Talk:Junk food

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuanting Wang 03 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hadis07, Ywan1031.

Request for expansion on this article would be appreciated. (As of May 13, 2006) More general information would be appreciated.

The phrase 'junk food' seems particularly uninformative and not based on sound science. Is the claim that the health risk is that 'junk food' tastes so good and is so convenient that it encourages overeating and resultant obesity? That seems plausible. Or is the claim that 'junk food' diets will result in poor health due to lack of vitamins, minerals, etc? Is there any evidence of of the latter argument? And couldn't a simple daily vitamin remove any risk of that? Scotchex 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says fruit juice is "healthy"; from reading the nutrition facts on most juices though, they seem pretty much like sugar water. What are the benefits of drinking juice, aside from the fact that some have vitamin C (a nutrient pretty much no one in developed countries is lacking in)? Ralphael 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the CamBottom footer on this page? --Diberri | Talk 04:26, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

'Certain users' have been fly posting them all over articles where they don't belong, and reverting it with rv vandalism when someone removes it. It is currently one of the matters under consideration as a matter under arbitration and should hopefully be resolved soon , so people can remove these things permanently from where they don't belong. - Xgkkp 00:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. See: [1] and contribute if you wish. --bodnotbod 01:37, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I considered contributing, but as I've had no direct experience with MNH, I decided against adding to the existing "official" evidence. FWIW, MNH appears to be a very knowledgeable contributor, and I'm sure we could all learn a bit from him. But these edit wars, flagrant personal attacks, and misattribution of articles (e.g. junk food as a CAM article) are causing nothing but heightened frustration and a tendency for his fellow Wikipedians to resent him. It's a shame. --Diberri | Talk 02:51, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. There are alternetive viewpoints to be made, unfortunately MNH seems intent on giving that area a bad name. --bodnotbod 13:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Practitioners of alternative medicine may recommend changes to diet as part of their recommendations for treatment. Per 17:27, 4 Jun 2004 Kd4ttc (Add alt med - Food and health) made in Food. Yes, indeed, avoiding junk food is a major part of some alternative health programs such as natural health. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would think that avoiding Knives would reduce the risk of injury, and so therefore be better for your health. Should Knives also have one of these Cam boxes added to the bottom of it? I don't think that 'recommendation to avoid something' would mean it comes under the scope of alternative practices, rather that only if something 'abnormal' was recommended it would come into scope. - Xgkkp 01:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

set up an alt med nutrition article thenGeni 01:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: as I believe plain removing it again (see history) would provoke a revert war, I switched it to the tiny version to attempt a temporary compromise until the editor in question forgets this article or loses interest in their strange hobby.... - Xgkkp 01:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is on his watch list so He wont forget it.Geni 01:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Junk food is a 100% alternative medicine term just like wellness cleaarly is. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever, I'm not going to argue, for now. But Geni, since he's not going to give in any time soon, could you at least change the CamBoxes to the less obtrusive CamTiny entries instead of plain deleting them, as we know that just starts revert wars. - Xgkkp 01:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've got another form of compamise planned. Hopeful one which will provide a relivant link while giving MNH the alt med thing he wantsGeni 01:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope. It is a term used to catogrise certian food types used by number of groups. By the same logic you should insert one of you boxes into quantum theory (certainly it's something certian alt med practioners go on about a lot)Geni 01:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Junk food is a 100% alternative medicine term" - MNH, I truly believe you are one of the few people in the world who believes that, if not the only one. If it is the case, please offer some citations, some evidence to back up that statement. --bodnotbod 13:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Removed apparent vandalism (for lack of a better term) I removed the following few lines from the article: "A Modern-day teenager at home love to gorgr on burgers and pizzas, puppy fat makes him look cute, he hates physical activity and is addicted to junk food. he is the perfect host for "sweet killer" diabetes to strike. And sadly, more and more youngsters are falling prey to this disease." Though the increasing rates of diabetes is disheartening, this is not the format inorder to state that. (D.c.camero (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This does not strike me as much of an argument.Geni

There is no such thing as the "alternative health movement". Sure there are a number of separate advocating groups but no universal alternative health groups. You are completely excluding environmental campaigners and a large area of conventional public health.

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)

I removed the statement that the crackdown on junkfood advertising has resulted in an increase in eating disorders. It had no reference, and although both may have happened more or less simultaneously a correlation would be difficult to prove. The subsequent info on eating disorders now seems out of place without the misleading opening sentence.

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. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 19:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So a catogry is now a comunity? I don't recall sayiong that the alt med postion on anything was valid. I would love to see some back up for the stament "conventional medcine says there is no such thing a junk food" you must be using a slightly strange defintion of conventional medcineGeniand juan munis se la come by: a cigarroa student

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. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 04:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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:

• "Food Standards Agency - Key facts 10". Food Standards Agency. Retrieved 2008-04-02.

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:

• "Ofcom publishes final Statement on the television advertising of food and drink products to children". Ofcom. 2007-09-11. Retrieved 2008-04-02.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Effects in children

Eating disorders have increased five-fold among children 8-13, one clinic noting that one child as young as five developing anorexia.^[1] According to NHANES III, two-thirds of teenage girls who are trying to eat "healthy" by avoiding junk foods are deficient in iron, calcium and other important nutrients.^[2]

Many teenage girls, already the most poorly nourished of any group in America, have stopped drinking milk or eating meat in their extreme fear of fat. -Frances Berg, MS, author of Women Afraid to Eat

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The current list of "junk foods" contains several sweeping generalizations, is misleading and is essentially useless. Read: Junk food includes foods such as hamburgers, hot dogs, chocolate, ice cream, cake, French fries (if oil-baked) and pizza. Contrast a burger made of a sensible portion of lean beef on a whole-grain bun with lettuce, tomato and onion vs. a Big Mac; a home-made carrot, raisin/cranberry/currant and ginger cake with light cream cheese icing vs. a Hi-Ho, Ding-Dong or Twinkie; hand-cut skin-on french fries cooked at proper temperature in peanut oil vs. typical processed, over-salted fast-food fries; and pizza.. there are so many different possibilities as to make its inclusion laughable. Hamburgers, cakes and pizzas can all be of a very high nutritional quality - it is absurd to label these foods as "junk". And why single out poor old chocolate from the pantheon of candy? Drlegendre (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the list with a more sensible list, from a reasonable source. I really don't know how to do the citation properly, so maybe some nice person will fix it up a bit. Drlegendre (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)KatCray[reply]

Our current description holds that junk food is "an informal term applied to some foods that are perceived to have little or no nutritional value". An editor changed this to read "an informal term applied to foods that are low in micronutrients".

As an informal term, it certainly seems to be applied based on perception. As a test case, we certainly have foods that are "low in micronutrients" that are, to my knowledge, never called "junk food". Iceberg lettuce tops out at 7% DV of one nutrient per serving (all others are 3% or less). A "good source" of a nutrient is 10% or more, making this a good source of nothing (except, perhaps, water. While I've certainly heard iceberg lettuce disparaged by foodies, armchair nutritionists, vegetarians, etc., I've never heard it called "junk food"

On the other side, a McDonald's double cheeseburger, certainly called "junk food" somewhere, provides 10% of the DV of vitamin A and 25% of calcium (along with 54% DV of saturated fat). We probably need a broader/vaguer definition than we have, but the one I reverted clearly wasn't it. I'll look for something sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google gives a few seemingly reliable sources:

• "...food that tastes good but is high in calories having little nutritional value" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• "...food with high fat and sugar content, without correspondingly high amounts of protein, vitamins, or minerals" www.diet.com/g/glossary
• "Food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation" Google dictionary

Commonalities: "food"; low/little/not high nutritional value/protein, vitamins, minerals; nods to high calories/sugar and fat.

I get "food that is of little nutritional value and often high in fat, sugar and or calories." Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for any thoughts... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that "junk food" is a flawed, imprecise term. A distinct definition is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should go without saying that we cannot write an article about a subject without a well-sourced definition -- however flawed and imprecise it may be -- of what that subject is. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to define what is junk food. I suggest the term junk food is like the term cult, a label whose meaning depends on the viewpoint of the person applying it. "Cult" means a religion which is regarded as spurious, so it depends on who's doing the regarding. The (mostly secular) anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement have different outlooks, obviously.

I'm basically getting that junk food is opposed on the grounds of lacking genuine nutritional value. Unfortunately, I see no definition of "nutritional value" at Wikipedia. I wonder if the problem is that there are campaigns by groups like Greenpeace against certain types of processed food distributed by those seeking profit at the expense of the poor.

Can we at least get a scholarly or scientific definition of junk food in terms of what is and is not good for an individual human being's health? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junk is obviously prejudicial so usage of this term with respect to nutrition is very negative. I do not use this term because a large population uses such sources for their sustenance. Nevertheless in this project we reflect usage and this term resonates with fast food and comfort food in ambiguity. The definition from diet.com found by SummerPhD above sounds about right. Food chemistry is a difficult science that must navigate human diets, not animals, though a lot has been learned from the laboratory rat. Research has shown that regardless of chemical values on a plate, nutritional needs are best met in communal meals, so, failing that, sometimes slurs are made against food.Rgdboer (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has indeed clearly been written from the POV of the typical anti-capitalistic Birkenstock-wearing lentil-eater. I have there put what is essentially a perjorative political label in quotes in the lead, i.e. "Junk food".

There doesn't seem to be an agreed definition, as it's like the proverbial elephant in that one knows it when one sees it. I distinctly remember a flap in Britain some time ago when cheese (and some other "nutritious" foods) were caught in a ban on advertising junk foods to children, caused by the difficulty in defining junk food in a legally enforcable way. If I can find references to it, it would be worth including in the article.

Finally, is there substantial body of evidence that suggests junk food causes obesity per se? (I tagged this claim as dubious in the article) For sure, it's a great source of the calories necessary for obesity, but it's not a cause in itself: one could potentially become obese consuming an excessive amount of chickpeas, or sunflower seeds or vegetable suet whilst living a purely sedentary lifestyle. (I am not a nutritionist)

AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient profiling (also nutritional rating systems) seems like a good bet for discussing scientific definitions of junk food; separating "good" food from "bad," seems like a case of many models, little agreement between them (for example). Useful search: nutrient profile +"junk food".--Tsavage (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

A new version of the lead was just reverted to what is in my opinion a much more poorly written and supported version. I'm not clear why reversion rather than further development of the newer version was the chosen course. None of the content from the older version was removed, it was repositioned in the article body. And better sourcing is rather easy; give it a little time.

I see even as I'm writing this, the newer version was reinstated. This seems like a good point to pull back and discuss and edit, rather than edit war? --Tsavage (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was just a drive-by revert by a revert-happy editor who didn't even bother to look at the contents of the edit. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read a variety of pages while sourcing, this article could actually go way beyond the super-expanded dictionary definition it sort of is now, and cover some interesting stuff, like nutrient profiles (Disney's vs Pepsi's vs Brazil's in the profile wars!), the idea of "competitive foods," and some of the scientific research around satiation and the like, and the psycyological and legal aspects of regulating ads to kids (and adults), could make for a uniquely interesting article right here. I will try to contribute as time permits! Thanks for your edits. :) Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping in any way I can. I know little about the subject matter, unfortunately. Perhaps someone from WikiProject Food and drink could be asked to reassess the article and issue some pointers on the direction the article should take. With a lot of important stuff missing and a clear bias towards the "healthy eating" POV, I fear the article currently doesn't meet its C-class rating. Perhaps only Start-class at best. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google coughs up 46 million results on keywords "junk food" and 20 million on exact phrase "junk food," and several dictionaries have standalone definitions for the term, so we know it's notable and we have a neutral definition. It's also not exactly synonymous with anything else, like fast food or comfort food. But after the dictionary def - the high sugar, low-nutritional value basic stuff - what is it? How can we have news stories written about it, protests targeting it, legislation aimed at it, and not know what exactly it is, where it comes from, what it means, why it exists? Hahaha. Inquiring minds want to know...

The lead as it is now seems like a good starting point. I'll work on it as I can, following "common sense" (I know little about the subject, either). I'm not really concerned with seeking "expert" input (I've seen where that can go :), experts can contribute like everyone else. Nutrient profiling is one interesting angle, the profiles different parties have come up with to try and define junk food, for regulatory purposes among others. I linked to a paper on that above. For stuff like this, where it's fairly unfamiliar territory and I have limited time, I'll add in small increemnts, a sentence or two or paragraph at a time, fully cited of course, building like that, improving or removing existing material that needs it as I get there, and see where it all goes. If others did the same, it'll all kinda work out! Classic WP style!! --Tsavage (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you saying calories are calories, regardless of where they come from? --Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) The choice of the meals humans consume largely contributes to their optimal health and wellbeing. The 21st century has had health care organizations across the globe create awareness against the consumption of junk foods. Junk foods have key implications to myriads of spheres in human life. Restoring the balance of human emotional, physical and financial health, demands breaking the habit of consuming unhealthy foods. The aspect of junk food as the genesis of obesity, mood and financial cancer forms the foundational fabric of this discourse. Junk food disrupts physical health by predisposing human body to obesity and other health ailments. Searcey, Dionne, and Matt Richtel presents a case study on Ghana (1). As such Searcey, Dionne, and Matt Richtel argues that consumption of fast foods in Ghana resulted to a direct correlational proportionality as consumption of junk food led to an escalation of obesity of rates (1). The report asserts that obesity resulted to related complex health concerns such upsurge of heart attack rates. Searcey, Dionne, and Matt Richtel argues that consumption of French fries and fried chicken further led to diabetes and death. As such, it is evident that to eradicate these health challenges from the chain of healthcare in most states there is need to curb consumption of junk foods. Junk foods have adverse effects on moods. Bullen, James argues that the meals that we consume have a high impact on the endocrine system (1). Bullen, James justifies that foods that contain high sugar level content predispose variant emotions of depressions, drowsiness, and irritability. According to the report, the endocrine system and moods are closely linked, and that disruption of the system directly affects human emotions (1). The report adds that processed foods such as junk foods results in negativity and instant loss of energy (Bullen, James). As such, it is evident that consumption of junk foods creates a valid disruption of emotional health. To create a sound emotional balance, it is thus inevitable to eradicate the habit of consuming fast foods. Junk foods are extremely expensive. Kohut, Tania tables a price correlational study of health and junk foods (1). Kohut, Tania reports that junk foods are not only expensive on the shelves but also health wise (1). As such, Kohut, Tania adds that despite being overpriced compared to health foods, buyers end up contracting health diseases such as obesity and cancer and this attract financial burdens (1). It is this evident that consumers of junk foods pay a double price for purchasing junk foods. To create a solid financial health, it is imperative to purchase health foods and shun junk foods at all cost.[reply]

	The choice of balancing physical, emotional and financial health largely depends on the choice of foods we consume. Junk foods predispose the human body to myriads of health complexities such as obesity that disrupts physical health. Fast foods further create a clear disruption to the endocrine system and largely determine human perceptions and moods. Lastly, junk foods are overpriced and burden consumers with health ailments that attract financial bills and death. To evade these complexities, it is important to shun junk foods.   

Works Cited

Bullen, James. "The Foods Making You Feel Sad, Mad Or 'High On Life'." ABC News, 2017, www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-06-10/your-experiences-with-food-and- mood/8590710. Accessed 18 Oct 2017. Kohut, Tania. "Healthy Food Is Cheaper Than Junk Food, New Study Says." Global News, 2017, www.globalnews.ca/news/3290064/healthy-eating-food-prices/. Accessed 18 Oct 2017. Searcey, Dionne, and Matt Richtel. "Obesity Was Rising As Ghana Embraced Fast Food. Then Came KFC.." Nytimes.Com, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/health/ghana-kfc-obesity.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimwits (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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."^[1][2]

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)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Junk food/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 03:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I fixed it. ^いくらBraden1127 _イクラLet's Discuss It! ꅇ 16:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]