step 0: clearly and accurately define what it means to be "ultraprocessed". Is a protien shake (like Ensure) considered ultraprocessed? Is a homemade chocolate chip cookie processed or ultraprocessed? Are frozen veggie chicken nuggets ultraprocessed?
Without a clear and accurate definition of what it means to be 'ultraprocessed' this would just add to the confusion.
The NOVA classification of foods has four groups [1], with the definition of Ultraprocessed as
> Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials. Ingredients include sugar, oils or fats, or salt, generally in combination, and substances that are sources of energy and nutrients that are of no or rare culinary use such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and protein isolates; classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents; and additives that prolong product duration, protect original properties or prevent proliferation of microorganisms.
The FAO also recommends that law should mandate that ultraprocessed food be labelled as such.
In the meantime, you can also just search for a particular food item on Openfoodfacts to see its classification. For instance, Nutella [2] is ultraprocessed.
>The NOVA food classification system with its identification and definition of ultra-processed foods is the one that by far has been most applied in the scientific literature
Seems like the NOVA food classification it's good enough for the actual experts in the field. I suspect _they_ find it quite useful and meaningful.
Probably so, but it seems too broad to be useful to me. It seems to include quite a lot of stuff that doesn't seem bad. This means any warning messages based on it aren't useful to me.
Of course, I may just be too ignorant of the subject to properly understand, in which case such warning labels should also come with some sort of educational effort.
Can you please expand on that? Because if I remember correctly, at least in Eastern Europe jam is made by boiling fruits with sugar, simmered down until it thickens. What boxes is exactly homemade jam ticking?
Indeed. If you don't add the sugar, its group 1: minimally processed. If you add industrially made sugar (a group 2 item), it becomes group 3: processed.
This commercial jam[0] is made with exactly the same ingredients as would be used to make home-made jam. It is Nova Group 4.
The problem with the group 4 definition is it is a mix of things that are genuinely harmful, things that are completely irrelevant to the health of a given food item, and broad, vague definitions that could be used to describe almost any prepared food item as “ultra-processed” if one were so inclined.
I make jam at home. I usually just heat the fruit (strawberries, raspberries etc) alone, with not even added sugar. That's group 1. If I add sugar, it becomes group 3. If I did add pectin for some reason, it becomes group 4.
Yes, I agree that group 4 is very broad, but I think as an initial attempt its good. Breaking things down into further groups is going to confuse people a lot more, especially because there are no distinct categories here. Too much overlap. Just asking people to eat less of group 4 is a much more reasonable public health objective.
But nobody uses industrial chemicals and processes at home. That said, I would consider refined sugar as ultraprocessed, and homemade jam includes a lot of it.
Refined sugar is Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients [1], not group 4: ultraprocessed. It's preparation does not include any of the steps specified in my quote above.
Sure, but the natural next step after ultraprocessed is highly refined products like sugar and flour, which I know is so much of people's current diet but that's why everyone has health problems.
NOVA considers most homemade jams ultra-processed not because of sugar, which is widely understood and proven to be unhealthy, but because of the use of fruit pectin as a gelling agent.
The irony here is that the more processed pectins can be used to reduce the amount of sugar in homemade jams (while still maintaining a jam-like consistency.)
Without the ability to document and report on how food is actually made, consumers just can't make that determination on their own. In our post-truth world, "broccoli" can mean either "broccoli", or "processed broccoli food product."
It is so validating to find out that I'm not the only one who has a problem with "processed foods". It feels so dumb that so much "wisdom" about the composition of our diet hinges on such a broad / vague / meaningless category. Life and the universe are endlessly complicated and taking shortcuts to understand it all by way of putting things in arbitrary boxes usually doesn't go so well.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with processing by itself, it’s what goes in the food that is problematic. I think just saying processing is harmful is like saying baking is harmful. They should be focused on what the food actually is, not how it is made.
“Ultra-processed foods typically contain things like artificial sweeteners, synthetic colors, flavors, emulsifiers, and other ingredients that people don’t cook with at home, Nestle said.”
So maybe focus on the harmful ingredients, not the way it is made.
I think it also depends on what, exactly, the "processing" consists of. Some processing is obviously benign, other processing is very questionable, but it all gets lumped into the broad category of "processed foods".
It should also include hilghly refined processes, which I guess still boils down to the ingredients, however things like refined sugar and refined carbs are very harmful and IMHO the main dietary problem for most people.
Is ultra-processed the right thing to target? European countries seem to go for labeling that indicates the balance of macronutrients and other important things like sodium. In the UK there's a traffic light system for fat, sugar (or maybe carbohydrates more broadly) and sodium. Typical store-bought food in the US is so over-flavored that most of it would be in the red category for salt and sugar. I want to avoid all consumption of high-fructose corn syrup, give me a label for that.
And while we're at it, mandate that nutrition facts have to be printed for a standardized "amount". I hate comparing the label of one food that has 7g of protein per 123g serving and another that has 9g protein per 144g serving.
27 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 90.9 ms ] threadWithout a clear and accurate definition of what it means to be 'ultraprocessed' this would just add to the confusion.
> Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials. Ingredients include sugar, oils or fats, or salt, generally in combination, and substances that are sources of energy and nutrients that are of no or rare culinary use such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and protein isolates; classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents; and additives that prolong product duration, protect original properties or prevent proliferation of microorganisms.
The FAO also recommends that law should mandate that ultraprocessed food be labelled as such.
In the meantime, you can also just search for a particular food item on Openfoodfacts to see its classification. For instance, Nutella [2] is ultraprocessed.
[1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf
[2] https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/3017620422003/nutell...
>The NOVA food classification system with its identification and definition of ultra-processed foods is the one that by far has been most applied in the scientific literature
Seems like the NOVA food classification it's good enough for the actual experts in the field. I suspect _they_ find it quite useful and meaningful.
Of course, I may just be too ignorant of the subject to properly understand, in which case such warning labels should also come with some sort of educational effort.
Personally, I can go around labeling my own food intake, and I estimate that at least 80-90% of my calories are not from ultraprocessed sources.
The problem with the group 4 definition is it is a mix of things that are genuinely harmful, things that are completely irrelevant to the health of a given food item, and broad, vague definitions that could be used to describe almost any prepared food item as “ultra-processed” if one were so inclined.
0 - https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/0096619217939/organi...
Yes, I agree that group 4 is very broad, but I think as an initial attempt its good. Breaking things down into further groups is going to confuse people a lot more, especially because there are no distinct categories here. Too much overlap. Just asking people to eat less of group 4 is a much more reasonable public health objective.
You'll never guess what is extracted from the fruit when you do this.
[1] https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/8850256100106/mitrph...
The irony here is that the more processed pectins can be used to reduce the amount of sugar in homemade jams (while still maintaining a jam-like consistency.)
“Ultra-processed foods typically contain things like artificial sweeteners, synthetic colors, flavors, emulsifiers, and other ingredients that people don’t cook with at home, Nestle said.”
So maybe focus on the harmful ingredients, not the way it is made.
And while we're at it, mandate that nutrition facts have to be printed for a standardized "amount". I hate comparing the label of one food that has 7g of protein per 123g serving and another that has 9g protein per 144g serving.