6 ms·

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" whi

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

zug_zug 2y ago
We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]
- theteapot 2y ago
  So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    Deep fried instant noodles are extremely bad for you. It’s possible to buy baked (non-fried) varieties and the only difference I’ve noticed is that the cooking time goes up by a few minutes.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Noodles don't need to be fried or baked, and I would think that baking them would produce nasty acrylamide in even greater quantities than frying them does unless perhaps the baker is using carefully-controlled low temperatures, which it is unrealistic to assume an economically-motivated producer would do. But then maybe noodles do need to be fried or baked to have a long shelf life in hot weather when refrigeration is not available? But even in a hot climate, white flour has a long shelf-life, and a person without a refrigerator can make noodles from scratch like the Italians like to do. (The Italians tend to add eggs, but I am guessing grandparent has regular access to eggs.)
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        Suggesting scratch-made noodles as a reasonable alternative to instant noodles demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of the reason people eat instant noodles, not to mention the lack of reasoning it would take to deduce that people drawn to a product labeled "instant" are probably looking for something relatively quick.
        hollerith 2y ago
        Astonishing.
neuralRiot 2y ago
Foods should have a “health score rating” similar to cars safety score.
zero-sharp 2y ago
Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less. Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take? I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of those instances in the past where we created harm by exposing ourselves to something novel, prior to it being understood scientifically. I don't think exercising caution is unscientific.
- filoleg 2y ago
  You aren’t addresing the problem posed by the grandparent comment. You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.
  - zero-sharp 2y ago
    Like I said, it's not binary. The UPF category can be too broad to the point of it being meaningless. Somebody else in the comment chain mentioned creating a score instead. The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be top ramen. And yet, I still think we should discourage it.
    - filoleg 2y ago
      Thanks for elaborating on your point, because I actually agree with it more after this. > The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).
why_at 2y ago
I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. Defining what counts as an ultra-processed food is challenging, and the actual causal link to health outcomes is far from clear. This article from Science-Based Medicine makes a good case against this kind of thing.[0] What can we actually do to make people eat healthier though? Rising obesity rates are one of those societal problems where I'm not sure what the solution is. The best strategy I can think of is something like "do our best to solve poverty and hope that this helps with obesity as well". [0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ultraprocessed-foods/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ultraprocessed-foods/
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors. Say I am choosing between two types of ham.
  - why_at 2y ago
    >Say I am choosing between two types of ham. I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this would help you with ham though. Probably either all ham counts as ultra processed, or none of it does. (My money is on the former) If it was based on the number of ingredients, maybe there would be some case where one ham has an additional flavoring or something that puts it over the limit. But how likely is it that the extra ingredients would have a significant effect? Probably not much compared to the ham itself, plus the salt or whatever that's in it.
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      I am not expert, but first google link says that simplest curing process is to brine it for 3 days in salted water and then bake, I don't think it will be counted as ultra-processed: https://www.homesicktexan.com/how-to-cure-ham/ https://www.homesicktexan.com/how-to-cure-ham/ But I think corps likely apply tons of chemicals to extend shelf life, make process faster and improve taste. From another hand, I had no idea what is the process until I just googled. And I buy many types of food, and don't have chance to do my research, so labeling would be superhelpful.
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 defining 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. It's not so much if something is a UPF or not, but its to what degree is that particular food processed and is it so processed that it is considered a UPF. I'd recommend reading the labels here https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova There is so much nuance in here, yes drinking lots of coke which is considered a UPF is bad for you and there's plenty of studies to show that. However like many things its the dose that makes the poison, which is also true of many foods considered processed or not. Studies are showing that introducing things like dyes and other colours, colour stabilizers; flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners; and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants are introducing unhealthy outcomes
- pornel 2y ago
  It's a shame it's just based on correlation with many additives/processes together, and individual contributing factors weren't singled out. The mechanically-separated pink sludge McNuggets may be ultra processed, but I'd like to know if I put a chicken in a blender myself, is it going to be "processed" too. Or maybe the problem is not processing, but just HFCS additives? As a whole the definition is too close to "natural" fallacy to me.
  - NoPicklez 2y ago
    I don't think so, they're a set of principles to go off of as a way to classify. In the case of a fresh chicken with nothing done to it but blended, then it would be a minimally processed food. But if you take the blended chicken and add Water, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil), Enriched Flour (bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Bleached Wheat Flour, Yellow Corn Flour, Vegetable Starch (modified Corn, Wheat, Rice, Pea, Corn), Salt, Leavening (baking Soda, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Calcium Lactate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Spices, Yeast Extract, Lemon Juice Solids, Dextrose, Natural Flavors. Then it is considered ultra-processed.

zug_zug 2y ago

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]

theteapot 2y ago
So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  Deep fried instant noodles are extremely bad for you. It’s possible to buy baked (non-fried) varieties and the only difference I’ve noticed is that the cooking time goes up by a few minutes.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Noodles don't need to be fried or baked, and I would think that baking them would produce nasty acrylamide in even greater quantities than frying them does unless perhaps the baker is using carefully-controlled low temperatures, which it is unrealistic to assume an economically-motivated producer would do. But then maybe noodles do need to be fried or baked to have a long shelf life in hot weather when refrigeration is not available? But even in a hot climate, white flour has a long shelf-life, and a person without a refrigerator can make noodles from scratch like the Italians like to do. (The Italians tend to add eggs, but I am guessing grandparent has regular access to eggs.)
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      Suggesting scratch-made noodles as a reasonable alternative to instant noodles demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of the reason people eat instant noodles, not to mention the lack of reasoning it would take to deduce that people drawn to a product labeled "instant" are probably looking for something relatively quick.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        Astonishing.

neuralRiot 2y ago

Foods should have a “health score rating” similar to cars safety score.

zero-sharp 2y ago

Sure, it's not a binary classification. Now what? I'm confident that you can distinguish between foods with more additives and those with less. Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take? I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of those instances in the past where we created harm by exposing ourselves to something novel, prior to it being understood scientifically. I don't think exercising caution is unscientific.

filoleg 2y ago
You aren’t addresing the problem posed by the grandparent comment. You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  Like I said, it's not binary. The UPF category can be too broad to the point of it being meaningless. Somebody else in the comment chain mentioned creating a score instead. The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be top ramen. And yet, I still think we should discourage it.
  - filoleg 2y ago
    Thanks for elaborating on your point, because I actually agree with it more after this. > The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).

why_at 2y ago

I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. Defining what counts as an ultra-processed food is challenging, and the actual causal link to health outcomes is far from clear. This article from Science-Based Medicine makes a good case against this kind of thing.[0] What can we actually do to make people eat healthier though? Rising obesity rates are one of those societal problems where I'm not sure what the solution is. The best strategy I can think of is something like "do our best to solve poverty and hope that this helps with obesity as well". [0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ultraprocessed-foods/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ultraprocessed-foods/

riku_iki 2y ago
> I agree that this proposed regulation seems like it probably won't help. I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors. Say I am choosing between two types of ham.
- why_at 2y ago
  >Say I am choosing between two types of ham. I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this would help you with ham though. Probably either all ham counts as ultra processed, or none of it does. (My money is on the former) If it was based on the number of ingredients, maybe there would be some case where one ham has an additional flavoring or something that puts it over the limit. But how likely is it that the extra ingredients would have a significant effect? Probably not much compared to the ham itself, plus the salt or whatever that's in it.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    I am not expert, but first google link says that simplest curing process is to brine it for 3 days in salted water and then bake, I don't think it will be counted as ultra-processed: https://www.homesicktexan.com/how-to-cure-ham/ https://www.homesicktexan.com/how-to-cure-ham/ But I think corps likely apply tons of chemicals to extend shelf life, make process faster and improve taste. From another hand, I had no idea what is the process until I just googled. And I buy many types of food, and don't have chance to do my research, so labeling would be superhelpful.

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 defining 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. It's not so much if something is a UPF or not, but its to what degree is that particular food processed and is it so processed that it is considered a UPF. I'd recommend reading the labels here https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova There is so much nuance in here, yes drinking lots of coke which is considered a UPF is bad for you and there's plenty of studies to show that. However like many things its the dose that makes the poison, which is also true of many foods considered processed or not. Studies are showing that introducing things like dyes and other colours, colour stabilizers; flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners; and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants are introducing unhealthy outcomes

pornel 2y ago
It's a shame it's just based on correlation with many additives/processes together, and individual contributing factors weren't singled out. The mechanically-separated pink sludge McNuggets may be ultra processed, but I'd like to know if I put a chicken in a blender myself, is it going to be "processed" too. Or maybe the problem is not processing, but just HFCS additives? As a whole the definition is too close to "natural" fallacy to me.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  I don't think so, they're a set of principles to go off of as a way to classify. In the case of a fresh chicken with nothing done to it but blended, then it would be a minimally processed food. But if you take the blended chicken and add Water, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil), Enriched Flour (bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Bleached Wheat Flour, Yellow Corn Flour, Vegetable Starch (modified Corn, Wheat, Rice, Pea, Corn), Salt, Leavening (baking Soda, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Calcium Lactate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Spices, Yeast Extract, Lemon Juice Solids, Dextrose, Natural Flavors. Then it is considered ultra-processed.