3 ms·

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like w

by theamk 2y ago

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet: "industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years); "edible substance" - check! (very edible, yum-yum) "derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." - check! (what isn't) .. so it's an UPF and should get a warning label? If they want to start passing the laws related to UPF, I'd like to see a good clear definition first. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food

ianburrell 2y ago
The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Depends on preservatives. Nitrites/Nitrates used with cured meats seem to be less than ideal... On other hand they also increase food safety... Which also opens up question of what factors we balance. Removing too many preservatives from food likely will increase waste. Which then have corresponding impact emissions and resources in general...
- esd_g0d 2y ago
  Yeah, to me the whole discussion of "UPF = unhealthy" is based on a romanticization of "natural" that breaks down if you try to make sense of it. If you use the right words, you can make even cheese and butter sound ultra processed. So the concept of UPF itself is shaky. Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the "food processing" process that makes the material "unhealthy" -- whatever those words mean. So even if we could define UPFs, there wouldn't be an inherent correlation with unhealthiness, as pointed out in the example of fruit juice -- a personal favorite of mine, because the natural crowd loves fruit juice (don't get me wrong, I love it too, but I'm aware it's just candy)
turtlebits 2y ago
Personally, my family avoids foods with hydrogenated ingredients, and added phosphates, nitrites or sulfites.
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
Yes, the definition is everything except raw meat and raw vegetables. Also, the health impacts alleged are negligible and will be altered drastically in 5 years. Ergo, none of this is worth thinking about and is just a busybox for people's death anxiety.
NoPicklez 2y ago
Everytime a discussion around UPF comes up, there is the question about the definition and people do often get lost in the detail. There are some very good definitions and approaches to UPF's, like many have said the NOVA classification has a good definition and classification matrix. However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions. In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form. In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.
msteffen 2y ago
I wrote a top-level comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168) before I read yours, but from Tulleken’s book, my understanding is the difference basically comes down to “would you ever make this in your kitchen, or no?” I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.

by theamk 2y ago

ianburrell 2y ago

The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.

Ekaros 2y ago
Depends on preservatives. Nitrites/Nitrates used with cured meats seem to be less than ideal... On other hand they also increase food safety... Which also opens up question of what factors we balance. Removing too many preservatives from food likely will increase waste. Which then have corresponding impact emissions and resources in general...
esd_g0d 2y ago
Yeah, to me the whole discussion of "UPF = unhealthy" is based on a romanticization of "natural" that breaks down if you try to make sense of it. If you use the right words, you can make even cheese and butter sound ultra processed. So the concept of UPF itself is shaky. Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the "food processing" process that makes the material "unhealthy" -- whatever those words mean. So even if we could define UPFs, there wouldn't be an inherent correlation with unhealthiness, as pointed out in the example of fruit juice -- a personal favorite of mine, because the natural crowd loves fruit juice (don't get me wrong, I love it too, but I'm aware it's just candy)

turtlebits 2y ago

Personally, my family avoids foods with hydrogenated ingredients, and added phosphates, nitrites or sulfites.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

Yes, the definition is everything except raw meat and raw vegetables. Also, the health impacts alleged are negligible and will be altered drastically in 5 years. Ergo, none of this is worth thinking about and is just a busybox for people's death anxiety.

NoPicklez 2y ago

Everytime a discussion around UPF comes up, there is the question about the definition and people do often get lost in the detail. There are some very good definitions and approaches to UPF's, like many have said the NOVA classification has a good definition and classification matrix. However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions. In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form. In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.

msteffen 2y ago

I wrote a top-level comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168) before I read yours, but from Tulleken’s book, my understanding is the difference basically comes down to “would you ever make this in your kitchen, or no?” I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.