4 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoDepends 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 agoYeah, 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)