3 ms·

https://archive.is/Z1jOB https://archive.is/Z1jOB Paper: [SACN and COT assessment of the health benefits and risks of consuming plant-based drinks: summary](ht

https://archive.is/Z1jOB https://archive.is/Z1jOB Paper: [SACN and COT assessment of the health benefits and risks of consuming plant-based drinks: summary](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plant-based-drinks-health-benefits-and-risks/sacn-and-cot-assessment-of-the-health-benefits-and-risks-of-consuming-plant-based-drinks-summary https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plant-based-drink...) .. note there's some UK specific aspects of the study: > Plant-based drinks in the UK that are labelled as ‘organic’ are not allowed to be fortified with any nutrients. > Most plant-based drinks would be classified as ‘ultra-processed’ according to the NOVA classification. The findings also conclude: > Replacing cows’ milk with almond, oat or soya drinks would result in potential benefits and risks from both a nutritional and a toxicological perspective. .. so hardly a slam dunk.

esperent 1y ago
> according to the NOVA classification. I have massive problems with the NOVA classification. For example, anything traditional gets a pass. Cheese? Traditional, so it's not highly processed, even if made in a factory. Oat milk? New, so it's classified as highly processed , even when there's less actual processing happening (talking about mass produced but real cheese here, not the American stuff). I do get the idea behind NOVA, it's designed to be simple, to statistically improve the diets of people in Europe, and to accept that they won't stop people eating traditional foods so they should ignore them. Overall, trying to have less NOVA food items in your diet is a good start to healthy eating. However, there's no nuance. It's (intentionally) simplistic. It falls apart when you focus on individual items like this, and it will get used this way. Many things classified as highly processed, considered individually, could be fairly healthy. Many things not classified as highly processed, considered individually, could be unhealthy. Statistically, applied to all foods, it should help steer people towards a healthier diet. But when talking about an individual food, you should have a stronger case than "it's NOVA classified as highly processed" before dismissing it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Scarblac 1y ago
  It's a classification proposed by a Brasilian researcher at the university of Sao Paolo, not European. [0] He noticed a trend of obesity among the poor in the 90s and did statistical analyses to group ingredients into more traditional and more highly processed groups. An ingredient like cheese probably isn't the cause of the obesity epidemic among the poor as it already existed long before it. I think the main advantage of using Nova is that so many other studies did, so results can be compared. That's an important advantage. And it's good enough to show health differences between processed foods and traditional foods. There must be something to it, even if it's not perfect. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
  - aziaziazi 1y ago
    Tonyu (soy milk) isn’t neither a cause of obesity in Asia, and by the way is a traditional food over there. It already contains Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Iron. I hardly see how adding some B12, more calcium… leads to bad health effects. I think we all know that the principal bad ingredients in processed beverage are sugar, sweeteners… but that’s neither a basic or traditional ingredient in tonyu. Saying "soy milk is HPF" is like saying "cow milk is HPF" based on the studies of milk-based -junk-food-drinks. It’s good to have a common scale and you have to take shortcuts to define it, however it’s important to understand those shortcuts and not following the blindly. I also highly encourage anyone trying marinated tofu (read the ingredients), those are also considered HPF by Nova but most of them aren’t worse than smash potatoes with a vegetable broth.
  - esperent 1y ago
    > It's a classification proposed by a Brasilian researcher at the university of Sao Paolo, not European Ah, interesting. I've seen it pushed on European news outlets recently, I assumed it was an EU thing. But as to the rest of your point - we agree, it's a statistical analysis. It shouldn't be used in discussions about whether any one particular food is healthy or not. However, here and on reddit, I've seen several comments using it to claim that specific food items like oat milk are unhealthy.
    - 1y ago

esperent 1y ago

> according to the NOVA classification. I have massive problems with the NOVA classification. For example, anything traditional gets a pass. Cheese? Traditional, so it's not highly processed, even if made in a factory. Oat milk? New, so it's classified as highly processed , even when there's less actual processing happening (talking about mass produced but real cheese here, not the American stuff). I do get the idea behind NOVA, it's designed to be simple, to statistically improve the diets of people in Europe, and to accept that they won't stop people eating traditional foods so they should ignore them. Overall, trying to have less NOVA food items in your diet is a good start to healthy eating. However, there's no nuance. It's (intentionally) simplistic. It falls apart when you focus on individual items like this, and it will get used this way. Many things classified as highly processed, considered individually, could be fairly healthy. Many things not classified as highly processed, considered individually, could be unhealthy. Statistically, applied to all foods, it should help steer people towards a healthier diet. But when talking about an individual food, you should have a stronger case than "it's NOVA classified as highly processed" before dismissing it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Scarblac 1y ago
It's a classification proposed by a Brasilian researcher at the university of Sao Paolo, not European. [0] He noticed a trend of obesity among the poor in the 90s and did statistical analyses to group ingredients into more traditional and more highly processed groups. An ingredient like cheese probably isn't the cause of the obesity epidemic among the poor as it already existed long before it. I think the main advantage of using Nova is that so many other studies did, so results can be compared. That's an important advantage. And it's good enough to show health differences between processed foods and traditional foods. There must be something to it, even if it's not perfect. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
- aziaziazi 1y ago
  Tonyu (soy milk) isn’t neither a cause of obesity in Asia, and by the way is a traditional food over there. It already contains Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Iron. I hardly see how adding some B12, more calcium… leads to bad health effects. I think we all know that the principal bad ingredients in processed beverage are sugar, sweeteners… but that’s neither a basic or traditional ingredient in tonyu. Saying "soy milk is HPF" is like saying "cow milk is HPF" based on the studies of milk-based -junk-food-drinks. It’s good to have a common scale and you have to take shortcuts to define it, however it’s important to understand those shortcuts and not following the blindly. I also highly encourage anyone trying marinated tofu (read the ingredients), those are also considered HPF by Nova but most of them aren’t worse than smash potatoes with a vegetable broth.
- esperent 1y ago
  > It's a classification proposed by a Brasilian researcher at the university of Sao Paolo, not European Ah, interesting. I've seen it pushed on European news outlets recently, I assumed it was an EU thing. But as to the rest of your point - we agree, it's a statistical analysis. It shouldn't be used in discussions about whether any one particular food is healthy or not. However, here and on reddit, I've seen several comments using it to claim that specific food items like oat milk are unhealthy.
  - 1y ago