8 ms·

All the scientific evidence points to the fact that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy. There is much more money to be made in pushing the opposite view. But o

All the scientific evidence points to the fact that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy. There is much more money to be made in pushing the opposite view. But of course, those little mom and pop shops like Nestlé, Unilever et al don't have the money to do this, right?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
You realize that Nestlé and Unilever play both ends, owning both high and low-processed food brands, both factory and organic produce? The same way pharma companies are the ones making homeopathic "remedies". Food processing isn't evil, it's to a large degree a necessity. The alternative to processed food isn't everyone eating the mythical, health and happiness-granting fresh produce - it's population dropping to levels from early 20th century, and most people working on a farm. Food processing is what allows for both variety and for most of us to live far from where the food is grown. It does come with health costs, but you need to evaluate those in context of health impact of everything developed in the last 100 years, all of which depends on having most people doing something other than working the land. Or better yet, let's focus on specific processes, categories of food products, and corporations, instead of making a blanket "processed = bad" judgement.
- close04 3y ago
  When we’re talking about food quality then processed usually means bad, ultra processed is ultra bad [0]. What you’re thinking of are other externalities which may make the low quality acceptable compared to the alternative. Processed food is bad food. Bad food is better than no food. “Your money or your life” makes it look like losing all your money is good because it kept you alive. [0] Worked in the food industry at some point. I’ve seen how the sausage is made literally and figuratively.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  I think the disconnect here is that people don't consider that almost any action (process) applied to food post-harvest is 'processing' and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between healthy and unhealthy foods based on the 'processed' description. If you buy pre-cooked chicken breast, for instance, that's 'processed' in at least three ways: it was cut up, it was seasoned (including with salt, which is a preservative,) and it was cooked. Is that bad for you? Maybe, if they add too much salt. Otherwise, it is probably indistinguishable from the chicken breast you might cook at home. Pasteurization reduces food waste, but it also improves food safety. Are you better off without 'processed' (i.e., pasteurized) eggs if you're making something like Caesar dressing? I'd rather have the 'processed' eggs. I try not to eat Twinkies, not because they are 'processed' (home-made, scratch-made cake is also 'processed',) but because they contain a lot of sugar and high level of saturated fat. Personally, I try to avoid sugar as much as possible, and if I'm consuming something with saturated fat, like beef, I want to have a meaningful amount of protein. *Edit* Before anybody WELL, ACKSHUALLYS my definition of processed here, please refer to page 5 of this[0] document from the US Federal Government which includes the USDA definition of processed food: A processed food is “any food other than a raw agricultural commodity, including any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, heating, pasteurizing, blanching, cooking, canning, freezing, curing, dehydrating, mixing, packaging, or other procedures that alter the food from its natural state” (Dwyer et al. 2012). Also note their (US Aid) definition of 'Ultra Processed Food': Ultra-processed foodstuffs are marked by the addition of other ingredients (e.g., preservatives, flavors, nutrients, or other additives or substances, such as salt, sugars, and fats) (Dwyer et al. 2012; Martínez Steele et al. 2016; Monteiro et al. 2019). So, if I take tomatoes, add even a minimal amount of salt and basil, and can them, that's an 'ultra processed food'. This is what the fancy San Marzano tomato sauce you buy at Whole Foods is. If you think canned tomatoes are fundamentally unhealthy in some way, I cannot help you. 0 - https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZH5N.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZH5N.pdf
  - kuerbel 3y ago
    The definitions you've provided are part of a regulatory framework, but they may not fully capture the nuances of dietary recommendations and public health concerns regarding food consumption. In common dietary discussions, 'ultra-processed' foods are often understood as products that not only undergo extensive processing but also tend to have a low nutritional value and are associated with health concerns. While canning tomatoes with minimal salt and basil involves processing, it typically wouldn't be categorized as 'ultra-processed' because these additives are relatively simple and not intended to enhance the taste or shelf life to the same degree as many highly processed products. >I think the disconnect here is that people don't consider that almost any action (process) applied to food post-harvest is 'processing' and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between healthy and unhealthy foods based on the 'processed' description. What often distinguishes healthier foods from less healthy ones is the presence of certain ingredients and additives. For instance, excessive salt, sugars, unhealthy fats, and artificial additives in processed foods can be detrimental to health when consumed in excess. A little bit of salt added to a can of tomatoes isn't that unhealthy. Adding flavour enhancer, thickeners and stabilisers, color additives, texturizers etc would make it a ultra processed food. Which is also the NOVA definition. If you would have spent a minute looking at the sources in your document, it should be clear that a can of tomatoes with some salt and basil is not classified as ultra processed food. >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260459 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260459 >Generally, the practical way to identify if a product is ultra-processed is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens, or classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing (‘cosmetic additives’). >The issue is not processing. It is ultra-processed foods, the fourth group in the NOVA system of food classification. >Ultra-processed foods are not ‘real food’. As stated, they are formulations of food substances often modified by chemical processes and then assembled into ready-to-consume hyper-palatable food and drink products using flavours, colours, emulsifiers and a myriad of other cosmetic additives. Most are made and promoted by transnational and other giant corporations. Their ultra-processing makes them highly profitable, intensely appealing and intrinsically unhealthy.
- laurentlb 3y ago
  There are multiple levels of food processing. Nova defines 4 groups (https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova): 1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods 2. Processed culinary ingredients 3. Processed foods 4. Ultra-processed foods Research shows that ultra processed foods are usually linked with worse health outcomes. That doesn't mean that every single ultra processed food is bad, but it's enough to be cautious about it. It's better to buy minimally processed food, and cook it.
- kuerbel 3y ago
  >You realize that Nestlé and Unilever play both ends, owning both high and low-processed food brands, both factory and organic produce? Neither one owns a substantially large amount of "low processed food brands" or processes significant amount organic produce. They may have a few products that are labeled organic, but that amount is neligible. >Food processing isn't evil, it's to a large degree a necessity. The alternative to processed food isn't everyone eating the mythical, health and happiness-granting fresh produce - it's population dropping to levels from early 20th century, and most people working on a farm. From your answer I gather that you do not know what ultra-processed food means. >Or better yet, let's focus on specific processes, categories of food products, and corporations, instead of making a blanket "processed = bad" judgement. Yeah, that... is what the category ultra-processed is for. It is not simply "processed" food. Ultra-processed foods are highly engineered products that go through extensive processing, created from inexpensive ingredients such as sugars, fats, starches and often contain a long list of artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and preservatives. Processed foods on the other hand include canned vegetables, frozen fruits, and pre-packaged salads, with a shorter ingredient list and, usually, more nutritional value. A simple oat milk contains maybe 2-3 ingredients, while e.g. Alpro not milk contains: >Oat base (93.5%) (Water, Oat (8.3%)), Sunflower oil, Soluble corn fibre, Sugar, Pea protein, Calcium (Calcium carbonate), Acidity regulator (Potassium phosphates), Flavourings, Sea salt, Stabiliser (Gellan gum), Potassium iodide, Vitamin D2. And that is the difference between processed (oat milk: oat, water, maybe some oil) and ultra processed food (soluble corn fibre, sugar, flavourings, stabiliser). None of this is necessary to obtain a tasty oat milk with a good shelf life.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

You realize that Nestlé and Unilever play both ends, owning both high and low-processed food brands, both factory and organic produce? The same way pharma companies are the ones making homeopathic "remedies". Food processing isn't evil, it's to a large degree a necessity. The alternative to processed food isn't everyone eating the mythical, health and happiness-granting fresh produce - it's population dropping to levels from early 20th century, and most people working on a farm. Food processing is what allows for both variety and for most of us to live far from where the food is grown. It does come with health costs, but you need to evaluate those in context of health impact of everything developed in the last 100 years, all of which depends on having most people doing something other than working the land. Or better yet, let's focus on specific processes, categories of food products, and corporations, instead of making a blanket "processed = bad" judgement.

close04 3y ago
When we’re talking about food quality then processed usually means bad, ultra processed is ultra bad [0]. What you’re thinking of are other externalities which may make the low quality acceptable compared to the alternative. Processed food is bad food. Bad food is better than no food. “Your money or your life” makes it look like losing all your money is good because it kept you alive. [0] Worked in the food industry at some point. I’ve seen how the sausage is made literally and figuratively.
marcus0x62 3y ago
I think the disconnect here is that people don't consider that almost any action (process) applied to food post-harvest is 'processing' and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between healthy and unhealthy foods based on the 'processed' description. If you buy pre-cooked chicken breast, for instance, that's 'processed' in at least three ways: it was cut up, it was seasoned (including with salt, which is a preservative,) and it was cooked. Is that bad for you? Maybe, if they add too much salt. Otherwise, it is probably indistinguishable from the chicken breast you might cook at home. Pasteurization reduces food waste, but it also improves food safety. Are you better off without 'processed' (i.e., pasteurized) eggs if you're making something like Caesar dressing? I'd rather have the 'processed' eggs. I try not to eat Twinkies, not because they are 'processed' (home-made, scratch-made cake is also 'processed',) but because they contain a lot of sugar and high level of saturated fat. Personally, I try to avoid sugar as much as possible, and if I'm consuming something with saturated fat, like beef, I want to have a meaningful amount of protein. *Edit* Before anybody WELL, ACKSHUALLYS my definition of processed here, please refer to page 5 of this[0] document from the US Federal Government which includes the USDA definition of processed food: A processed food is “any food other than a raw agricultural commodity, including any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, heating, pasteurizing, blanching, cooking, canning, freezing, curing, dehydrating, mixing, packaging, or other procedures that alter the food from its natural state” (Dwyer et al. 2012). Also note their (US Aid) definition of 'Ultra Processed Food': Ultra-processed foodstuffs are marked by the addition of other ingredients (e.g., preservatives, flavors, nutrients, or other additives or substances, such as salt, sugars, and fats) (Dwyer et al. 2012; Martínez Steele et al. 2016; Monteiro et al. 2019). So, if I take tomatoes, add even a minimal amount of salt and basil, and can them, that's an 'ultra processed food'. This is what the fancy San Marzano tomato sauce you buy at Whole Foods is. If you think canned tomatoes are fundamentally unhealthy in some way, I cannot help you. 0 - https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZH5N.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZH5N.pdf
- kuerbel 3y ago
  The definitions you've provided are part of a regulatory framework, but they may not fully capture the nuances of dietary recommendations and public health concerns regarding food consumption. In common dietary discussions, 'ultra-processed' foods are often understood as products that not only undergo extensive processing but also tend to have a low nutritional value and are associated with health concerns. While canning tomatoes with minimal salt and basil involves processing, it typically wouldn't be categorized as 'ultra-processed' because these additives are relatively simple and not intended to enhance the taste or shelf life to the same degree as many highly processed products. >I think the disconnect here is that people don't consider that almost any action (process) applied to food post-harvest is 'processing' and it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between healthy and unhealthy foods based on the 'processed' description. What often distinguishes healthier foods from less healthy ones is the presence of certain ingredients and additives. For instance, excessive salt, sugars, unhealthy fats, and artificial additives in processed foods can be detrimental to health when consumed in excess. A little bit of salt added to a can of tomatoes isn't that unhealthy. Adding flavour enhancer, thickeners and stabilisers, color additives, texturizers etc would make it a ultra processed food. Which is also the NOVA definition. If you would have spent a minute looking at the sources in your document, it should be clear that a can of tomatoes with some salt and basil is not classified as ultra processed food. >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260459 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260459 >Generally, the practical way to identify if a product is ultra-processed is to check to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item characteristic of the ultra-processed food group, which is to say, either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens, or classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing (‘cosmetic additives’). >The issue is not processing. It is ultra-processed foods, the fourth group in the NOVA system of food classification. >Ultra-processed foods are not ‘real food’. As stated, they are formulations of food substances often modified by chemical processes and then assembled into ready-to-consume hyper-palatable food and drink products using flavours, colours, emulsifiers and a myriad of other cosmetic additives. Most are made and promoted by transnational and other giant corporations. Their ultra-processing makes them highly profitable, intensely appealing and intrinsically unhealthy.
laurentlb 3y ago
There are multiple levels of food processing. Nova defines 4 groups (https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova): 1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods 2. Processed culinary ingredients 3. Processed foods 4. Ultra-processed foods Research shows that ultra processed foods are usually linked with worse health outcomes. That doesn't mean that every single ultra processed food is bad, but it's enough to be cautious about it. It's better to buy minimally processed food, and cook it.
kuerbel 3y ago
>You realize that Nestlé and Unilever play both ends, owning both high and low-processed food brands, both factory and organic produce? Neither one owns a substantially large amount of "low processed food brands" or processes significant amount organic produce. They may have a few products that are labeled organic, but that amount is neligible. >Food processing isn't evil, it's to a large degree a necessity. The alternative to processed food isn't everyone eating the mythical, health and happiness-granting fresh produce - it's population dropping to levels from early 20th century, and most people working on a farm. From your answer I gather that you do not know what ultra-processed food means. >Or better yet, let's focus on specific processes, categories of food products, and corporations, instead of making a blanket "processed = bad" judgement. Yeah, that... is what the category ultra-processed is for. It is not simply "processed" food. Ultra-processed foods are highly engineered products that go through extensive processing, created from inexpensive ingredients such as sugars, fats, starches and often contain a long list of artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and preservatives. Processed foods on the other hand include canned vegetables, frozen fruits, and pre-packaged salads, with a shorter ingredient list and, usually, more nutritional value. A simple oat milk contains maybe 2-3 ingredients, while e.g. Alpro not milk contains: >Oat base (93.5%) (Water, Oat (8.3%)), Sunflower oil, Soluble corn fibre, Sugar, Pea protein, Calcium (Calcium carbonate), Acidity regulator (Potassium phosphates), Flavourings, Sea salt, Stabiliser (Gellan gum), Potassium iodide, Vitamin D2. And that is the difference between processed (oat milk: oat, water, maybe some oil) and ultra processed food (soluble corn fibre, sugar, flavourings, stabiliser). None of this is necessary to obtain a tasty oat milk with a good shelf life.