Classic Guardian

I've written about a particularly absurd Guardian article for The Critic. The article is about ultra-processed food so it was bound to be a target rich environment but there are so many sentences that are beyond parody that I couldn't fit them all into my article. Here are some of the ones I left out.

 

Not all UPFs trigger addiction. Sweets and salty snacks, which are designed for pleasure (and therefore profit), are more likely to be addictive than, say, plant milks and meat alternatives, which are also ultra-processed but are designed for a purpose, in this case replacing animal products.

Don’t underestimate convenience: “If I had to make my own chocolate or pizza, I probably wouldn’t eat it that often,” says Gearhardt.

In this way, packaged biscuits are similar to cigarettes. No, really. “Processed tobacco leaves have been available for hundreds of years for people to make their own addictive tobacco products,” the researchers say. “However, the invention of the cigarette roller in the 1880s to mass-produce cigarettes … contributed to a more than 1,000% increase in cigarette smoking.”

 

Yeah, no one smoked until the 1880s. Ever heard of pipes? 

A third driver of addiction could be the additives in UPFs. Again, there is a parallel with cigarettes, which often contain additives such as sugar, cocoa, menthol and salt to improve flavour and increase brand loyalty.

 

So that's the reason cigarettes are addictive. Salt! 

I ask Gearhardt if she has completely eliminated UPFs from her diet. “No! I’m drinking a glass of wine as we speak!”

What?

 

And there are some even better ones in my article.