Talk:Junk food

Misc

Request for expansion on this article would be appreciated. (As of May 13, 2006) More general information would be appreciated.

The phrase 'junk food' seems particularly uninformative and not based on sound science. Is the claim that the health risk is that 'junk food' tastes so good and is so convenient that it encourages overeating and resultant obesity? That seems plausible. Or is the claim that 'junk food' diets will result in poor health due to lack of vitamins, minerals, etc? Is there any evidence of of the latter argument? And couldn't a simple daily vitamin remove any risk of that? Scotchex 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article says fruit juice is "healthy"; from reading the nutrition facts on most juices though, they seem pretty much like sugar water. What are the benefits of drinking juice, aside from the fact that some have vitamin C (a nutrient pretty much no one in developed countries is lacking in)? Ralphael 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the CamBottom footer on this page? --Diberri | Talk 04:26, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

'Certain users' have been fly posting them all over articles where they don't belong, and reverting it with rv vandalism when someone removes it. It is currently one of the matters under consideration as a matter under arbitration and should hopefully be resolved soon , so people can remove these things permanently from where they don't belong. - Xgkkp 00:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. See: [1] and contribute if you wish. --bodnotbod 01:37, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I considered contributing, but as I've had no direct experience with MNH, I decided against adding to the existing "official" evidence. FWIW, MNH appears to be a very knowledgeable contributor, and I'm sure we could all learn a bit from him. But these edit wars, flagrant personal attacks, and misattribution of articles (e.g. junk food as a CAM article) are causing nothing but heightened frustration and a tendency for his fellow Wikipedians to resent him. It's a shame. --Diberri | Talk 02:51, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. There are alternetive viewpoints to be made, unfortunately MNH seems intent on giving that area a bad name. --bodnotbod 13:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Practitioners of alternative medicine may recommend changes to diet as part of their recommendations for treatment. Per 17:27, 4 Jun 2004 Kd4ttc (Add alt med - Food and health) made in Food. Yes, indeed, avoiding junk food is a major part of some alternative health programs such as natural health. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would think that avoiding Knives would reduce the risk of injury, and so therefore be better for your health. Should Knives also have one of these Cam boxes added to the bottom of it? I don't think that 'recommendation to avoid something' would mean it comes under the scope of alternative practices, rather that only if something 'abnormal' was recommended it would come into scope. - Xgkkp 01:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

set up an alt med nutrition article thenGeni 01:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: as I believe plain removing it again (see history) would provoke a revert war, I switched it to the tiny version to attempt a temporary compromise until the editor in question forgets this article or loses interest in their strange hobby.... - Xgkkp 01:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is on his watch list so He wont forget it.Geni 01:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Junk food is a 100% alternative medicine term just like wellness cleaarly is. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever, I'm not going to argue, for now. But Geni, since he's not going to give in any time soon, could you at least change the CamBoxes to the less obtrusive CamTiny entries instead of plain deleting them, as we know that just starts revert wars. - Xgkkp 01:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've got another form of compamise planned. Hopeful one which will provide a relivant link while giving MNH the alt med thing he wantsGeni 01:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope. It is a term used to catogrise certian food types used by number of groups. By the same logic you should insert one of you boxes into quantum theory (certainly it's something certian alt med practioners go on about a lot)Geni 01:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Junk food is a 100% alternative medicine term" - MNH, I truly believe you are one of the few people in the world who believes that, if not the only one. If it is the case, please offer some citations, some evidence to back up that statement. --bodnotbod 13:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Removed apparent vandalism (for lack of a better term) I removed the following few lines from the article: "A Modern-day teenager at home love to gorgr on burgers and pizzas, puppy fat makes him look cute, he hates physical activity and is addicted to junk food. he is the perfect host for "sweet killer" diabetes to strike. And sadly, more and more youngsters are falling prey to this disease." Though the increasing rates of diabetes is disheartening, this is not the format inorder to state that. (D.c.camero (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

See also's may be added at the bottom of any article by anybody, including me.)

This does not strike me as much of an argument.Geni

Alternative health movement and junk food

There is no such thing as the "alternative health movement". Sure there are a number of separate advocating groups but no universal alternative health groups. You are completely excluding environmental campaigners and a large area of conventional public health.

Junk food and health risks: Evidence

I'm a little bemused to be arguing with someone who seriously (I think?) contends that junk food is healthy and those who say otherwise are practicing "quackery", but such is the internet I suppose. Hey, Mr-Natural-Health, I have a bridge I think you'll be very interested in...

Peer-reviewed research I found in a 10-minute web search supporting the various risks associated with consumption of "junk food":

Specific Patterns of Food Consumption and Preparation Are Associated with Diabetes and Obesity in a Native Canadian Community [1]
The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 541-547
"High consumption of junk foods and the bread and butter group was associated with substantial increases in risk for diabetes (OR = 2.40, CI = 1.13-5. 10; OR = 2.22, CI = 1.22-4.41, respectively)."

QSource quality initiative. Reversing the diabetes epidemic in Tennessee
Tenn Med. 2003 Dec;96(12):559-63.
"This paper summarizes the results of a recent report on diabetes in Tennessee. Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in Tennessee. In 2001, an estimated 7.7% of the population was diabetic, an increase from 5.8% a decade earlier. This increase is largely due to widespread unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, and associated obesity. The majority of diabetes is preventable and can be effectively treated through daily exercise and a healthy diet. Diabetes prevention efforts in Tennessee schools and communities, however, are grossly inadequate. Providers and payers underemphasize prevention. Since the causes of diabetes can be traced to childhood habits, early prevention is the key to reversing the diabetes epidemic. Immediate statewide action must be taken to promote daily exercise and decrease access to high-calorie, high-fat "junk" food in our schools and communities. Physicians, health professional organizations, health plans, government, churches, schools, and employers must work together to battle the diabetes epidemic through public education, community-wide health promotion programs, and efforts to improve quality of diabetes care for all Tennesseans"

Heart and liver lipid fatty acid and behavior changes in mice after a diet change.
Life Sci. 1984 Apr 23;34(17):1613-20
"Comparison of the controls with the experimental mice revealed the " junk food" mice differed in lipid fatty acid profiles of the heart and liver and in percentage of lipid palmitic and oleic acids in these organs and also in plasma. Appearance was altered in the experimental mice which had dull, greasy coats. In addition, the experimental animals were less active, slept singly, and were slower in negotiating a three-choice maze than their comparably housed counterparts, indicating altered activity/curiosity behavior." --Bk0 18:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the statement that the crackdown on junkfood advertising has resulted in an increase in eating disorders. It had no reference, and although both may have happened more or less simultaneously a correlation would be difficult to prove. The subsequent info on eating disorders now seems out of place without the misleading opening sentence.

The dispute clearly is ...

The dispute clearly is about putting a link to category:alternative medicine in an article that is clearly about a well known alternative position on health. You guys have just argued that alternative positions on health both exist and are valid. Therefore, I want a link to category:alternative medicine in this article as well as in scores of other articles. The only people talking about junk food are the health nuts. Conventional medicine says that there is no such thing as junk food.

The article is quoting anonymous sources of information with its use of weasespeak. The alternative health community cited in this article is obviously category:alternative medicine. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 19:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So a catogry is now a comunity? I don't recall sayiong that the alt med postion on anything was valid. I would love to see some back up for the stament "conventional medcine says there is no such thing a junk food" you must be using a slightly strange defintion of conventional medcineGeniand juan munis se la come by: a cigarroa student

Show me where conventional medicine anywhere on Wikipedia supports prevention. Show me anywhere on Wikipedia where conventional medicine says that eating junk food is bad for your health. In other words, define precisely who is saying this with footnotes to sources of information. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

public health covers pervention see above for conventional medcine saying junk food is bad for you (if eaten in excess)Geni

I have more important things to do with my time than to waste it on this issue. In short, I am working on editing other pages. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 04:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Problems in lead

I took a look at the references to see if they supported the lead, and they don't. Firstly, the FSA specifically say that they don't use the phrase junk food:

• "Food Standards Agency - Key facts 10". Food Standards Agency. Retrieved 2008-04-02.

Secondly, that BBC article says that OFCOM got their definition of junk food from the FSA. Doubly odd since not only do the FSA not use the phrase, neither do OFCOM; the only places it appears are in feedback to their consultation on food advertising, and once quoted in minutes, but they do not use it in their statement:

• "Ofcom publishes final Statement on the television advertising of food and drink products to children". Ofcom. 2007-09-11. Retrieved 2008-04-02.

Perhaps this stuff should be rephrased to say that the press describe the FSA/Ofcom's "foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar" as junk food? I'm also going to remove the US-centric tag since all the refs are for the UK. However, better references are needed for the lead, especially all the claims in the second paragraph. Bazzargh (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a complete overhaul

I'm shocked quite frankly, as I expected a rather lengthy and scholarly article the likes of which you'd see about religion, abortion, or gun ownership. I have already made a bunch of changes and will make many more. I am also considering removing the images of Twinkies and Cheetos and whatever that donut burger thing is that I've never seen before. I believe that the very basis of the term Junk Food relies on the public's view, as a result of unscrupulous marketing, that it truly is FOOD that can be safely relied upon for sustenance.

Cheetos (1948) and Twinkies (1930) do not fall into that category any more than Crème brûlée (1691) or Ice Cream (1718).

BillyTFried (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the above are very definately junk food, with the exception of Creme Brulee because it may not contain much saturated fat or salt, and was invented long ago. 78.149.173.243 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on effects in children

I've removed the following section. The article does not say why the first statement, regarding anorexia in children, is in an article about junk food. The second statement, regarding teenage girls avoiding junk food, is sourced to a primary source and the web page in the link doesn't contain any statement linking avoidance of junk food with nutritional deficiencies. Regarding the quote about meat and milk, I am at a loss to explain what this is doing in an article about junk food. I agree with the above sentiments that the article needs a rewrite. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects in children

Eating disorders have increased five-fold among children 8-13, one clinic noting that one child as young as five developing anorexia. According to NHANES III, two-thirds of teenage girls who are trying to eat "healthy" by avoiding junk foods are deficient in iron, calcium and other important nutrients.

Many teenage girls, already the most poorly nourished of any group in America, have stopped drinking milk or eating meat in their extreme fear of fat. -Frances Berg, MS, author of Women Afraid to Eat

Why nothing about the dangers?

I'm also shocked that the positive well-known harmfulness to health of the saturated fats, salt, and excessive calories common to junk foods is not mentioned. I believe it is well established that these cause heart and circulation problems, strokes, high blood pressure, and the dangers from obesity including raised rates of cancer. Is this article being controlled by the junk food industry? 78.149.173.243 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You may believe that it's well-established, but Wikipedia articles should cite studies or textbooks, not personal beliefs. A study linking junk food intake with obesity would fit the bill. --Rogermw (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Rogermw. You can even die from drinking too much water. As any toxicologist can tell you, the dose makes the poison. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What junk food is

"Foods more likely to be considered junk food generally are those that are more convenient and easy to obtain in a ready-to-eat form, though being such does not automatically define the food as "junk food.""

That definition would include for example apples. I propose "Junk food is ready to eat food which is thought to be unhealthy due to containing high levels of saturated fats, salt, or sugar; and little or no fruit or vegetables." 89.242.97.110 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The current list of "junk foods" contains several sweeping generalizations, is misleading and is essentially useless. Read: Junk food includes foods such as hamburgers, hot dogs, chocolate, ice cream, cake, French fries (if oil-baked) and pizza. Contrast a burger made of a sensible portion of lean beef on a whole-grain bun with lettuce, tomato and onion vs. a Big Mac; a home-made carrot, raisin/cranberry/currant and ginger cake with light cream cheese icing vs. a Hi-Ho, Ding-Dong or Twinkie; hand-cut skin-on french fries cooked at proper temperature in peanut oil vs. typical processed, over-salted fast-food fries; and pizza.. there are so many different possibilities as to make its inclusion laughable. Hamburgers, cakes and pizzas can all be of a very high nutritional quality - it is absurd to label these foods as "junk". And why single out poor old chocolate from the pantheon of candy? Drlegendre (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the list with a more sensible list, from a reasonable source. I really don't know how to do the citation properly, so maybe some nice person will fix it up a bit. Drlegendre (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The poster child for junk food

Most people have never eaten, or even heard of the Luther burger. If we're going to have an emblem, or poster child for junk food, it should be something that many people are familiar with. To this end, I've retired Luther in favor of a bag of Pork Rinds. Pork rinds are pretty much total crap - mostly fat and a low-quality protein. They are also extremely high in sodium, and to the best of my knowledge, contain no significant quantities of vitamins or minerals. If you can think of another common, generic junk food item (NOT a specific brand/product) that's more worthless than pork rinds, please feel free to change it. Drlegendre (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your apparent intent. However, the pork rinds currently shown are "Porkie(R) Pork Skins". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Hi all, I deleted text that cites a children's book: (Currie, Stephen. 2008. Junk Food: Health at Risk. Ann Arbor, MI: Cherry Lake Publisher). Though it is a non-fiction book for children, information in this section could be better supported by studies produced in academic journals. Particularly if the text is speculative. If there is better source material that can be added to that section, feel free to edit. KatCray (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)KatCray

"perceived to have little or no nutritional value"

Our current description holds that junk food is "an informal term applied to some foods that are perceived to have little or no nutritional value". An editor changed this to read "an informal term applied to foods that are low in micronutrients".

As an informal term, it certainly seems to be applied based on perception. As a test case, we certainly have foods that are "low in micronutrients" that are, to my knowledge, never called "junk food". Iceberg lettuce tops out at 7% DV of one nutrient per serving (all others are 3% or less). A "good source" of a nutrient is 10% or more, making this a good source of nothing (except, perhaps, water. While I've certainly heard iceberg lettuce disparaged by foodies, armchair nutritionists, vegetarians, etc., I've never heard it called "junk food"

On the other side, a McDonald's double cheeseburger, certainly called "junk food" somewhere, provides 10% of the DV of vitamin A and 25% of calcium (along with 54% DV of saturated fat). We probably need a broader/vaguer definition than we have, but the one I reverted clearly wasn't it. I'll look for something sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google gives a few seemingly reliable sources:

• "...food that tastes good but is high in calories having little nutritional value" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• "...food with high fat and sugar content, without correspondingly high amounts of protein, vitamins, or minerals" www.diet.com/g/glossary
• "Food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation" Google dictionary

Commonalities: "food"; low/little/not high nutritional value/protein, vitamins, minerals; nods to high calories/sugar and fat.

I get "food that is of little nutritional value and often high in fat, sugar and or calories." Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Last call for any thoughts... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that "junk food" is a flawed, imprecise term. A distinct definition is impossible.