3 ms·
This paper seems to assume that "ultra-processed" is a previously defined term. Is there an agreed upon definition somewhere?
by johnkpaul 7y ago
This paper seems to assume that "ultra-processed" is a previously defined term. Is there an agreed upon definition somewhere?
- jolmg 7y agoThere's a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food That links to a report from a United Nations organization that also uses the term: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4690e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4690e.pdf On page 30, there's a section titled "Group 4: Ultra-processed food and drink products" which describes what an ultra-processed food or drink is. That PDF also has 10 references to papers that use the term in their title.
- wcunning 7y agoWikipedia article linked also says "As of 2018 the concept is loose and evolving" linking to a newer article than the UN report, so why would I think this paper used the UN definition? The Wikipedia article further goes on to state "The utility of the NOVA classification has been subject to criticism. However, a 2018 publication from the founders of the NOVA classification uncovered misleading and incorrect statements in the critical appraisal, as well as non-disclosed conflicts of interest." Basically, I don't see a terribly agreed upon definition. Things point several ways, and the GP's concern about definition is entirely valid.
- denzil_correa 7y ago> so why would I think this paper used the UN definition? Because if you read the paper from the OP link, the authors cite that their definition of ultra-processed food is from Monteiro et al 2008 viz. the same UN definition the OP refers to which is widely agreed upon.