• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Study claims refined palm oil carcinogenic, Nutella worried about implication

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I'm eating that delicious sugary shit I do it with the understanding that I am damaging my body and I make peace with that. This changes nothing, the sugar alone causes both cancer, bone decay and dementia
 
In the last nine years, the price for a jar of Nutella here in Germany rose from €1.89 to €2.39. Why can't these greedy motherfuckers afford better oil? I swear, buying a truck full of Nutella is probably a better investment than buying stocks.

Woah, update. Just went to the store, price for a jar of Nutella is now €2.79.

At this rate it will be as expensive as in Peru when I went there three years ago. It cost like 25 or so IIRC.
 
I love how Nutella is "a breakfast treat for children".

No Italian worth his or her salt would have that for breakfast. It's CLEARLY not a breakfast thing - it's just how it's marketed here.

It's a god damn sugar spread with a tiny bit of cocoa and hazelnuts. It's use for DESSERTS, not breakfast. It's so absurd. It's okay in moderation once in a while (aka in a special dessert) but for the love of god it shouldn't be had every single day. I mean have actual chocolate (especially dark chocolate) if you're craving that in the morning, at least you'll have some semblance of better nutrients.

Have Nutella on a delicious Nutella pizza, for example, or Nutella cookies, or whatever. Just not as a breakfast item that you would have every day....
It isn't unlike how sugar-laden "breakfast" cereals marketed to the population. The masses are ignorant of proper nutrition. The amount of sugar in everyday cereals is preposterous.
 
Nufaila is overrated gives me a headache in thee morning because of sugar dehydrToon
What is it with this forum and the inability of people on it to eat something without it harming them in some way?

Oh I was on the same planet as a Taco Bell and was shitting blood for fifteen years because of it

I sniffed coffee once walking past a Starbucks and died instantly of heart palpitations

I was talking to someone who had eaten at a KFC within the last seven thousand years and instantly died of dysentery because of it.

Looking at chocolate spread makes my head hurt

It is a wonder most of you survived childhood.
 
I've read the snippet and not the entire article so maybe I'm missing something, but at the end it says:
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in May that palm oil generated more of a potentially carcinogenic contaminant than other vegetable oils when refined at temperatures above 200 degrees Celsius. It did not, however, recommend consumers stop eating it and said further study was needed to assess the level of risk.
So isn't saying "nutella can cause you cancer" a bit of a stretch?
 
There's nothing wrong with rigorous research,but what is often not brought up in the "study says x causes cancer" are the levels required to do so or at least those levels are downplayed the reporting in order to generate attention.

Aspartame for example requires in inordinate amount to have provable negative effects, by comparison the same amount of sugar consumed would certainly kill you.

In this example, how much Nutella must he consumed regularly to result in an observable cause and effect? (if this is stated clearly in the study my apologies - I'm at work and on mobile data so I can't really dive deep into any figures)

The sentiment your frustrated at exists because of the amount of wholesale shit we have to swallow based on experts advice regarding food and it's positive or negative effects when the emphasis should be on focusing on a healthy balanced diet where you do not overindulge in any particular food as too much of a good thing can kill you
I'm not arguing against that. Thinking that any individual study is the be-all end-all is part of the ignorance in the posts I quoted.
 
Downplaying the importance of rigorous research -- "everything causes cancer" is a fallacy that causes people to disregard advice and progress in cancer research. It calls for methods and solutions that are unscientific and in the end harmfull for the progress being made, i.e. "I don't care because everything will give me cancer!" or "why don't they cure cancer instead?". It it also quite tiresome.

I'm not arguing against that. Thinking that any individual study is the be-all end-all is part of the ignorance in the posts I quoted.

People jump on the "everything gives you cancer" bandwagon since the media tends to take studies that outline something as being potentially carcinogenic under certain conditions and pushing a narrative that describes how this thing definitely causes cancer.

Not to mention there are often conflicting studies that state how a certain thing can both cause and protect against cancer. Or you get articles that are like "This study showed how marijuana can kill cancer cells therefore it can cure cancer."

The people posting "everything causes/cures cancer" are not being serious. They're criticizing how the media takes a single study and twists it into how this one thing can cause/prevent/cure cancer.
 
the problem isn't with the studies or research but news that yank things out of context and extrapolate to sensational conclusions. the problem with science is never science, it's people like you and me and journalists who are unwilling to do the work to get at least a minimal understanding of things.
I've made a habit of always reading the abstract of any referenced study, it's a good way to judge what news sources are worth paying attention to. In my experience 95% of science related articles in mainstream media misrepresent the source material. I shouldn't have to say how damaging this is to the credibility of science overall in the eyes of the ignorant self absorbed public.
 
the problem isn't with the studies or research but news that yank things out of context and extrapolate to sensational conclusions. the problem with science is never science, it's people like you and me and journalists who are unwilling to do the work to get at least a minimal understanding of things.
I've made a habit of always reading the abstract of any referenced study, it's a good way to judge what news sources are worth paying attention to. In my experience 95% of science related articles in mainstream media misrepresent the source material. I shouldn't have to say how damaging this is to the credibility of science overall in the eyes of the ignorant self absorbed public.
It's why a lot of "normal" folk don't feel like they can trust experts when in reality it's the media that is untrustworthy. As you say, the science is generally sound, just not hyperbolic enough for an attention grabbing narrative for news
 
kinda sad i didnt see this post yet

fb0.jpg

Memes have a shelf-life, and this one is well past its 'best before' date.
 
Wait, I would've thought this study was done ages ago.
Still, Nutella is not anymore like it used to be. They cheapened on the hazelnut.
I go for alternatives, even if they are as "healthy" as the original.
 
Personal bump. This thread gave me the kick in the ass I needed and made me re-examine my diet and lifestyle. From eating nutella everyday I cut it down to once a week (or 2 weeks), I started exercising more and cut rice from my diet. Since then I've lost about 5 lbs. It will take a lot to undo all the damage I've caused with these sugars.
 
Nutella is more calorie dense than cake frosting.

If the ingredients don't cause cancer, the morbid obesity from regular Nutella consumption will get you one way or another.
 
palm oil plantations are destroying rain forests in Indonesia. so even if you debunk the study you gotta live with that.
 
People are surprised a choclate-y spread filled with sugar and processed chemicals is bad for you? If you really don't want to get cancer you should eat plenty of healthy organic food and get plenty of excercise outside underneath our happy benevolent sun.
 
People are surprised a choclate-y spread filled with sugar and processed chemicals is bad for you? If you really don't want to get cancer you should eat plenty of healthy organic food and get plenty of excercise outside underneath our happy benevolent sun.

Very few cancers are directly related to your diet, unless it causes you to be overweight.


The sun gives you cancer with some of the most deadly metastasis btw ;)
 
"Making Nutella without palm oil would produce an inferior substitute for the real product, it would be a step backward," Ferrero's purchasing manager Vincenzo Tapella told Reuters. He features in a TV commercial aired in Italy over the past three months that has drawn criticism from some politicians.

Any move away from palm oil would also have economic implications as it is the cheapest vegetable oil, costing around $800 a ton, compared with $845 for sunflower oil and $920 for rapeseed oil, another possible substitute.


wow what a coincidence that the cheapest one is the only one that can make Nutella taste good.
 
81T0OCaDPpL._SY679_.jpg


Boom, this fancy chocolate hazelnut spread doesn't have any palm oil and is absolutely delicious!

I bet that stuff tastes 100x better than Nutella.

Also, pizza is bread and cheese. Of course it gives you cancer.Just eat it once a week, and eat whole foods the rest of the time, and the healthy foods will undo the bad ones. True story
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom