3 ms·

It refers to the NOVA classification of foods, developed from research at the University of São Paulo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https:/

by ufo 2y ago

It refers to the NOVA classification of foods, developed from research at the University of São Paulo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification The tl;dr of ultraprocessed is that it's those exclusively industrial foods prepared with ingredients you wouldn't stock in your pantry (high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, protein isolate, etc) In part, these foods are bad because they are high in sygar and salt. But that's not the point of the classification, which intentionally takes a step back from the old approach based of mesuring the individul ingredients and macronutrients. The central thesis is that, for public health policy it's easier to frame it as a discussion of traditional food vs industrial junk, and how ultraprocessed foods are replacing traditional foods. The classification doesn't want to get lost in the details of ingredients, which the industry has always been adept at gaming anyway (fat is the boogeyman -> replace it with sugar, add vitamins to make it sound healthier, etc)

dolni 2y ago
> for public health policy it's easier Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point. After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for public health policy. Do the work. "Easier" got us "N95s don't protect against COVID" and then it was "oh wait, actually cloth masks do!" A lot of this stuff relies on trust. I won't sit here and try to pretend that you will find health eating Doritos or McDonald's Big Macs. But is something like a low-sugar protein bar a decent option? How about Soylent? These are the nuanced questions that are actually useful to answer. Nobody actually thinks "ultra processed foods" are good for you to begin with.
- ufo 2y ago
  Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. The Brazilian dietary guidelines that were inspired by NOVA places a lot of importance in the social aspects of procuring food, preparing it, and eating it. In a sense, it's the antithesis of products such as Soylent.
  - dolni 2y ago
    > Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict of interest? What kind of sense does that make? > The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. I wasn't make a comment on what they do. I was making a comment on what I would find useful. I don't find saying "ultraprocessed bad mmmm'kay" particularly interesting or insightful. All processes and preservatives are not equal. Pretending they are (or even just glossing over the details) is unscientific and a waste of time and money.
novariation 2y ago
> "for public policy it's easier to frame it as traditional food vs industrial junk" This isn't research, this is simplistic populist fear-mongering. It's a bit like saying "the economic research does not want to go into the details of the different economic benefits and drawbacks of immigration, instead it's easier to frame it as the smart educated whites versus the hordes of dirty foreigners coming into the country" and expecting this argument to be taken seriously.

by ufo 2y ago

dolni 2y ago

> for public health policy it's easier Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point. After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for public health policy. Do the work. "Easier" got us "N95s don't protect against COVID" and then it was "oh wait, actually cloth masks do!" A lot of this stuff relies on trust. I won't sit here and try to pretend that you will find health eating Doritos or McDonald's Big Macs. But is something like a low-sugar protein bar a decent option? How about Soylent? These are the nuanced questions that are actually useful to answer. Nobody actually thinks "ultra processed foods" are good for you to begin with.

ufo 2y ago
Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. The Brazilian dietary guidelines that were inspired by NOVA places a lot of importance in the social aspects of procuring food, preparing it, and eating it. In a sense, it's the antithesis of products such as Soylent.
- dolni 2y ago
  > Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict of interest? What kind of sense does that make? > The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. I wasn't make a comment on what they do. I was making a comment on what I would find useful. I don't find saying "ultraprocessed bad mmmm'kay" particularly interesting or insightful. All processes and preservatives are not equal. Pretending they are (or even just glossing over the details) is unscientific and a waste of time and money.

novariation 2y ago

> "for public policy it's easier to frame it as traditional food vs industrial junk" This isn't research, this is simplistic populist fear-mongering. It's a bit like saying "the economic research does not want to go into the details of the different economic benefits and drawbacks of immigration, instead it's easier to frame it as the smart educated whites versus the hordes of dirty foreigners coming into the country" and expecting this argument to be taken seriously.