Ultraprocessing
There is no clear, agreed definition of ‘ultra-processed’ foods: Some look to the production of processed carbohydrates and the use of chemical compounds since the 1950s; others point to the more general change in the levels of fats, carbohydrates, sat, and sugars in the modern processed diet, and the use of novel modified ingredients, all of which render the public more susceptible to consume more ‘empty’ calories because of the relative lack of vitamins and minerals compared to earlier diets. In turn, the expansion of food processing drives the higher ecological footprint of the Western lifestyle, where highly processed food is a means of selling food commodities as desirable consumer products, often fortified with chemical nutrients (itself a means of marketing the ‘benefit’ of food processing) to make-up for the loss of valuable nutrients during processing. Research suggests a diet dominated by ultra-processed foods leads to complex health effects ranging from allergy and auto-immune responses, to obesity, to malnutrition. In reality, given the variability of human genetic and gut flora, the effect of a rise in auto-immune and dietary-related illnesses is likely to be a mixture of environmental factors, though diet will be a key factor. Those seeking to avoid ultra-processed food products often buy ‘wholefoods’, or seek to grow their own fresh produce to enhance the level of nutrition in their diet.
See also: Consumerism, Ecological footprint, Green Revolution, Intensive farming, Wholefood.
‘Uncontested good’
Though not strictly classed as a logical fallacy, an ‘uncontested good’ is a term or statement which is never challenged in normal everyday debate. ‘We must have economic growth’, or ‘technology improves our lives’, and the classic in the news media, ‘we all have...’ or ‘we've all seen...’ (after which insert the the gadget or activity which largely only the affluent have or do). In reality an ‘uncontested good’ is never valid in all cases, if at all. Often such statements are made as a form of psychological group inclusion, setting the debate within its ‘safe’ limits which it will not contest. In reality, the best way to force a discussion on the terms of the debate is, with evidence, to challenge all such statements – clearly pointing out to their user that their claim is either inaccurate, or wrong, in the context it is being used.
See also: Logical fallacy.
Utilitarianism
Within early forms of liberal economics, Utilitarianism was a philosophy which advocated ‘the greatest good to the greatest number’ through the development of industries and new manufactured goods which raised the standard of living for all. As the dominant economic philosophy of the Nineteenth Century it advocated ‘material consumption’ as a measure of happiness; albeit the benefits of economic development were not equally shared, and in fact some bore the burden of poor life chances more than others in order to create those goods. This, however, was not an issue which was examined, since Utilitarianism presumed that it was the individual alone who was responsible for ‘bettering their circumstances’, not society. It was presumed that economic growth, like the tide, ‘raises all boats equally’, and this became a justification for the social degradations of ‘Victorian values’. To this day, these justifications are the basis for the most affluent individuals and states to disregard the growing wealth inequality seen in the world.
See also: , Aspiration, Industrial Revolution, Liberalism, Neoliberalism.