3 ms·

> Most fruits, meats, and vegetables don't spoil in only a few days. Modern flash freezing technology also makes frozen vegetables very nutritious and flavorful

• PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > This is why these labels are silly. There are a ton of edge cases that get missed. Do you have evidence that they considered frozen vegetables to be ultra-processed? Or are you just assuming they did? The study clearly shows that the ultra-processed foods were nutritionally worse, so I doubt they were referring to frozen vegetables. Let's give them some credit, shall we? The label isn't meant to be a guidebook for consumers. It's meant to be a classification system used for the purposes of this study. The researches didn't just blindly categorize things as ultra-processed and forget to check the validity of their classification. They show that the ultra-processed category of foods used in this study were, indeed, nutritionally worse. I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on assumed failures of this classification system. Even the linked article has quotes from the researchers that explain the nutritional aspects of the study. They weren't just blindly demonizing food processing.
  • dolni 5y ago
    > Do you have evidence that they considered frozen vegetables to be ultra-processed? Or are you just assuming they did? Last time this discussion came up, I told people to just read the actual study [1]. This link has it behind a paywall, but I am pretty sure it's the same one. Their section on "processed" describes some of the criteria as: > These include canned or bottled vegetables or legumes (pulses) preserved in brine; whole fruit preserved in syrup; tinned fish preserved in oil; some types of processed animal foods such as ham, bacon, pastrami, and smoked fish; most freshly baked breads; and simple cheeses to which salt is added. See Table 1, below. They are made by adding salt, oil, sugar or other substances from group 2 to group 1 foods. That reads to me as qualifying frozen vegetables as "processed" foods. > I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on assumed failures of this classification system. Even the linked article has quotes from the researchers that explain the nutritional aspects of the study. They weren't just blindly demonizing food processing. Likely because the headline and classification system cause people to come up with their own, not-quite-the-same idea of what "processed" and "ultra-processed" are. It reinforces the idea that "natural === good" which is not necessarily the case. Personally, I would rather see some attempt at quantifying thresholds for these ingredients. Yes, everyone should eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. We all know that, and yet we don't. Convenience is powerful. Can I lobby my congressman to ban a particular type of preservative which is strongly linked to cancer? Can I be hyper-vigilant for it in foods that I purchase? Maybe there are multiple such ingredients. Are they acceptable at different thresholds or worse when combined? I want something actionable, not a shock headline. [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf