3 ms·

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 conc

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.

marcus0x62 3y ago
Thank you for WELLL ACKSHUALLYING that for me. I did read my source documents, and I stand by what I wrote: the phrase ‘processed food’ is absolutely meaningless. That you can find a bunch of different, vague, and conflicting definitions of the same terms in common use is part of the problem. The stuff you quoted is, for the most part, absolute nonsense. Ultra processed foods are characterized by the involvement of “transnational” companies? Some ingredients in processed foods can be detrimental to health when consumed in excess? Really? Water is detrimental to health when consumed in excess. What about ingredients in non- and minimally-processed foods? I can think of several you should only eat in minimal quantities. The USDA definition is “regulatory” in nature, but NOVA’s is — what, exactly? You didn’t really say, but I’m guessing something like “health-based.” Their “group 4” definition includes all pre-prepared frozen meals. How is that useful? A prepackaged meal could be unhealthy to eat, or it could be quite healthy. You’d have to look at the ingredients to know for sure. That’s the thing - the only sensible thing to do is ignore the phrase and focus on individual ingredients and overall macro/micro nutritive content. Anti processed food advocates have rendered the phrase useless. And, by the way, the only reasons to add salt to canned tomatoes are to a) enhance the flavor and b) increase shelf life of said tomatoes.

marcus0x62 3y ago

Thank you for WELLL ACKSHUALLYING that for me. I did read my source documents, and I stand by what I wrote: the phrase ‘processed food’ is absolutely meaningless. That you can find a bunch of different, vague, and conflicting definitions of the same terms in common use is part of the problem. The stuff you quoted is, for the most part, absolute nonsense. Ultra processed foods are characterized by the involvement of “transnational” companies? Some ingredients in processed foods can be detrimental to health when consumed in excess? Really? Water is detrimental to health when consumed in excess. What about ingredients in non- and minimally-processed foods? I can think of several you should only eat in minimal quantities. The USDA definition is “regulatory” in nature, but NOVA’s is — what, exactly? You didn’t really say, but I’m guessing something like “health-based.” Their “group 4” definition includes all pre-prepared frozen meals. How is that useful? A prepackaged meal could be unhealthy to eat, or it could be quite healthy. You’d have to look at the ingredients to know for sure. That’s the thing - the only sensible thing to do is ignore the phrase and focus on individual ingredients and overall macro/micro nutritive content. Anti processed food advocates have rendered the phrase useless. And, by the way, the only reasons to add salt to canned tomatoes are to a) enhance the flavor and b) increase shelf life of said tomatoes.