Ultra-Processed Foods Need Tobacco-Style Warnings, Says Scientist (theguardian.com) 149
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets "all over the world" despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutritional scientist who first coined the term. Prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of Sao Paulo will highlight the increasing danger UPFs present to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week. "UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases," Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the conference in Sao Paulo. "UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods all over the world, and also causing a deterioration in diet quality due to their several harmful attributes. Together, these foods are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes."
Monteiro and his colleagues first used the phrase UPF 15 years ago when designing the food classification system "Nova." This assesses not only nutritional content but also the processes food undergoes before it is consumed. The system places food and drink into four groups: minimally processed food, processed culinary ingredients, processed food and ultra-processed food. Monteiro told the Guardian he was now so concerned about the impact UPF was having on human health that studies and reviews were no longer sufficient to warn the public of the health hazards. "Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs," he told the Guardian in an email. "Such campaigns would include the health dangers of consumption of UPFs. Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs."
He will tell delegates: "Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidize fresh foods." Monteiro will tell the conference that food giants marketing UPFs know that, in order to be competitive, their products must be more convenient, more affordable and tastier than freshly prepared meals. "To maximize profits, these UPFs must have lower cost of production and be overconsumed," he said. He will also draw parallels between UPF and tobacco companies. "Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they obtain with their attractive/addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies, and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution."
Monteiro and his colleagues first used the phrase UPF 15 years ago when designing the food classification system "Nova." This assesses not only nutritional content but also the processes food undergoes before it is consumed. The system places food and drink into four groups: minimally processed food, processed culinary ingredients, processed food and ultra-processed food. Monteiro told the Guardian he was now so concerned about the impact UPF was having on human health that studies and reviews were no longer sufficient to warn the public of the health hazards. "Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs," he told the Guardian in an email. "Such campaigns would include the health dangers of consumption of UPFs. Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs."
He will tell delegates: "Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidize fresh foods." Monteiro will tell the conference that food giants marketing UPFs know that, in order to be competitive, their products must be more convenient, more affordable and tastier than freshly prepared meals. "To maximize profits, these UPFs must have lower cost of production and be overconsumed," he said. He will also draw parallels between UPF and tobacco companies. "Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they obtain with their attractive/addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies, and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution."
Wonder what he thinks of this stuff (Score:2)
https://viteramen.com/ [viteramen.com]
(disclaimer: apparently the noodles themselves are okay, but the seasoning is pretty bad. And they cost too much)
That stuff is definitely ultra processed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's what I would expect him to say. It's bad! Never mind that most of the worst ingredients from ramen (notably tbhq) are replaced with better ingredients. It's a upf! Baaaaaad!
Now it's "UPF" (Score:5, Insightful)
People already don't understand what "ultra-processed foods" actually are. Yeah, they probably know that candy bars and sausage are "ultra-processed," but there are a whole lot of foods where it's not so clear, like bread or anything made with flour, or soup, or scores of other foods that have long been considered "good for you."
Details matter. Bread made from refined bleached white flour, with artificial flavors and lots of refined sugar, is not the same as bread made the old-fashioned way. But terms like UPF might still apply.
So let's not make it even more unclear by using a three-letter abbreviation.
Re: (Score:2)
You know a food and I'll answer if it's ultra processed.
Re: Now it's "UPF" (Score:2)
raw beef
medium rare stake
minced meat
hotdog saucages I think the line is drawn above or below minced meat.
Re: Now it's "UPF" (Score:2)
Re: Now it's "UPF" (Score:2)
No, I think you're referring to PMS. Stay focused, people!
Re: (Score:2)
If it's literally just minced meat with no additives then it's processed but not ultra-processed.
If they've added, for example; msg, soy, binding agents, flavourings, preservatives... then it's straying into UPF territory.
Basically, if there's anything in there that you wouldn't conceivably find in a typical kitchen, it's UPF.
Hotdogs are definitely UPF.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you'll find theres a big difference between the mince you get at walmart or whatever the hell americans have as supermarkets, and Mario the italian butcher who minces his own stuff.Preservatives , fillers, and other crap.
When I get mince from my local butcher the whole thing is so much richer and .... meaty?... than the crap they sell at my local Coles supermarket (largest chain supermarket) here in Australia, although I'm told even our shitty meats are higher quality than a lot of the meats overs
Re: (Score:2)
My best guess is you're talking about "ground beef"? Hamburger meat?
If so...these days, I wait for larger cuts of beef to go on sale (whole chuck rolls, etc)....and I keep all the trim from my briskets before I throw them on the smoker.
One of my best purchases was a simple meat grinder. I just thaw out the brisket trim (Mostly fat) whenever the meat I'm grinding is mostly lean....and have some great ground beef to make into burgers....meatballs, meatloaf...meatsauce, etc.
But even the normal gro
Re: (Score:2)
Potatoe chips?
Potato chips?
Milk is an UPF (Score:2)
There is a movement to legalize raw milk, but the "legal milk" you get in the store has undergone a lot of processing.
First of all, it is subject to a flash-cooking process called pasturization.
Next, all of the butterfat is skimmed off and then added back in controlled amounts for 1%, 2% and "full" (I guess 3% butterfat) milk. When butterfat is added back in, it is emulsified (homogenized) so it doesn't separate.
Finally, it is vitamin fortified--just like white bread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Plant-based" meat alternatives, such as vegetable burgers. Almond and soy milks. Zero-calorie seltzer water (with or without sweeteners). Low-sugar granola bars (example brands: Kind, Kashi). Erewhon or Fiber One breakfast cereals.
Which of those are ultra-processed? Should you avoid those?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. You should avoid those anyway because they're all crap :)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends how the vegetable burger is made and what its ingredients are. If it's a proper plant burger made of actual vegetables and doesn't contain any ingredients you wouldn't find in a typical kitchen then it's not UPF. Almost all plant-based meat alternatives you would buy in the supermarket are UPF.
Carbonated water isn't UPF because it's water with some CO2 in it. Add a sweetener, yeah it probably is.
The granola bars are most likely UPF because of "natural flavor" which can be literally anything, and jus
Re: (Score:2)
None of those are ultra processed.
Re:Now it's "UPF" (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty easy...the seltzer water without sweeteners, is just...carbonated (fizzy) water....not really what I'd considered processed.
The rest of it....ultra processed.
Here's a couple tests for non or extremely low processed foods.
When grocery shopping, stick to the aisle at the outmost of the store...this entails the produce area....the meat area...dairy area....etc.
Most everything there are the raw ingredients you use to cook your own meals.
Most everything in the center aisles of the store...shelf stable stuff...is crap.
TEst #2.....look at the ingredients. If there are chemicals on there that are remotely difficult to pronounce or know what they are....avoid these.
Hope that helps. It really is VERY simple to avoid UPFs....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My UPF-30 lunch has an LD-50 of 100mg.
Re: (Score:2)
And that lunch will keep you from getting sunburn too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now it's "UPF" (Score:2)
Re: Now it's "UPF" (Score:2)
Still better than the GPF, for those old enough to remember.
Re: (Score:2)
General Protection Fault?
(This is slashdot, you know!)
Re: (Score:2)
"Old-fashioned" bread is a processed food (Nova group 3) whereas bread with many additives is ultra-processed (Nova 4).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Note that the Nova classification doesn't replace the Nutri-Score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't dispute that the definitions are there. What I'm saying is that the definitions are arbitrary and not in themselves linked to *processing* or actual health benefits or harms. To label all foods that are "bad for you" as "ultra-processed" obscures the real problem, which is food containing non-food ingredients. I would argue that old-fashioned bread being in "Nova group 3" implies that bread is not very good for you. But there's a lot of science and history stating otherwise. Bread has a lot of h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another aspect to ultra-processing is purposely making food addictive. Food scientists in the employ of the food industry make entire, well-paid careers out of manipulating taste profiles, mouth-feel, and biological responses to keep customers coming back for more of the same. Much of the food industry truly is the new tobacco industry.
I strongly recommend the book 'Ultra-Processed People' by Chris van Tulleken. He proffers a not-perfect-but-still-useful rule-of-thumb that basically says "if the ingredients
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you think, but I hate that it's so damned necessary to think like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleaching has traditional and fairly harmless modern methods too. The American exercise in finding the most obnoxious chemicals produced with the most obnoxious synthesis for bleaching is pretty unique.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People already don't understand what "ultra-processed foods" actually are.
Everything that isn't directly picked off a plant or killed and slaughtered. It's a purity spiral and it won't end until the only legal food is raw kale.
Re: (Score:2)
People already don't understand what "ultra-processed foods" actually are.
Everything that isn't directly picked off a plant or killed and slaughtered. It's a purity spiral and it won't end until the only legal food is raw kale.
Exaggeration, much? The middle ground may extend closer to the extremes than many of us would like, but that doesn't mean we can't stay in the middle while simultaneously decreasing the range of "middle" until it's meaningfully differentiated from the extremes. And right now, we're rather closer to the extreme that benefits corporate food-pushers the most and benefits our health the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now it's "UPF" (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning labels miss the key point here anyway. The reason people buy ultra processed bread is because it lasts longer at room temperature. They don't have the time, or maybe the money, or the nearby shops, to buy bread that lasts a few days, so they buy the bread that lasts a week.
More time to do those things is one option. More convenience e.g. affordable shops nearby is another. Lower cost fresh meals would help.
Warning labels will probably just make people more depressed about how crap their life is, without changing their behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Warning labels miss the key point here anyway. The reason people buy ultra processed bread is because it lasts longer at room temperature. They don't have the time, or maybe the money, or the nearby shops, to buy bread that lasts a few days, so they buy the bread that lasts a week.
I think your choice of 'bread' to represent all UPFs is a poor one. There are many, many foods which are ultra-processed in order to render them literally addictive, and I think these are the ones we should tackle first.
Also, I would argue that a fairly large reason people buy ultra-processed bread is because that's what's easiest to get. And, guess what - that bread is made to last longer at room temperature primarily to increase food industry profits. Any perceived benefit to the consumer is just a bonus
Re: (Score:2)
I think warning labels are not that useful - no one I know who smokes is unaware that it's bad for them, or that it causes cancer etc.
Just like no one I know who drinks soda doesn't know it's bad for them.
Warning labels are mostly ignored if the person is already familiar with the product, and are often the source of hilarious memes. (Bag of Peanuts - warning: contains nuts; allergen: peanuts)
What works IMHO is the opposite of what we've been doing - i.e. make the UPF harder and less convenient to get, and
Re: (Score:2)
Geez....you people act like spending 30-min to an hou
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you don't live where I live. It's a 35 minute one way drive to an expensive supermarket, 45 minute to a Sam's club. So it's an hour and a half just driving - so forgive me if I like to minimize my time in a car.
Now the other problem is maybe your fruits and veggies last a week in your fridge, but if I get strawberries or the like, it's a day or two at best. Apples will last a while, so I will often get those.
Aside from things going bad, I also need to spend hours a day cooking and cleaning - I've done
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so you shop one day, do it all....let's go with how I do it generally.
I run and do my shopping Saturday, I read the grocery store ads, plan my menus by what is on sale...this does 2 things, it saves me money AND it keeps me from getting board eating the same thing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the difference with tobacco is that it's a bigger burden. You have to go buy it, go outside to smoke it, your clothes and car and house end up stinking... It's not like food where you need it to live, and it's more convenient than the alternative (vapes, patches, giving up).
One of the best things about Japan is that good food is cheap and easy to get.
Re: (Score:2)
More time to do those things is one option. More convenience e.g. affordable shops nearby is another. Lower cost fresh meals would help.
Eliminating minimum orders for order pickup would also be a big win. A person living alone who gets lunch at work basically ends up with not a lot of options, because $35 (Walmart) is enough cereal to last a year. It's enough freshly cooked chickens to last a month.
Or you can buy frozen microwave meals and eat one a day for two weeks as long a you have room in the freezer. And that's how you end up eating rather highly processed food.
Re: (Score:2)
And delivery as well - Schwanns / Yelloh will deliver frozen "UPF" to my door for a reasonable price. I live out in the boonies, so this is very helpful. Making a 45 minute one way drive to pick up Walmart means it's an entire day on a weekend to go out shopping aside from a dollar store, which is also "UPF".
The only vaguely fresh delivery options are the super expensive Hello Fresh type boxes or Msifit Market etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - I'd say I'm pretty well educated and reasonably well informed, and I can't always tell either.
I've been using the Yuka app - it's a little barcode scanner that gives you a food rating. It seems pretty decent, and crap food definitely comes up crap. Good food... some of that comes up crap too. I like how it gives you alternatives though - so if you scan a crappy chocolate bar, it suggests better chocolate (as opposed to trying to suggest you eat some quinoa instead or something daft).
Sadly, my favou
Re: (Score:2)
There is a real problem with providing an effective definition of the term that covers all cases without being over-broad. It is certainly true that highly processed foods where the components of food are stripped out, isolated and then reformed into food products degrades their healthful properties -- there is a lot of data supporting this. But with a binary term "ultra-processed" and "everything else" and the existence of different degrees of processing it is tricky to come up with a useful definition an
Re: (Score:2)
I create Ultra processed food in my kitchen all the time. By moving the goalpost, Merely Processed food is now OK?
My bread is made with ingredients as close to their natural state as possible as money and time allow me based on my chosen values. So, also, is my neighbor's game sausage and other meat products.
I realize the intentions are good here. To improve general health. And if they would make the distinctions that you nod to, the advice would seem reasonable. My version is, stay away fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Close. A lot of sausages are made with "mechanically reclaimed meat". e.g. bits hosed off the carcass using high pressure water jets.
Good sausages from a butcher are made with cut up meats. The rest... ?
Re:Now it's "UPF" (Score:4, Insightful)
While "mechanically reclaimed meat" may come with an "ick" factor, there's no obvious reason why this meat would be any more harmful than the nice cuts used by a butcher.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are in agreement.
Sausage is often cited as an example of "ultra-processed food,". but your doubts resonate.
The UPF crowd would indeed call "cutting up plants" ultra-processing.
Refined sugar is arguably highly-processed, since it goes through a multi-stage purification process, and this is in most candy. So on that count I don't disagree that candy is "ultra-processed."
But in every case, I do disagree about whether the processing itself is an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
UPF is about the industrial processes that the food and its ingredients go through. Sugar isn't UPF, but many
UPF foods contain sugar because the purpose of UPF foods is to be cheap and addictive.
Proper sausages from a reputable butcher would be processed but not ultra-processed. Most supermarket sausages are UPF because they have a ton of additives for shelf-stability. As an example here in the UK, check out the ingredients on Tesco's Finest Pork Sausages (Finest is Tesco's own premium brand):
INGREDIENTS: Pork (90%), Water, Rice Flour, Potato Starch, Salt, Acidity Regulator (Calcium Lactate), White Pepper, Sage, Stabilisers (Tetrasodium Diphosphate, Disodium Diphosphate), Coriander, Preservative (Sodium Metabisulphite), Nutmeg, Dextrose, Bamboo Fibre, Caramelised Sugar Syrup, Colour (Paprika Extract).
Acidity regul
Life needs a warning label (Score:3, Insightful)
Somewhere near the begining it ought to say "con artists are everywhere" and at the end should be an admonition against the hubris that can arise from glimpses of any kind of revelation.
What about "veggie burgers" then? (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it interesting this follows so closely from the announcement that McDonald's is refusing to offer plant based "burgers" like Burger King and some other restaurants are offering. What is more "ultra-processed" than a patty of plant matter made to taste like beef?
While growing up it was instilled in me by my parents and teachers the importance of a "balanced diet" and I took that with me as I became an adult and lived on my own. I will order, and eat, the side salad when available at restaurants. As
Re: (Score:2)
What is more "ultra-processed" than a patty of plant matter made to taste like beef?
Hot dogs, slim jims, salami, american cheese, foods with sodium nitrates. I'm not finding any of those ingredients in Beyond Meat or Gardein products. You guys are just parroting a joke made by Eric Cartman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most fake meat products, including the Beyond Burger contain metyl-cellulose as a thickener.
It is a gel that binds water very efficiently, making the product more juicy.
It is also used in gluten-free bread.
The Beyond Burger, and practically every vegan "cheese" or "mayonnaise" also contains artificial emulsifiers.
Methyl cellulose and some artificial emulsifiers emulsifiers are known to harm the mucus membranes in the gut, exposing them more to things passing through or living in the gut, such as bacteria. T
Re: (Score:2)
Just checked the vegan mayo I occasionally eat, it uses modified starch and potato protein. Meh, the EDTA is more offensive but you will be hard pressed to find mayo without it.
CMC is all hype, it's just not that common to begin with. Also vegan patties use MC not CMC.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
My mayo has none....it's just egg, lemon juice, olive oil and maybe some garlic or other seasonings if I feel fancy...throw into my food processor or blender and whip it up.
Yummy stuff and just takes a couple minutes.
Potato salad with home made mayo is amazingly decadent and good.
Can't wait for the 4th of July grill out spread....
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting this follows so closely from the announcement that McDonald's is refusing to offer plant based "burgers" like Burger King and some other restaurants are offering.
I missed that announcement. mcplant [mcdonalds.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it was a "refusal" to offer them. As you linked, McDonalds did offer them. They just didn't sell well enough in their test markets to justify keeping it. Remember that McDonalds started with just 2 menu items - burgers and fries. And has over a long time expanded that slowly as they find lucrative niches. Some items are still only offered seasonally, not year round.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Labels for the people (Score:2)
I try to eat healthy. I know roughly what is good and what not. But these days, it seems like we need a constant reminder of everything that is bad for us. I know processed foods are bad. I know alcohol is carcinogenic. I know the air I breathe in the city is bad. I know I work too long. I do not need constant reminders. Pretty sure these constant warnings are bad for your healt
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we just add this label to every product? : "Bad choices will kill you eventually. Educate yourself if needed and possible*"
I'd like to educate myself. Without making it a research project every time I want to eat something. Put the important information on the package. If your stuff is unhealthy but tasty, let me know and I'll decide what's more important to me in the moment.
Right now, too much important information is hidden from consumers.
Oh FFS, Fuck Off Already (Score:2, Interesting)
Warning label won't do jack shit.
You could put a skull and crossbones with the warning "Eating this will kill you immediately" on a Twinkee and anyone who was already inclined to eat a Twinkee would still eat it.
Re: (Score:2)
When did the nihilistic pessimism set in. Was it recently or you were always this way?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a direct result of living on Earth for 53 years.
I'd say it settled in after 25 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Warning label won't do jack shit.
You could put a skull and crossbones with the warning "Eating this will kill you immediately" on a Twinkee and anyone who was already inclined to eat a Twinkee would still eat it.
I’d still like the labelling. You may choose to ignore it, but I’d certainly reconsider what I took from the shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
Warning label won't do jack shit.
You could put a skull and crossbones with the warning "Eating this will kill you immediately" on a Twinkee and anyone who was already inclined to eat a Twinkee would still eat it.
And they would eat it because the label would be a lie. When a label like that is obviously false, people will ignore it, and over time they will mistrust such labels. It is like the labels I see that are mandated by California, warning me about certain substances causing cancer. I wonder how many people see those labels and actually avoid the product.
Re: (Score:2)
wonder how many people see those labels and actually avoid the product.
Well, fuck that!! That would be bad for business.
Because tobacco style warnings works so well (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no it doesn't! They are not effective at all.
Weren't there a bunch of studies proving that yes, they do work?
What they don't do is instantly eliminate every smoker.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultraprocessed food isn't as addictive as nicotine.
Sure, products with the right combination of sodium, glutamate, fats and sugars do influence the pleasure centres in the brain, making us eat more of such products -- and the food producers know it.
But it is not nearly at the same level as nicotine.
Re: (Score:2)
vouchers for uncooked foodstuffs (Score:2)
Most governments already subsidize the 'manufacture' of foods: It doesn't work. That might be because they're subsidizing crops supplied to animals and factories. But the same business failures will happen to the human food-chain, should its 'manufacture' be subsidized. Subsidizing availability doesn't work: Look at the ISP corporations, or, to be accurate, look at the US government ignoring textbook fraud.
Subsidies work best when they go to the buyer. The post office and shopping centres can sell d
yes, please (Score:2)
Information is good.
It's near impossible to tell how much natural or processed a food item is, unless you are buying raw ingredients. The ingredients list is intentionally obscure and had to be forced on to manufacturers. Wonder what they're hiding.
Maybe add some common sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists need tabacco-style warning labels (Score:2)
Ikarian diet (Score:2)
Just for interest, there's a Greek island called Ikaria where more than a third of inhabitants live well into their 90's. Their diet is mostly plant based and they consume a *LOT* of olive oil. I can't find the article at the moment but I read an interview with one chap who was 105 and who even drank a small glass of Olive oil twice a day.
http://www.island-ikaria.com/a... [island-ikaria.com]
There's also a good article comparing the USDA recommendations versus the Ikarian diet:
https://www.monaottum.com/2016... [monaottum.com]
Yours currently
I'm in agreement. uphill battle against 'norm' (Score:2)
The incredibly self-destructive way of eating that has becomed so ingrained, so normalized, that junk food vending machines are commonplace in public schools. I'm the weirdo for advocating the foods and ways we've evolved with. This all-calories-are-equal BS and the "eat less move more" BS misinformation do nothing but contribute to heavy people feeling guilt. Fat shaming, especially self fat-shaming is endemic. Labeling highly processed junk as unhealthy would be a good start.
In most cases, the problem
Re: (Score:2)
The real culprit isn't "processing," it's artificial ingredients (X artificial flavor, made from chemicals), chemical preservatives, artificial chemical colorants, or extreme purification (refinement). Let's take the focus off "processing" and place it where it belongs, on things manufacturers put in our food, that aren't actually food.
And that's just the naturalistic fallacy, an "appeal to nature".
Our world is made of chemicals. We are made of chemicals.
Artificial is not automatically bad, and natural is not automatically good. You'll need to get into the details more than that.
Re:"Processing" is not necessarily "bad" (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem, we have ingredients lists but we don't know how those raw ingredients made it into the end product.
We are made of chemicals, and we have evolved to consume chemicals.. But not any/all chemicals, and not chemicals in every form they might take.
A lot of these highly processed products introduce new chemicals that have not traditionally been consumed so the effects on the human body are not known. You also have a lot of variety in individuals whereby a chemical might pass through one person harmlessly while it kills another.
One example of this is the various artificial sweeteners that have become prevalent these days to replace sugar. Some of these have been linked to cancer, some people are known to suffer bloating, headaches or diarrhea when consuming them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real question is: Did we evolve to consume this item or ingredient as a food source, and in what form? Why? Because we also evolved the proteins and other processes to properly utilize or dispose of it without it causing problems for us.
For example: We evolved with the ability to utilize grains as a food source, but in their raw or minimally processed f
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Many processes are actually beneficial, such as cooking (which kills bacteria and makes nutrients more accessible) and pasteurization (which makes dairy products safe to eat or drink).
I don't recall specific sources but I do recall several times the advantages to human civilization from fermentation and brewing. Fermented drinks like beer and wine meant having drinks not tainted with bacteria, the alcohol killed that off. Beer and wine also had a number of beneficial vitamins and minerals in them for supplementing a diet that might other wise be lacking because it consisted largely of potatoes and bread.
Brewed drinks like tea and coffee meant people boiled water as part of the preparat
Re: (Score:3)
We now have less harmful alternative processes for preserving food &
Re: (Score:2)
My whole point is, no, we DON'T need special labeling for "UPF"...that is targeting the wrong thing. Instead, require labels for foods that include non-food chemicals, for example. But let's not put labels on foods because they include something that is brewed, ground, cooked, or otherwise "processed."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Processing" is not necessarily "bad" (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, any food that is made using a recipe, is a "processed" food.
It seems that you've either missed or ignored the distinction between processing and ultra-processing. I think just about everybody realizes that processing food is often necessary and/or beneficial. But did you realize that, for example, the simple act of dicing fruit makes its insulin response profile worse, and that pureeing it makes it much worse? Obviously, by most people's definitions this doesn't qualify as ultra-processing, yet it can have negative consequences.
Also, the word "ultra-processed" may apply to things which you might think of as products of regular processing. One example is corn oil, which is refined. Literally, facilities which produce corn oil and other similar oils look a lot like petroleum refineries. They also USE products from petroleum refineries - hexane being one example - to help extract the oil. By contrast, peanut oil and other similar oils are obtained by merely pressing / crushing.
Although the line between the two isn't always clear, the distinction between "processed" and "ultra-processed" is useful and important. Additionally, the common understanding of 'processing' something includes adding stuff to it, either purposely or - as in the case of hexane - as a byproduct of of the process.
The real culprit isn't "processing," it's artificial ingredients.
The definition of "artificial" is slippery. Sugar is obviously natural - we consume it when we eat fresh, raw fruits and vegetables. By extension then, when you see "sugar" in an ingredients list, that's also natural, right? Except that it's refined and processed, causes a sharp rise in insulin, and has addictive properties. It isn't quite natural, but also it isn't quite artificial. Chemically, it's the same sugar you consume in many fresh, unprocessed foods. Functionally and contextually, it behaves differently,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree! But not because it's pureed, but because it's bugs!
Re: (Score:2)
You still think Kamala is going to stop by with a shock team to confiscate your steak?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And there we have the answer:
THIS IS ALL NONSENSE.
An egg fried in butter is supposedly better for you than an egg steamed in a mold by this standard.
The whole "ultra processed" nonsense sounds like a marketing scheme cooked up by some organic food company. There is nothing about this that doesn't trigger my scam reflex. Changing the shape of food doesn't make it worse for you, and claiming it does is pure woo.
Re:"Ultra (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll give you a small research exercise and it will make it clear to you what UPF is.
Go look up all the mechanical, thermal and chemical steps they have to go through to make High Fructose Corn Syrup...and things like Corn Oil, Canola Oil...most any of the commercial "seed' oils.....
Once you see all the "processes" they have to do to come up with something "edible"...you'll have your introduction into what ultra processing is.
Cutting up a slice of meat here isn't what anyone is talking about.
Going through a ton of chemical steps, etc...reducing things to stuff you'd not recognize as "food" before molding it, adding more chemicals, preservatives, "vitamins"...and trying to replace nutrients and flavors that have been lost to processing...that is ultra processed food.
If the label on the food has more than say...4-5 ingredients and you can't recognize or pronounce many of them....it's ultra processed.
The good stuff in a grocery store is easy to find...just shop only the exterior perimeter and not the center aisles.
The exterior will lead you mostly to produce, the meat department, dairy....etc.
Most of what you find there is either not processed or just lightly processed....with the natural nutrition preserved.
Hope that helps.
Re: (Score:3)
Shelf life is a major consideration. Also not everyone is working 70+ hours/wk so please try not to veer too far off-topic.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody eats ultra processed foods all the time because they want to you eat them because you're working 12 hours a day 6 days a week if you're lucky. They're cheap, calorically dense and easy to prepare. That's why you eat them.
The solution to the problem isn't warnings it's giving people time in their day to actually prepare and eat proper food and the financial resources to afford to buy it in the first place.
I'm not so sure about that. I remember babysitting for my brother one night and as I went out the door his wife gifted me an orange or two, some kind of microwave meal from Trader Joe's, and some leftovers they had that I don't recall exactly. I ate well the next day with minimal preparation time. I had an orange with my morning coffee. I warmed up and ate the leftovers for lunch. Then for supper I had the Trader Joe's meal that had some kind of meat that I don't recall, cauliflower, and something else
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely a culture thing. Most of continental Europe has this right (e.g. the French/Italians/Spanish/Greeks). They stop work and have a proper freshly prepared lunch/dinner - often at a local restaurant. No grabbing some hastily pre-prepared food and eating it at your desk as fast as possible etc.