• DomeGuy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Let me see if I can translate this article to a less trendy version:

    .About 80% of the packaged foods marketed for children between 6 and 30 months include ingredients only used when creating packaged food at scale. Half of these either contained more fat, sugar, and salt than the WHO recommends or did not abide by the WHO’s advice to eliminate food coloring.

    • ThomasWilliams
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      So packaged foods contained emulsifiers and mould inhibitors like salt and sugar required to make them safe. Well yeah…

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Those packaged toddler foods are expensive as well. I’d wager most parents are simply giving their toddlers portions of foods they eat themselves over buying this crap.

      • Trex202
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        22 hours ago

        That’s how we fed kids before corporations convinced us that kids need packets of pureed veggies in a single use plastics

        • ChicoSuave
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Baby food jars are typically glass

          • Trex202
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Most of the baby food in my area is plastic pouches

          • athatet@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            20 hours ago

            They certainly used to be. And probably fancier brands may still use glass.

      • cynar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Ideally yes. However some meals aren’t suitable for toddlers, others that simply don’t like. Particularly for exhausted parents, having a healthy, tasty fallback can be a sanity saver. Doubly so when on trips.

        Treat them like the toddler equivalent of a McDonald’s. OK for 1 off meals, a problem when they become the default diet.

      • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        22 hours ago

        When they’re that age, you don’t have time to make good financial decisions unless you’re killing it or one of you gets to be stay at home. Even then it’s rough.

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I understand, my kid isn’t that many years from when he was a toddler. These particular processed meals aren’t any easier to prep than some cheese and crackers or portioning some from the parent’s plate of food.

        • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          I disagree. I went back to work when my baby was 5 months old.

          I have always, always been poor. However, my sister had gotten me a blender for christmas the year prior. I made, all my sons food. His diet was maybe 15% baby food pouches, over estimating this I think.

          An example is, a sweet potato, a carrot and an apple, peeled, cooked and blended. There it is. I would see the pouches and what blends they were labled as, and just buy the whole produce and make my own. I was a single mom, worked 40, nursing on top of this, and I dont remember this being difficult, even poor and working full time. Its all about the parents’ priorities.

          To be more modern, those little mesh sucker things were great. I would freeze grapes or other fruit, and stick them in that mesh contraption for my baby. frozen fruit makes teething lil ones happy, the mesh part kept the choking hazards at bay, he could hold it himself and chew on frozen fruit. bloody magical tool.

          • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I would agree that far too many take the “easy” path of just buying premade foods, but I take issue with the last comment:

            I dont remember this being difficult, even poor and working full time. Its all about the parents’ priorities.

            “Poor” can often mean more than one full time job for a single person. The framing you’re putting on this suggests that any parent has this kind of time, and it just isn’t true. Its also especially worth mentioning that a person’s income can change wildly at any time - someone doing well enough to be the stay at home parent while the other works could suddenly become a single parent. A single parent that would need to work multiple jobs just to afford to keep living in their home.

            And I say this as a parent lucky enough to work from home, and my partner being able to dedicate full time to parenting before going back to part time work.

            Yes, we made all of their food at home. Even baking the bread they eat during the week. Not everyone is lucky enough to make that happen, especially now.

            • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              To be factually mean, even if the single parent had two jobs, its still true that making thier own food is less of a priority because of this.

              To me, this, two job single parent, is the exception. Ive met so many more folks in my life who had less stress, and better living situations than I, stay at home moms even, who dont put a second thought in handing a bag of puffs (and im sorry) but a tablet to the kid, and sending them off to sit.

              I very well intended to use cloth diapers, but, my living arrangement changed, and I ended up using disposables mostly. I get it. But im not talking about the execption. The rule, is most people (that ive seen, so its whatever, Im in the sates, but ive met so many other parents over the last decade) who have young children, and feed them “kid foods” and skip whole foods.

              My son’s room didnt have that “kid smell”. My house, didnt have the “kid smell”. It was said to me a few times. “Kid smell” some folks houses get, you cannot unconvince me, is due to thier diet of high sugar from these “kid foods” literally almost all parents I know buy.

              I am an asshole about this for the record. I know. Its one my hills as a child who was raised on gushers and fruit roll ups, and ended up with disordered eating and obese as a youth. Ive seen moms (I should say parents, but really I talk with other moms) give candy out like a regualr snack, children who dont drink water (is free, why?)… like. I met a ten year old who couldnt run, at all. Im not pulling this out my ass. And it really makes me sad for these children who are estsblishing poor eating habits so early in life. I was homless with a newborn until that 5th month. You cant change my mind that more (not all) people could attempt to be better, they just dont.

              • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                You cant change my mind that more (not all) people could attempt to be better, they just dont.

                I wouldn’t try to - I agree.

                I would also say many don’t have any interest in being better, which is why they don’t even make the attempt.

    • DomeGuy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I probably wouldn’t mind the ubiquitous use of the “new system” from the University of São Paulo if I didn’t keep seeing it used incorrectly, with its added category treated as causal of poor health instead of correlated with poor health.

      Americans aren’t overweight because of the “ultra-processed” portion of our high-calorie high-salt diet. Americans are overweight because our diet is high-calorie and high-salt!

      It’s entirely possible to have a healthy diet that consists only of “Nova” category 4 foods. And entirely possible to have an unhealthy diet that consists only of “unprocessed” category 1 and “ingredient” category 2 foods.

      (And unless it’s a damn acronym, “nova” should not be capitalized!)

      • lechekaflan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Americans aren’t overweight because of the “ultra-processed” portion of our high-calorie high-salt diet. Americans are overweight because our diet is high-calorie and high-salt!

        And with so much entertainment comes increasingly larger sedentary lifestyles.

      • JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Americans aren’t overweight because of the “ultra-processed” portion of our high-calorie high-salt diet. Americans are overweight because our diet is high-calorie and high-salt!

        Oh, I’d argue strongly that the former is also a factor. For one thing, the whole idea of calories in-calories out is a highly flawed concept that whiffs a lot on how the body actually processes foods. Things like resistant starches and slow-digesting grains are key in absorbing food in a consistent manner that avoids glycogen spikes and delivers a smoother energy experience that helps cut down cravings and vicious junk-food circles, so to speak.

        Also, the more processed a food is, typically the less vitamins, minerals, fibre, phytochemicals and so forth it contains, all things the body needs and even craves. And there’s a natural tendency to eat when one feels a lack of something, which can be some or all of those things above.

      • DomeGuy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        In the United States anything meant for human consumption either has a health department regularly inspecting the kitchen where it is prepared for immediate consumption or is sold with labelling that conveys a nutritional profile and ingredient list.

        The label is clearer now than it was when I was a child, and there is movement now to put the most relevant information on the front of the package.

        Just looking at the first four packages in my dining room,.without getting the glasses I need for vision, I can tell you that “Stewart’s black cherry soda” is 160 calories for bottle, "Vernors black cherry* is 150 per can and a “hostess cup cake” is 170. All of which are high calorie treats I don’t mind since the kids are away.

        So, no, not a secret. Provided for you at point of sale, in fact. (And for many chain restaurants and eaters, the same top-line numbers are available from their website.)