Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by andybak on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @04:24PM (#42250210)

> Most people I know consider E-numbers as dodgy ingredients.

(From a quick 30 second search) E300 is Vitamin C, E101 is Vitamin B2

And yes - I'm aware that vitamins that are naturally present are probably better than "fortifying" food - but still.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by r00fus on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @04:27PM (#42250235)

I've never seen Vitamin C listed as E300 on a label. So while you are correct, the heuristic (avoid E-numbers) works in practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by andybak on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @04:35PM (#42250302)

OK but then why would a manufacturer ever use a E number - considering the stigma attached? Only when the other name "sounds worse"?

Is there a legal threshold where you have to use the E number?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by olejorgenb on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @05:24PM (#42250751)

Limited space on the label maybe :D Some of the real names of the E's are very long.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by lrem on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @01:30AM (#42253508)

Indeed, they’ll use E numbers to shorten the chemistry catalogue part of the list. Note the law requires sorting ingredients by weight, so these additives end up clumped together. You’ll end up with half a line instead of half a page.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nobody knows why ultra-processed foods are bad for you by Jensson on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @04:30PM (#42250265)

Yeah, anything good wont be listed as an E number, you use the name people recognize.

[ Parent | on HN ]