I am generally against banning things that can harm our bodies and minds, but I think that we need to regulate a lot more aggressively. There is no doubt that ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and although a bit hyperbole maybe, the relationship between regular and ultra-processed food is analogous to the relationship between coca leaf and crack cocaine. Although both are technically the same substance, the means of delivery makes a huge difference on how immediately gratifying and habit-forming they are.
I think we should make regulation that enforces stronger separation between food and beverages that we consume as part of a healthy diet, and candy and psychoactive substances that we consume for fun. We should acknowledge that a significant and growing fraction of the population are forced to actively fight their inner voices telling them to consume these things whenever they go to a supermarket, which they have to because we all need to eat. Alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed foods have no place in food stores, but should be confined to dedicated outlets.
On a similar note, I find it fascinating how many people feel fruit juice smoothies are healthy. I mean, as a small kid, my grandparents would tell me fruit juice should be really limited, like half a cup a few times a week. To people downing 30oz/1L fruit smoothies daily. A lot of times it comes down to dosage.
edit:
example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."
I, too, am nervous of banning things, but we need to take a holistic evidence-based view. As part of this, we should be looking at the hidden subsidies that support UPF manufacturing and enable such products to be, in many cases, wildly cheaper than healthier alternatives
It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrates spiking my blood sugar and driving up my cholesterol. I dumped all the processed foods, went whole-foods, Mediterranean Diet, pescatarian, and blew my doctor's mind when all my tests came back healthy.
We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.
1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores.
2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat?
3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat.
4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them.
What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.
Try making socca chickpea flour pizzas. So quick to make, so much good stuff (protein, resistant starch, fiber). You can get organic chickpea flour from the bulk bin for cheap too.
I agree in some regard - I do wish there were restrictions as protein bars, snacks, beef, processed chicken, etc are not healthy. But it’s different for everyone what is healthy - IE I need a ton of simple carbs for long bike rides and missing those would cause issues. Some people don’t need those though and I don’t trust consumers (or agencies) to make good decisions.
I've posted on here before but I'm concerned with the current 'off label' practice of using glyphosate for crop desiccation (basically spraying it on the crop prior to harvesting to kill it and dry it out sooner) when most studies of glyphosate have been for the standard use to kill weeds much earlier in the process and the lower residual levels the standard use leaves.
I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]:
"An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds."
But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet:
"industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years);
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.
Depends 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...
Yeah, 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)
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 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.
In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form.
In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.
I wrote a top-level comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40816168) before I read yours, but from Tulleken’s book, my understanding is the difference basically comes down to “would you ever make this in your kitchen, or no?”
I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I am just guessing here, not having studied the issue in depth, but someone whose ancestors lived in South East Asia (or East Asia), where rice has provided the majority of the calories for thousands of years, can probably remain healthy on a diet high in refined carbohydrates, a diet that is clearly unhealthy for me, whose ancestors come from Northern Europe where keeping cows and later pigs was a large part of the agricultural economy for the last 6,000 years or so (and before then there was a large supply of large animals available for hunting -- large animals that specialize in eating grass and therefore are not loaded with parasites the way that animals that sometimes eat meat are). I do much better when most of my calories come from fat and protein.
But I do not partake in the ketosis fad: I eat a small amount of carbs with almost every meal, and if I don't, I get heart palpitations. (And I've seen studies showing the ketosis is a strain on the heart.)
Are they made from brown rice and keep the bran and germ portions or from heavily processed white rice? Are they made from whole grain flour or processed white flower?
I think you call instant noodles "Ramen" in US. Never heard of rice instant noodles before .. Typically [1]:
> Noodle production starts with dissolving the salt, starch, and flavoring in water to form a mixture that is then added to the flour. The dough is then left for a period of time to mature, then for even distribution of the ingredients and hydration of the particles in the dough, it is kneaded. After it is kneaded, the dough is made into two sheets compounded into one single noodle belt by being put through two rotating rollers. This process is repeated to develop gluten more easily as the sheet is folded and passed through the rollers several times. This will create the stringy and chewy texture found in instant noodles.
I guess I assumed people would consider ramen a highly processed food. USA instant ramen also often comes pre-fried.
In the USA there's 'just soak in hot water' rice noodle packs though I normally use the soak in hot water mung bean noodles. Both of which would be considered highly processed.
Process doesn't sound much different to some other types of pasta and bread. So I guess bread and pasta are UPF too? I think I'm safe with my Ramen ... Main thing that worries me is unintended contamination from cooking process and packaging TBH.
It's considered processed when the bran and germ layers are removed and you are left consuming only a small part of the original foodstuff (with all the fiber and most nutrition removed). Most instant ramen is also fried, which then adds a lot of trans fats that would have never been part of historical food (trans fats are industrially created fats that taste really good but the main consideration for manufacturers is they have a long shelf life and are cheap to manufacture).
I think a problem being shown in is we are so many layers deep into processing it's confusing what is being discussed.
I'd really try not to eat individually packaged ramen that's for sure, especially cup-o-soup style where you then add the layer of cooking in the cheapest container made for shipping and cost savings more than it's qualities as a safe cooking surface.
> "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on"
Okay.
So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice?
> 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).
So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
McDonalds fries and potato chips are fine because they're all natural ingredients, amirite?
Not here to argue your point, just to note that McDonalds fries are not as natural as people think, ie. most people assume they’re just potatoes fried in some oil.
> Five Guys Style [Fries]: Potatoes, Refined Peanut Oil, Salt
Its gonna make you fat and clog your arteries either way.
----------
My point is that "processing" food doesn't seem to make it more, or less, healthy. The amount of "processing" that Pasta has (Dry the Flour, Wet the Flour, Dry the Pasta, Wet the Pasta/Boil it, and sometimes further Drying+Wetting steps after that) is one of those running jokes in culinary circles.
More processing usually equates to more refining which means removal of micro nutrients. So yes, while five guys fries will make you fat if you eat too many they at least contain the normal micro nutrients of potatoes without added preservatives that may cause other problems
Are you saying French Fries (Simply cut Potatoes, oil + salt) are healthier for you than Pasta? (Ground grain, dried, wet, combined with Eggs, dried again, combined with various sauces made from oils, often dried herbs and other such ingredients)
Because Pasta is a hell of a lot more "processed" than a typical French Fry
Not only are they cooked differently but you've added extra non processed stuff to the pasta and culminated in using a simple sweeping term of "healthy"
You can also add herbs to fries and cook them in an air fryer. What about if I add broccoli to the fries and throw some hot sauce on?
Both of those things have a place in a well balanced diet
Bleached, fortified white flour is an incredibly processed ingredient.
It's also got nothing to do with health (or lack thereof).
I guarantee you there are fewer processing involved in Five Guys French Fries compared to white flour alone, let alone all the extra steps before you have a good meal.
Do you think there is a Pesto recipe that has less processing than the typical oils used for French Fries?
-------
I'm simply pointing out that a Bowl of Spaghetti + Pesto on it is highly processed. To far greater degrees than highly unhealthy and fattening foods we already know about.
You're arguing in bad faith. Nobody said banning, the article said that there should be warning labels.
So yes, people should be aware that when they get a wonderbread sandwhich it has more sugar added to it than a dumdum lollipop. Some other breads are much less processed though.
> So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
"Potato chips are made through processes like frying, adding artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives. They are designed to be convenient and hyper-palatable, fitting the definition of ultra-processed foods."
What I am saying is that stores should delineate products that are solely a source of calories from those that meet our nutritional needs. A red/yellow/green system would be useful. Or warning labels.
> "Potato chips are made through processes like frying, adding artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives. They are designed to be convenient and hyper-palatable, fitting the definition of ultra-processed foods."
Lays Potato chips are made up of only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt.
Its as simple as you're going to get. I get that you're trying to make "Ultraprocessed" actually encapsulate "unhealthy foods", but there's no colorings here.
Its just carbs, oil, and salt. Of which many Breads have a similar set of ingredients. Your typical Pesto or other "healthy and organic" dips have more processing than Lay's Potato Chips.
That's the thing. I know that Ultraprocessed is just a word tossed around with no definition. Its just everything "wrong" with today's food that rallies up a crowd, but no one has ever actually defined "Ultraprocessed" in a way that matches what normal people understand as "healthy" vs "unhealthy".
In any case, I'm actually for things like increased soda-taxes and other penalties to provably unhealthy foods. But we need to get the definition correct, and "Ultraprocessed" is such a bad baseline for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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]).
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".
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
Imagine a future where all food stores have 3 sections:
- The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten.
- The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc.
- The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative impact on microbiome, indefinite shelf-life, >50% calories are refined sugar.
To the extent that people are curious about the definition of ultra-processed foods, I recommend Chris Van Tulleken’s book “Ultra Processed People.” From it, I got the sense that the real emphasis is on this aspect of the NOVA definition:
“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…modified starches…modified oils…protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners…) in their list of ingredients.”
The history of NOVA is that as the obesity epidemic was spreading, a Brazilian nutrition scientist, Carlos Monteiro, did a large scale project to identify likely causes right as it reached Brazil and obesity in Brazil started to rise. In short, he found statistical evidence indicating, basically, that as as people stopped cooking they became obese. In the book, he observes that connection was so strong that if the one single thing you knew about a person was that they had bought sugar, it predicted that they would not be obese because sugar, while unhealthy, is usually used to cook with. Thus the emphasis on “traditional culinary uses”.
Cooking has a lot of virtues, but evidence that the ingredients themselves are the issue came when an NIH researcher, Kevin Hall, did an experiment where he had people live in an NIH facility and half ate “processed” food (in the NOVA system) and half ate “ultra-processed” food with equivalent nutritional content, and the UPF group gained weight very quickly relative to the “processed” group. The Hall excitement is when Monteiro’s theory really started getting traction.
63 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadI think we should make regulation that enforces stronger separation between food and beverages that we consume as part of a healthy diet, and candy and psychoactive substances that we consume for fun. We should acknowledge that a significant and growing fraction of the population are forced to actively fight their inner voices telling them to consume these things whenever they go to a supermarket, which they have to because we all need to eat. Alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed foods have no place in food stores, but should be confined to dedicated outlets.
edit: example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."
We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.
1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores.
2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat?
3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat.
4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them.
What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.
I think this is very debatable and doesn't have clear backing evidence.
"An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds."
But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made only with milk and rennet:
"industrially formulated" - check! (surely a cheese industry changed formula at least once in last 200 years);
"edible substance" - check! (very edible, yum-yum)
"derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." - check! (what isn't)
.. so it's an UPF and should get a warning label?
If they want to start passing the laws related to UPF, I'd like to see a good clear definition first.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
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.
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...
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)
Also, the health impacts alleged are negligible and will be altered drastically in 5 years.
Ergo, none of this is worth thinking about and is just a busybox for people's death anxiety.
There are some very good definitions and approaches to 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.
In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form.
In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.
I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.
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?
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]
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.)
But I do not partake in the ketosis fad: I eat a small amount of carbs with almost every meal, and if I don't, I get heart palpitations. (And I've seen studies showing the ketosis is a strain on the heart.)
> Noodle production starts with dissolving the salt, starch, and flavoring in water to form a mixture that is then added to the flour. The dough is then left for a period of time to mature, then for even distribution of the ingredients and hydration of the particles in the dough, it is kneaded. After it is kneaded, the dough is made into two sheets compounded into one single noodle belt by being put through two rotating rollers. This process is repeated to develop gluten more easily as the sheet is folded and passed through the rollers several times. This will create the stringy and chewy texture found in instant noodles.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_noodles#Production
In the USA there's 'just soak in hot water' rice noodle packs though I normally use the soak in hot water mung bean noodles. Both of which would be considered highly processed.
I think a problem being shown in is we are so many layers deep into processing it's confusing what is being discussed.
I'd really try not to eat individually packaged ramen that's for sure, especially cup-o-soup style where you then add the layer of cooking in the cheapest container made for shipping and cost savings more than it's qualities as a safe cooking surface.
I've started to looked at packaged food ingredients and now avoid foods with added phosphates and nitrates.
Okay.
So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice?
> 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).
So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
McDonalds fries and potato chips are fine because they're all natural ingredients, amirite?
“French Fries Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [wheat And Milk Derivatives]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (maintain Color), Salt. natural Beef Flavor Contains Hydrolyzed Wheat And Hydrolyzed Milk As Starting Ingredients. Contains: Wheat, Milk.”
Source: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/small-french-frie...
I guess replace my earlier comment with Five Guys fries then. https://www.fiveguys.com/-/media/public-site/files/allergen-...
> Five Guys Style [Fries]: Potatoes, Refined Peanut Oil, Salt
Its gonna make you fat and clog your arteries either way.
----------
My point is that "processing" food doesn't seem to make it more, or less, healthy. The amount of "processing" that Pasta has (Dry the Flour, Wet the Flour, Dry the Pasta, Wet the Pasta/Boil it, and sometimes further Drying+Wetting steps after that) is one of those running jokes in culinary circles.
Because Pasta is a hell of a lot more "processed" than a typical French Fry
Not only are they cooked differently but you've added extra non processed stuff to the pasta and culminated in using a simple sweeping term of "healthy"
You can also add herbs to fries and cook them in an air fryer. What about if I add broccoli to the fries and throw some hot sauce on?
Both of those things have a place in a well balanced diet
It's also got nothing to do with health (or lack thereof).
I guarantee you there are fewer processing involved in Five Guys French Fries compared to white flour alone, let alone all the extra steps before you have a good meal.
Do you think there is a Pesto recipe that has less processing than the typical oils used for French Fries?
-------
I'm simply pointing out that a Bowl of Spaghetti + Pesto on it is highly processed. To far greater degrees than highly unhealthy and fattening foods we already know about.
Lay’s potato chips: not UPF
McDonald’s fries: UPF due to the presence of beef flavor, hydrogenated oils, and other similar ingredients.
You're arguing in bad faith. Nobody said banning, the article said that there should be warning labels.
So yes, people should be aware that when they get a wonderbread sandwhich it has more sugar added to it than a dumdum lollipop. Some other breads are much less processed though.
> So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
"Potato chips are made through processes like frying, adding artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives. They are designed to be convenient and hyper-palatable, fitting the definition of ultra-processed foods."
What I am saying is that stores should delineate products that are solely a source of calories from those that meet our nutritional needs. A red/yellow/green system would be useful. Or warning labels.
Lays Potato chips are made up of only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt.
Its as simple as you're going to get. I get that you're trying to make "Ultraprocessed" actually encapsulate "unhealthy foods", but there's no colorings here.
Its just carbs, oil, and salt. Of which many Breads have a similar set of ingredients. Your typical Pesto or other "healthy and organic" dips have more processing than Lay's Potato Chips.
That's the thing. I know that Ultraprocessed is just a word tossed around with no definition. Its just everything "wrong" with today's food that rallies up a crowd, but no one has ever actually defined "Ultraprocessed" in a way that matches what normal people understand as "healthy" vs "unhealthy".
In any case, I'm actually for things like increased soda-taxes and other penalties to provably unhealthy foods. But we need to get the definition correct, and "Ultraprocessed" is such a bad baseline for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
> 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]).
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/
I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
- The Green section (Food) - Natural food our ancestors would have eaten.
- The yellow section (Food-derived) - Things made partly from food, but in a factory, with huge servings of sugar, salt, and other artificial flavors -- granola bars, tomato sauces, etc.
- The red section (Calories) - Products that have calories but no nutritional value, no or negative impact on microbiome, indefinite shelf-life, >50% calories are refined sugar.
“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…modified starches…modified oils…protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners…) in their list of ingredients.”
The history of NOVA is that as the obesity epidemic was spreading, a Brazilian nutrition scientist, Carlos Monteiro, did a large scale project to identify likely causes right as it reached Brazil and obesity in Brazil started to rise. In short, he found statistical evidence indicating, basically, that as as people stopped cooking they became obese. In the book, he observes that connection was so strong that if the one single thing you knew about a person was that they had bought sugar, it predicted that they would not be obese because sugar, while unhealthy, is usually used to cook with. Thus the emphasis on “traditional culinary uses”.
Cooking has a lot of virtues, but evidence that the ingredients themselves are the issue came when an NIH researcher, Kevin Hall, did an experiment where he had people live in an NIH facility and half ate “processed” food (in the NOVA system) and half ate “ultra-processed” food with equivalent nutritional content, and the UPF group gained weight very quickly relative to the “processed” group. The Hall excitement is when Monteiro’s theory really started getting traction.