2 ms·

> Overall, I think the fewer additives in foods and the less processed foods that we eat, the better off we will all be. Can someone define what a processed fo

> Overall, I think the fewer additives in foods and the less processed foods that we eat, the better off we will all be. Can someone define what a processed food is? Bread is processed. So is orange juice. Impossible Burgers are probably the most processed food you can find. I see this phrase used all the time, as if there is some universal understanding of what processed food is. But what's the actual definition? WebMD unhelpfully classifies anything but raw food as processed: > Processed foods refer to any food that’s changed from its natural state. This can include food that was simply cut, washed, heated, pasteurized, canned, cooked, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed, or packaged. It also can include food that has added preservatives, nutrients, flavors, salts, sugars, or fats.

happytoexplain 4y ago
It's ambiguous because our knowledge is ambiguous. The definition you found is exactly the definition people use - i.e. a non-specific one. The HN audience skews toward engineer-brain, where there are only two classifications: Well defined and not well defined. But in most contexts, that's unrealistic. The author's opinion can be useful and possibly true even without needing to know exactly what subset of "processed" is bad, in what degrees, in which contexts, etc etc. That knowledge is a goal, and is useless as prerequisite. This happens all the time. "Chemicals", "organic", "natural", "processed", "additives". In the context of food, these words have no concrete meanings (though 'organic' has some regulatory definition sometimes), but they do have colloquial meanings. Sometimes people use them vaguely because they don't have strong knowledge on the topic, and sometimes they use them to refer to something more real. For example: "I think the fewer additives in foods and the less processed foods that we eat, the better off we will all be." This sentence sounds vague, but it might be absolutely true. Not everything you might call "additives"/"processing" is bad, but some of it is! It's reasonable to believe that, on average, the things most people would consider "additives"/"processing", have some deleterious effects.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
"Processing" is the new "chemicals" (all food is full of chemicals -- it's nothing but chemicals!). Even peeling and/or cooking fruit and vegetables is processing.

happytoexplain 4y ago

It's ambiguous because our knowledge is ambiguous. The definition you found is exactly the definition people use - i.e. a non-specific one. The HN audience skews toward engineer-brain, where there are only two classifications: Well defined and not well defined. But in most contexts, that's unrealistic. The author's opinion can be useful and possibly true even without needing to know exactly what subset of "processed" is bad, in what degrees, in which contexts, etc etc. That knowledge is a goal, and is useless as prerequisite. This happens all the time. "Chemicals", "organic", "natural", "processed", "additives". In the context of food, these words have no concrete meanings (though 'organic' has some regulatory definition sometimes), but they do have colloquial meanings. Sometimes people use them vaguely because they don't have strong knowledge on the topic, and sometimes they use them to refer to something more real. For example: "I think the fewer additives in foods and the less processed foods that we eat, the better off we will all be." This sentence sounds vague, but it might be absolutely true. Not everything you might call "additives"/"processing" is bad, but some of it is! It's reasonable to believe that, on average, the things most people would consider "additives"/"processing", have some deleterious effects.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

"Processing" is the new "chemicals" (all food is full of chemicals -- it's nothing but chemicals!). Even peeling and/or cooking fruit and vegetables is processing.