone was making valid points, but it's frustrating how unclear it is what exactly was being debated. Moreover, I wish people would stop using the word "processed" to conflate highly-palatable calorie-dense non-satiating foods with anything that is (somewhat arbitrarily) judged to be altered too much from nature.
It starts at 5:20
15:30 “You can’t make plant based foods without ultra processing them”
That’s strange, how did people eat plant based foods for millions of years before we had the technological capability to ultra process them?
24:50 I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious assertion! Oh my word....how ignorant or gullible does he think we are?
Everything is profit driven and it is a fair game.
One point made, was Pro-Ultra Group to "Feed the World" and I counter with, "Giving the Whole World Syndrome X"
I don’t really like the “corruption of the food industry” being her leading point against. I agree it is corrupt, but it seems the debate should be on the merits of the products themselves and secondly any ethical considerations that go into its creation.
What a weird hill to die on. Look forward to you changing my preconceived notions.
DUH! TELL UA SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW!
In the studies showing dairy is bad for some people, did they account for the genetic ancestry of the people it was bad for? Not all population groups have an evolutionary history of dairy consumption and different genetic lineages have reactions based on genetics that are not the same as other population groups.
Also, was the dairy in these studies full or artificial hormones and other things like antibiotics, medications etc from the cows who produced it? Was it raw? You can not claim “dairy is bad for you” when it is loaded with a myriad of unnatural interventions into its production. Butter is just one example, butter from cows allowed to behave naturally has very high levels of the elusive vit K, where as typical commercially produced butter has a negligible amount.
Lastly what about the women themselves? Did the study control for use of birth control in the woman’s life? Perhaps the unnatural hormonal profile of these women interacts badly with the probiotics in the yogurt. Wouldn’t it be the birth control that is at issue in that scenario rather than the yogurt?
Should we drink more mercury?
“A demonic food group” ? What? That was out of left field.... what a strange way to frame it. But then she is relying pretty heavily on triggering those biases she just described.
The "yes" side showed up to fight the optics that people see processed foods as poison or something inherently bad rather than engaging in the academic argument. But I do understand why they do it. There is a public stigma against processing.
@@exmerion There is a public stigma because we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic and millions are dying. When a product is literally killing people, people start to have a bad opinion of it.
@@cawheeler27 Yea but do you understand why processed food is killing people? Because it's too calorie dense and tastes too good so people get obese eating too much of it. A lot of people think Processed foods are bad because of preservatives or other chemicals. They aren't realizing that it's bad people people are just eating too many calories.
@@exmerion It's not killing people because it's too calorie dense. It is killing people because the act of processing strips the calories from the fiber that would typically accompany them in natural foods. Fiber slows down the digestion of food, allowing your body to absorb it over time and make you feel less hungry. By removing the fiber, you feel hungry very quickly and are much more likely to overeat. Processed foods also typically contain substantially more refined carbohydrates, which also lack fiber and cause large insulin spikes. Over time, these insulin spikes lead to insulin resistance, which leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other chronic illnesses.
The yes couple are ignoring the increase in fat sick people has grown as ultra processed foods have grown. Do they really think Twinkies are good for most people?
Amy Webb lady blah blah blah too much. Giberish.