4 ms·
Discussion about this tends to get hung up on the relative harm of a particular food, let’s say a donut. But the article is really about a diet that is dominate
by Isamu 11mo ago
Discussion about this tends to get hung up on the relative harm of a particular food, let’s say a donut. But the article is really about a diet that is dominated by food like donuts.
>Evidence reviewed by 43 of the world’s leading experts suggests that diets high in UPF are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.
>This category is made up of products that have been industrially manufactured, often using artificial flavours, emulsifiers and colouring. They include soft drinks and packaged snacks, and tend to be extremely palatable and high in calories but low in nutrients.
>They are also designed and marketed to displace fresh food and traditional meals, while maximising corporate profits, Monteiro said.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoAn issue is that a meal of donuts and doritos is equally as ultraprocessed as a diet of bleached pasta and jarred tomato sauce with some preservatives. I don't have access to the paper, but it'd be interesting to see from the food surveys if the UPF domination is coming from stuff we'd traditionally call "junk food" or from foods that are similar to whole foods made from scratch but with some preservatives added.
- IAmBroom 11mo agoThe main point is: the category is correlated with poor health. That you can narrowly choose items in the category that (you believe) don't correlate with poor health doesn't refute the finding. IOW: you just made the mistake that the comment you are replying to warns you against.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoThat's not just the main point. The article references three papers, two of which are making policy arguments about UPFs. If we are going to propose interventions then it is rather important to understand these details.