This is the shit that grinds me. You have the world’s information at your finger tips and you’re making a wild claim that there isn’t a definition for something and basing your argument around that. You have gone this far in your life with the belief that there is no definition “but any metric” for Ultra Process foods?
Don’t you think that’s a little absurd to think this? I mean, it’s literally in the word. Not processed – ultra processed; meaning, roughly, that the food or ingredients in that food are processed again after initial processing.
What I will grant you is that this word is sometimes thrown around inappropriately. You (and us all) have every right to be upset by this confusion and misrepresentation.
Category 4: Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made from food components. They include additives that are rare or nonexistent in culinary use, like emulsifiers, hydrogenated oils, synthetic colors, texture improvers or flavor enhancers. Think chips, soda, instant soup, pastries and mass-produced breads.
Ultra-processed foods, such as soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen dishes, are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact Group 1 food.
Ingredients of these formulations usually include those also used in processed foods, such as sugars, oils, fats or salt. But ultra-processed products also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations. Some of these are directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey and gluten. Many are derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
Additives in ultra-processed foods include some also used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers. Classes of additives found only in ultra-processed products include those used to imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product. These additives include 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.
A multitude of sequences of processes is used to combine the usually many ingredients and to create the final product (hence ‘ultra-processed’). The processes include several with no domestic equivalents, such as hydrogenation and hydrolysation, extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The overall purpose of ultra-processing is to create branded, convenient (durable, ready to consume), attractive (hyper-palatable) and highly profitable (low-cost ingredients) food products designed to displace all other food groups. Ultra-processed food products are usually packaged attractively and marketed intensively.
the definition of processed food varies widely depending on the source
The NOVA system is recognized by the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization, but not currently in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration or USDA. NOVA has been criticized for being too general in classifying certain foods, causing confusion.
Because of the difficulty of interpretation of the primary definition, the NOVA group and others have set out lists of examples of foods that fall under the category of ultra-processed foods. The present manuscript demonstrates that since the inception of the NOVA classification of foods, these examples of foods to which this category applies have varied considerably. Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.
Other scholarly review articles criticize the classification as unclear even among researchers.
There is no consensus on what determines the level of food processing.
Classification systems that categorise foods according to their “level of processing” have been used to predict diet quality and health outcomes and inform dietary guidelines and product development. However, the classification criteria used are ambiguous, inconsistent and often give less weight to existing scientific evidence on nutrition and food processing effects; critical analysis of these criteria creates conflict amongst researchers.
The classification systems embody socio-cultural elements and subjective terms, including home cooking and naturalness. Hence, “processing” is a chaotic conception, not only concerned with technical processes.
The concept of “whole food” and the role of the food matrix in relation to healthy diets needs further clarification; the risk assessment/management of food additives also needs debate.
The present paper explores the definition of ultra-processed foods since its inception and clearly shows that the definition of such foods has varied considerably.
Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.
The public health nutrition advice of NOVA is that ultra-processed foods should be avoided to achieve improvements in nutrient intakes with an emphasis on fat, sugar, and salt. The present manuscript demonstrates that the published data for the United States, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and Canada all show that across quintiles of intake of ultra-processed foods, nutritionally meaningful changes are seen for sugars and fiber but not for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. Moreover, 2 national surveys in the United Kingdom and France fail to show any link between body mass index and consumption of ultra-processed foods.
Some research articles find the leading definition unreliable: low consistency between nutrition specialists following the same definition.
Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.
If experts aren’t able to classify “ultraprocessed” items consistently, then what chance has anyone?
At the moment, “processed food” seems more buzz & connotation than substance.
It might make more sense to classify food by something clearer like nutritional content.
You’re making the same “the science isn’t settled” argument that right wing media relies on to stoke climate change denial.
In reality, science is never settled, and there is a huge amount of rigorous scientific debate around the definition of UPFs that is narrowing in on it; it is just flat out not the case that the term means nothing. That is something that manufacturers of UPFs want you to accept.
This is the shit that grinds me. You have the world’s information at your finger tips and you’re making a wild claim that there isn’t a definition for something and basing your argument around that. You have gone this far in your life with the belief that there is no definition “but any metric” for Ultra Process foods?
Don’t you think that’s a little absurd to think this? I mean, it’s literally in the word. Not processed – ultra processed; meaning, roughly, that the food or ingredients in that food are processed again after initial processing.
What I will grant you is that this word is sometimes thrown around inappropriately. You (and us all) have every right to be upset by this confusion and misrepresentation.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/what-know-about-processed-and-ultra-processed-food
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
Is there much uniform agreement on it? Is the classification objectively precise & reliable?
The Harvard School of Public Health acknowledges problems with definition & attempted standards
Ultra-Processed Foods: Definitions and Policy Issues pointed out that difficulty & inconsistent examples the definers offered to clarify.
Other scholarly review articles criticize the classification as unclear even among researchers.
Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges regarding classifications:
Ultra-Processed Foods: Definitions and Policy Issues regarding a single classification system (NOVA):
Some research articles find the leading definition unreliable: low consistency between nutrition specialists following the same definition.
If experts aren’t able to classify “ultraprocessed” items consistently, then what chance has anyone? At the moment, “processed food” seems more buzz & connotation than substance.
It might make more sense to classify food by something clearer like nutritional content.
Is it wrong for me to want my own extruder to make puffed starchy treats? I have a hankering for chile lime ginger corn puffs but no one makes them.
I also want a solar powered freeze drier/sublimator.
Imagine doing all that and not reading the article.
You’re making the same “the science isn’t settled” argument that right wing media relies on to stoke climate change denial.
In reality, science is never settled, and there is a huge amount of rigorous scientific debate around the definition of UPFs that is narrowing in on it; it is just flat out not the case that the term means nothing. That is something that manufacturers of UPFs want you to accept.
Edit:
deleted by creator
Well said!