Healthy Foods are “Racist,” and if So, Be Fine with That! By Mrs Vera West

We have seen almost everything produced by Western civilisation being classified as "racist," by some well-paid academic scribbler, even coloured paint, and Western civilisation itself. Indeed, one could compile a lengthy bibliography of books and article from the Left putting this position, by academics who would not have survived outside of the cosy techno-womb of modernity. On the frontier they would perish overnight. But, I digress.

The latest thing to be classified as "racist" is whole foods, by a woke dietician who ticks all the boxes. Opposing "junk food," is opposing people of colour; people of colour often live in areas where there are a lack of whole foods, fresh fruits and vegetables. Thus, they tend to eat processed fast foods. Opposing this food choice is somehow making a negative assessment of the people of colour themselves, and is the dominant ideology now, any such criticism, even if true (there is no objective truth for the postmodern Left), is racist.

It is a surprising twist of a standard argument; it is usually argued that the diets of many people of colour being poor is itself a product of structural racism and poverty. That, while questionable, is at least plausible and worthy of debate. But, supporting ultra-processed foods, is support for the corporations that churn out this stuff, and as I see it, these corporations are no friends of people of colour, but will of course use them as they see fit. Anyway, anything for five minutes of attention now.

https://www.infowars.com/posts/diversity-nutritionist-says-unprocessed-whole-foods-are-racist

"A "Queer. Black. Fat-positive dietitian" from California is on a mission to stop the war on ultra-processed food because she believes that opposing junk food means opposing "people of color" (POC).

Jessica Wilson, MS, RD, has apparently convinced herself that unhealthy eating is a normal part of being a POC, and that those who suggest healthier whole food-based diets are guilty of racism.

TIME wrote a piece about how Wilson was irked by the 2023 release of Ultra-Processed People, a book by Dr. Chris van Tulleken that highlighted how a junk food diet wrecked his health.

"What happened to me is exactly what the research says would happen to everyone," van Tulleken wrote about how his health declined after switching to a diet mostly composed of chips, soda pop, bagged bread, frozen food and cereal.

Eating all that junk caused van Tulleken to feel sluggish and gain weight. His hormone levels got thrown all out of whack and MRI scans showed that even his brain got damaged.

Wilson, however, feels as though van Tulleken is exaggerating and over-sensationalizing what the junk food did to his body because she feels that processed foods are a normal part of people's lives, as least the lives of POC whom she says tend to eat more junk food than white people.

Non-whites tend to have lower incomes and live in "food deserts" where there are fewer grocery stores carrying fresh produce and a whole lot more fast-food joints that serve fried, ultra-processed food-like substances.

Wilson claims that this differentiation between healthy foods and unhealthy foods is a form of "food apartheid" that makes no sense to her.

"How can this entire category of foods be something we're supposed to avoid?" she asked.

Wilson conducted her own experiment to contrast with that of van Tulleken. She traded out her haphazard attempts at eating whole foods randomly throughout the day with set meals comprised of more ultra-processed things.

Instead of eating morning eggs, for instance, Wilson opted for soy chorizo. She also swapped out of homemade "thrown-together" lunches with Trader Joe's ready-to-eat tamales. Then there was the cashew "milk" yogurt with jam, Costco pupusas, and chicken sausage with veggies.

After making the switch to a more ultra-processed diet, Wilson claims she started to feel better with less anxiety and more energy. She drank less coffee and felt better than she had before, which she attributes to eating full meals with more calories.

Unlike van Tulleken, Wilson did not get any bloodwork done to see what her dietary changes did to her body. She simply reported that she "felt better" after doing her experiment.

"I finally understand where this sudden push in defense of ultra-processed foods comes from: the desire of the psychopaths to replace meat and other healthy foods with fake products," one commenter wrote.

"The obvious criticism would be that such artificial food-like products are ultra-processed garbage, and thus ultra-processed foods suddenly have to become 'healthy.' Duh."

The other obvious answer as to why ultra-processed food is suddenly in vogue among the pro-fat crowd is because it is cheap and generates large profits for the same multinational corporate interests that came up with the so-called "food pyramid."

"This is to keep the masses sick and weak," wrote another.

"Four out of five eugenicists surveyed prefer ultra-processed foods," joked another. "The fifth died from myocarditis."

In 2024, anything and everything is "racist."

https://time.com/7007857/ultra-processed-foods-advocate/

"Jessica Wilson is passionate about the pupusas from Costco. Not just because they're tasty, but also because they've helped the California-based registered dietitian fight back against the mounting war on ultra-processed foods.

It all started in the summer of 2023, when author and infectious-disease physician Dr. Chris van Tulleken was promoting his book, Ultra-Processed People. While writing it, van Tulleken spent a month eating mostly foods like chips, soda, bagged bread, frozen food, and cereal. "What happened to me is exactly what the research says would happen to everyone," van Tulleken says: he felt worse, he gained weight, his hormone levels went crazy, and before-and-after MRI scans showed signs of changes in his brain. As van Tulleken saw it, the experiment highlighted the "terrible emergency" of society's love affair with ultra-processed foods.

Wilson, who specializes in working with clients from marginalized groups, was irked. She felt that van Tulleken's experiment was over-sensationalized and that the news coverage of it shamed people who regularly eat processed foods—in other words, the vast majority of Americans, particularly the millions who are food insecure or have limited access to fresh food; they also tend to be lower income and people of color. Wilson felt the buzz ignored this "food apartheid," as well as the massive diversity of foods that can be considered ultra-processed: a category that includes everything from vegan meat replacements and nondairy milks to potato chips and candy. "How can this entire category of foods be something we're supposed to avoid?" Wilson wondered.

So she did her own experiment. Like van Tulleken, Wilson for a month got 80% of her daily calories from highly processed foods, not much more than the average American. She swapped her morning eggs for soy chorizo and replaced her thrown-together lunches—sometimes as simple as beans with avocado and hot sauce—with Trader Joe's ready-to-eat tamales. She snacked on cashew-milk yogurt with jam. For dinner she'd have one of her beloved Costco pupusas, or maybe chicken sausage with veggies and Tater-Tots. She wasn't subsisting on Fritos, but these were also decidedly not whole foods.

A weird thing happened. Wilson found that she had more energy and less anxiety. She didn't need as much coffee to get through the day and felt more motivated. She felt better eating an ultra-processed diet than she had before, a change she attributes to taking in more calories by eating full meals, instead of haphazard combinations of whole-food ingredients.

How could two people eating the same type of foods have such different experiences? And could it be true that not all ultra-processed foods deserve their bad reputation?

These hotly debated questions come at a crucial moment. In 2025, the U.S. government will release an updated version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which tell people what they should eat and policymakers how to shape things like school lunches and SNAP education programs. The new edition may include, for the first time, guidance on ultra-processed foods. Officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are also reportedly weighing new regulatory approaches for these products.

The food industry, predictably, maintains that ultra-processed foods have been unfairly demonized and can be part of a healthy diet. Likely sensing a threat to their bottom line, large food companies have reportedly already started lobbying against recommendations around processed-food consumption.

What's more surprising is that even one dietitian would take their side, defending a group of foods that, according to 2024 research, has been linked to dozens of poor health outcomes ranging from depression and diabetes to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive impairment. Wilson has endured plenty of criticism for her position, which is not popular among the nutrition-science establishment. But she stands by it. Sweeping recommendations to avoid all ultra-processed foods stand to confuse people and make them feel bad about their diets, Wilson says—with questionable upside for their health."