I’m curious what definition they were using for what constitutes ‘ultra-processed’. I’ve been having a really hard time narrowing down what an ultra processed food actually is, but this isn’t to take away from the study. Some researchers class them as anything with a ‘non-EU GRAS’ in it, some define it by number of listed ingredients or processing steps, some of them use a definition so strict that even butter or pasteurized milk counts. I think its really important that were finally seeing what the health effects of our hyperprocessed diets are having on us, but I just wish that there was a broadly accepted definition so I didn’t have to look up the source study every single time to find out what they’re talking about.
Ultra-processed foods are ready-to-eat/heat industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods, including flavors, colors, texturizers, and other additives, with little if any intact whole food.
(PS The “news” in USA is almost entirely propaganda and other capitalist trash. It’s no surprise when their “science” coverage is terrible. Most of the time it’s not even science.)
I wish every article that talks about “ultra-processed” foods would just link to the NOVA system or some other reference. Otherwise it just makes their statements seem so empty.
When asked to classify centuries-old staples like cheese or jam or bread or pickles, the experts struggle to find a consensus on which category any given food is. And so the classification system itself is so imprecisely defined that studies based on the system will rest on a shaky foundation.
It’s better to identify what specific foods and what specific cooking techniques are bad and how they might be bad, rather than trying to say that the act of chopping, blending, mixing, cooking, or fermentation automatically makes a food less healthy.
If certain additives are bad, say that those are bad. Don’t try to lump in the other processing techniques into one basket.
That probably captures many such things but it’s not fool proof. I like to make bread with 2-4 different kinds of flour, 4-8 different kinds of seeds, a teaspoon or two of sugar to get the yeast going, sometimes milk or olive oil or another fat source. At it’s most complex it could get pretty close to 20 ingredients but I don’t feel that should be classified as ultra-processed. The kinds of ingredients used and the actual process also matters.
I’m curious what definition they were using for what constitutes ‘ultra-processed’. I’ve been having a really hard time narrowing down what an ultra processed food actually is, but this isn’t to take away from the study. Some researchers class them as anything with a ‘non-EU GRAS’ in it, some define it by number of listed ingredients or processing steps, some of them use a definition so strict that even butter or pasteurized milk counts. I think its really important that were finally seeing what the health effects of our hyperprocessed diets are having on us, but I just wish that there was a broadly accepted definition so I didn’t have to look up the source study every single time to find out what they’re talking about.
The article references another article referencing this paper that gives the following definition with reference to this paper:
It seems like the last referenced paper is the deep dive: Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.
TL;DR: It’s based on the NOVA classification system.
(PS The “news” in USA is almost entirely propaganda and other capitalist trash. It’s no surprise when their “science” coverage is terrible. Most of the time it’s not even science.)
I wish every article that talks about “ultra-processed” foods would just link to the NOVA system or some other reference. Otherwise it just makes their statements seem so empty.
The NOVA system is bad science, in my opinion.
When asked to classify centuries-old staples like cheese or jam or bread or pickles, the experts struggle to find a consensus on which category any given food is. And so the classification system itself is so imprecisely defined that studies based on the system will rest on a shaky foundation.
It’s better to identify what specific foods and what specific cooking techniques are bad and how they might be bad, rather than trying to say that the act of chopping, blending, mixing, cooking, or fermentation automatically makes a food less healthy.
If certain additives are bad, say that those are bad. Don’t try to lump in the other processing techniques into one basket.
Great link, thanks.
I’d go with the amount of additives compared to the “real” thing.
Like basic bread is water, yeast, flour and salt.
If your bread has 20 ingredients - it’s ultra processed.
That probably captures many such things but it’s not fool proof. I like to make bread with 2-4 different kinds of flour, 4-8 different kinds of seeds, a teaspoon or two of sugar to get the yeast going, sometimes milk or olive oil or another fat source. At it’s most complex it could get pretty close to 20 ingredients but I don’t feel that should be classified as ultra-processed. The kinds of ingredients used and the actual process also matters.
Yeah, bread can get complicated depending on what you want to make. Excluding flour, I have in my pantry to make bread these: