Talk:Junk food

message: 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)
thread_title:  Junk food and health risks: Evidence 

message: 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. -- John Gohde | Talk 19:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -- John Gohde | Talk 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. -- John Gohde |  Talk 04:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dispute clearly is ... 

message: 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:
* 
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:
* 
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)
thread_title:  Problems in lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Both Ice Cream and Creme Brulee are loaded with both saturated fat and sodium. BillyTFried (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The sourced definition we now have describes junk food as food that is of "little nutritional value and often high in fat, sugar, and calories." I'm not aware of what the date the food was invented has to do with this. In any case "little" nutritional value and "high" in fat, sugar and calories are obviously opinions. We can't really start adding various editors opinions as to items that constitute "junk food". If reliable sources regularly discuss a food as being, say, the archetypal junk food or something, we might use that as justification for choosing it as the item we use for the photo. The current one shows a brand name item, which is probably not the best idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I hadn't noticed (or didn't remember?) that the image has been changed. I'd prefer there was no indication of brand but, whatever. I'm not clear on why we're specifying that they are "British Salt and vinegar potato chips". First, that's awkward: "British...potato chips"? Second, I'd think the generic "potato chips" or "crisps" would be better as the flavoring and origin have little to do with the question. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a complete overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on effects in children 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why nothing about the dangers? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What junk food is 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't think that's actually a registered trademark as no circle R or TM is used, but rather it appears to be a fairly generic, non-trademarked label decoration or cartoon. Whitebox (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Evans Food Group Ltd begs to differ. "Porkies are readily available throughout the southern United States and are a popular brand choice with many distributors." (emphasis and BHT added) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poster child for junk food 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Why does the "See also" section have a reference to health food, but not a reference to fast food?  I would have thought that fast food would have had more to do with junk food than health food. In fact, if you look at the "See also" section of fast food, you will see a reference to junk food, suggesting that the terms are linked in people's minds. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "See also" sections are for links that are not currently in the article, but theoretically would be, if it were thoroughly expanded (and sourced). Junk food is already linked in the article. Health food is not. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Querying the contents of the "See also" section

message: Taken from a BBC article, the statement (from the old lead), "It is widely believed that the term was coined by Michael F. Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in 1972." is challenged here: "There are 'junk food' citations starting from at least 1952"; the article has citations and excerpts dating back to the 1940s. (This source is cited in "Junk", an On Language column in the New York Times)--Tsavage (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the entirety of the discussions on this talk page, it's clear that emotions, or at least, opinions, can run high around the very existence of the term, "junk food." Perhaps a more detailed history of the origin and evolution of the term itself would help put things in a better-balanced perspective. The source in the previous paragraph (this), now cited in the article, seems like a pretty comprehensive start on that. (I will expand when I can if no-one else does.)--Tsavage (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: I have removed this from the text. Excessive calories whether from eating superfoods or junk foods is the problem. Your body doesn't care if you eat 3,000 calories from Whole Foods or 3,000 calories from Twinkies. You can eat 1,000 calories of potato chips or have 1,000 calories of artisanal, fair-trade, locally sourced, organic, cholesterol free, gluten free, seasoned with ginger and kale and sea salt, fried purple Peruvian potato slices. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying calories are calories, regardless of where they come from? --Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Eating junk food is a major cause of obesity

message: I had to read this three times:  "From the nutritional point of view, some of the materials sold as food don't merit the term, and in that case there is no need to refer to them as any particular type of food." Maybe it can be eliminated completely. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this be reworded?

message: This is WP:Undue: "A study by Paul Johnson and Paul Kenny at the Scripps Research Institute in 2008 suggested that junk food consumption alters brain activity in a manner similar to addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin." Everything you do that is pleasurable "alters brain activity", that is how pleasure is registered in the brain. How would this differ from eating any delicious food? How would the response differ from a Hostess Twinkie versus a hand crafted, artisinal bread pudding made from fairtrade chocolate from Madagascar, and bread baked in a wood burning stove using only year old apple wood then topped with whipped cream infused with small-batch maple syrup from Vermont. Food craving and opiate addiction are very different. There is a rebound effect for opiate withdrawal and other addictive pharmaceuticals. A food craving can be ignored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: How is this different than any dessert?

message: After careful consideration, I removed the following section (which was added as a single edit) for a variety of reasons discussed below:
:Effects of Fast Food A third of the United States eat fast foods daily. The alarming figures are not alarming given the extent of advertising and the billions spent for the commercials on fast foods. Findings indicate that since 1970, the consumption of fast foods has increased five-fold. The lovers of fast foods consume more sugars, fats and carbohydrates, leaving out fruits and the non- starchy vegetables from their meals. These people also consume more calories that it is required. Unhealthy fast foods are negatively affecting the population, specifically making children obese and other people fat. For instance, a study by Jaworowska et al (315) concluded that, “some of these frequently consumed foods may contribute to a variety of negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and obesity."
This section is about fast food, which is not synonymous with junk food. In addition, it consists of unsourced and poorly sourced information, and items that are already covered in existing sections (e.g. "Health effects"). Except for the statements that a third of Americans eat fast food daily, and that fast food consumption has increased five-fold since 1970, both unsourced, there is nothing new. It is also poorly written, making arguments like, "alarming figures are not alarming given..." Deletion seems the best course. --Tsavage (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section: "Effects of Fast Food" 

message: Substituted at 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The statement that "Despite being labeled as "junk," such foods usually do not pose any immediate health concerns and are generally safe" is misleading. Junk refers to quality, not health hazards.
(No timestamp, no signature found)
BUMP
You see, I have a question. Instant noodles - do those count as junk food? Or should those stay in Comfort food category? I'm asking this, because there is a Wikipedian, who keeps claiming instant noodles to be one of the comfort foods of USA, yet the reference... letcs say, it is not American. They're attaching a link to British Broadcast Channel, e.g. the BBC. 2A00:1FA0:4287:F671:0:1A:9D24:CD01 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk not unsafe 

message: The most recent edit to this article is one which contains information on potential negatives of junk food in essay format. It is formatted fairly incorrectly for wikipedia, from the sentence structure to citation format to even just indentations. It honestly looks as if someone wrote an assignment for school on junk food and then copy/pasted it here. I have edited it down to correct formatting and attempt to better integrate the information into the "Health effects" section, but further edits are likely needed. The information that had been added was somewhat helpful, just written with too much opinion and bias and cited incorrectly. I tried to save what seemed salvageable but in general the section could just use further support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WellRehearsedWhale (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "The Need To Halt Junk Food" 

message: I noticed this strange error.
The test was divided into 5 sections: Hyperactivity, peer problems, emotional symptoms and pro-social behavior.
There's actually four listed, but it says five! Fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braden1127 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic error