Ultra-Processed Foods - It's Time For an Improved Definition (nature.com)
- Reference: 0179008162
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/04/1742218/ultra-processed-foods---its-time-for-an-improved-definition
- Source link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02750-0
The editorial extends criticism to the broader ultra-processed foods classification system. While acknowledging the 2009 NOVA scale by University of Sao Paulo's Carlos Monteiro pushed governments toward strong public health policies, Nature says the ultra-processed category problematically groups baby formula with hot dogs. The board calls for improved definitions that balance reining in industrial food production excesses while ensuring adequate calorie access globally.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02750-0
Perhaps the issue is catagorization (Score:4, Insightful)
Food and most other substances in the real world exist on a spectrum. There's likely no sharp dividing line between "processed" and "ultra processed". There's no vast gulf between "health" and "unhealthy" food.
I think we're probably better off not trying to put foods into buckets (unless it's a bucket of fried chicken). I know it's an attempt to simplify things for people who don't have the time or inclination to read food labels, if a food label even exists. But at some point we're arguing about whether a hot dog is a taco or a sandwich.
Re: (Score:3)
> I know it's an attempt to simplify things for people who don't have the time or inclination to read food labels, if a food label even exists. But at some point we're arguing about whether a hot dog is a taco or a sandwich.
We've got an ongoing obesity epidemic going on in this country, the saddest part being at the child level where 1 in 5 kids are obese [1]https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/i... [byu.edu] . Anything that helps people eat better is a good thing at this point and that includes categorizing things to make them easier to understand.
[1] https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/childhood-obesity-in-the-united-states
Re: (Score:2)
> Anything that helps people eat better is a good thing at this point and that includes categorizing things to make them easier to understand.
Strong disagree with this sentiment. "won't somebody please think of the children!" is the entree to many a government ban.
The government war on saturated fat (and fat in general) starting back in the 70s is how we ended up with the high glycemic low fiber snack foods to begin with. Also the switch from butter to trans-fat containing margarine and other partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (remember those?) for several decades. until trans fats were recognized as a threat (and finally banned in some c
Re: (Score:2)
> Strong disagree with this sentiment. "won't somebody please think of the children!" is the entree to many a government ban.
Of course I'm not advocating for a government ban, I'm advocating for more easily absorbed information for the public so people can make better decisions. Massive difference.
> The government war on saturated fat (and fat in general) starting back in the 70s is how we ended up with the high glycemic low fiber snack foods to begin with. Also the switch from butter to trans-fat containing margarine and other partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (remember those?) for several decades. until trans fats were recognized as a threat (and finally banned in some countries like the US.)
So we shouldn't use the best science available to us because science is wrong some times? Might as well tare everything down because our best minds once thought the earth was the center of the universe, right?
Re: (Score:2)
> Anything that helps people eat better is a good thing at this point and that includes categorizing things to make them easier to understand.
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. If we over-simplify advice, we create all sorts of political battles, opportunities for corruption, and unfortunate behavior lead by hucksters. "Fat is bad!" is way too imprecise, as is "eat only what a caveman could find."
If we make the advice more nuanced, people TL;DR it. I have no idea how much of what kinds of fats I should get in my diet and no way of knowing how much I'm actually eating. It's just not worth
Re: (Score:2)
> Life is about more than just living as long as possible.
Sure it is, it's about quality as well which is all the more reason to eat well. From higher energy levels today to just an overall better quality of life when you're old tomorrow.
Eating junk food from time to time is fine for the vast majority of people though. The problem is right now people are having a hard time identifying what is actually junk food which doesn't at all help with our obesity problem.
Re:Perhaps the issue is catagorization (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh fuck off. Obesity is an epidemic not an individual making poor choices. When food is engineered for overconsumption, the system needs to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't eat at fast food any more, nor buy bags of chips to eat every week, or subsist on gallons of soda. And yet, I'm barely heavier than I was in high school (which was practically rail thin) and sit on my ass all day in the office.
It's almost as if what you just said isn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
> At *this* point, people are questioning whether baby formula fits in the same processed "bucket" as a hot dog. I don't think clarity on this subject is a bad thing, even though things in life defy simple categorization.
I get your point. Some classifications are easy. Some less so. I should avoid too much fat, just like I should avoid too much sugar and protein.
The issue is someone decided to bucketize foods by fat content and that's how formula and hot dogs wind up in the same category. I'm sure it's accurate by whatever metric got agreed upon. The issue is it seems it was a lousy metric: the amount and types of fat a baby needs is way different from what you and I need.
I guess what I'm arguing is that having very simply
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's hard to categorize foods.
UPFs are often stuff you can make in your own home today - take say, french fries. It's hard to see what makes it "ultra processed" when for most home cooks, it's usually just potatoes, with a little batter coating of flour, water, salt, deep fried and then sprinkled with salt or spices. It's hard to say that's bad for you, even though the fries you get at the fast food joint likely is.
Even potato chips can also be made at home with very little processing yet is still
Re: (Score:2)
> UPFs are often stuff you can make in your own home today - take say, french fries. It's hard to see what makes it "ultra processed" when for most home cooks, it's usually just potatoes, with a little batter coating of flour, water, salt, deep fried and then sprinkled with salt or spices. It's hard to say that's bad for you, even though the fries you get at the fast food joint likely is.
And indeed, French fries are not considered healthy, even if prepared at home. They are too fatty, too salty and lack proteins.
Re: (Score:2)
> And indeed, French fries are not considered healthy, even if prepared at home. They are too fatty, too salty and lack proteins.
And yet you need both fats and carbohydrates in a healthy diet. Fries with some grilled fish and veggies is a fine meal.
That's the point: the terms "healthy" and "unhealthy" are far to broad and un-nuanced to be useful. There's nothing especially bad about making fries once a month. Eating a big batch three meals a day is another story. The dose makes the poison.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not scientific but I think there is something different between me slicing some russets and frying them at home versus a McD fry which has a pretty long ingredient list. Yeah neither of them are healthy but is the former heailti-"er" than the latter? Or say Five-Guys or In-n-Out who advertise on "3 ingredient" fries. It's an interesting question.
Hell it might just be the caloric effort you put into preparing the fries yourself that makes them "healthier"
Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (canola
Re: (Score:2)
American cheese and "processed cheese product" are two different things. That's why Kraft Singles are called that and not Kraft American Cheese Singles. Legally it's not even cheese, while American cheese is.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's no vast gulf between "health" and "unhealthy" food.
There most certainly is. Very few things exist in the grey area. You're a victim of corporate misinformation if you believe otherwise.
> There's likely no sharp dividing line between "processed" and "ultra processed".
It's not the processing that's the problem, it's that easy to process ingredients are bad for us. Even ingredients with good bits have the good bits removed because they are hard to process.
The ultimate problem is that processing plants are operated by corporations therefore government won't protect us.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely taco. It's seasoned meat on an open face bread product, topped with an assortment of vegetables and/or condiments.
The [1]cube rule [cuberule.com] leads to the same conclusion.
[1] https://cuberule.com/
You know what's ultra-processed? (Score:2)
You hamburger. It started life as a full-blown cow and through intensive processing, it's turned into a patty of ground beef.
Re: (Score:2)
> through intensive processing
I'm trying to train the cows to lie down on an open hamburger bun of their own volition.
Re: (Score:2)
Please also train them to shave themselves first.
Re: (Score:2)
Going through a meat grinder is "intensive processing"?
This is why we need this stuff better laid out.
Re: (Score:2)
The burger patty is not ultra processed. The ketchup and BBQ sauce are. And the burger bun might be too, especially if it's one of those prefabricated ones, with lots of preservatives, and corn syrup thickened with pectin instead of a dough.
Re: (Score:2)
> The burger patty is not ultra processed. The ketchup and BBQ sauce are.
This is why I think the ultra-processed term doesn't mean what people think. Just because I ran some tomatoes through a blender and strainer doesn't make them less healthy but it does make it ultra-processed. The health effects and the processing don't always have a lot to do with each other. It's more about removing or adding components to the food. To me, that makes "ultra-processed" a misleading term.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about" [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR_4h5A5z_A
Re: (Score:2)
Just as much effort goes into grinding flour. I'll stick with both.
Unless you are buying fast food 'burgers', which barely qualify as meat.
I think there's already a playbook for this (Score:1)
First you need to start by banning it from schools. Think of the children. Be sure to remove any books from school libraries that reference trans fats, and don't allow kids to bring in any from home in their lunches. All classroom curriculums should be reviewed to ensure that they're completely free of any hidden trans fat agenda.
Next, you pass laws making it increasingly burdensome for fats to become trans. Restrict access to processes and supplies required for the production of trans fats.
Don't forget
Pre Digested (Score:1)
Thats the problem with these, its too easy to get all the stuff out of them for your body. Digestion is supposed to take some work.
This stuff was designed for ww2 soldiers who were um doing soldier things.
American cheese, anerican chocolate (Score:2)
american beef, beer - ah hell basically any american food product
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty sure europe owns those beer companies now.
I'd say ... (Score:2)
... a minimum of 500mg of "proceed-ness" per serving.
(Thomas Dolby voice) Science!
Re: (Score:2)
> ... a minimum of 500mg of "proceed-ness" per serving.
> (Thomas Dolby voice) Science!
That would have been funnier if I had spelled "processed-ness" correctly ...
Food education sucks (Score:2)
Growing up we learned about the food pyramid, and the four food groups, and we learned that fat is very bad for you. It turns out all of that was wrong, at least partly. You can now find so much food information by so-called gurus and most of it is contradictory. Almost every source of information on food and nutrition is untrustworthy. There are just so many variables. I went down a rabbit hole trying to find out what the "most healthy dinner" would be. Like somewhere, someone must have come up with
An interesting problem. (Score:2)
There are papers arguing that smoothies aren't as good as eating real fruit because it seems that there's actually a benefit to having to break down cell walls, even at the expense of not getting 100% of the nutrients from it. However, cooking food breaks down cell walls, although obviously not to the same degree. It's not clear that breaking down cell walls is harmful, even if it's not beneficial.
A lot of ultra-processed foods have been accused of having unhealthy levels of certain ingredients (usually sug
Let's make a list (Score:2)
We all know it when we see it. Grinding is processing. The nixtimalization process for corn is processing and it's GOOD, because without it you don't get enough nutrients. American Indians did it. You could do it in your own kitchen if you had to. You saute, puree, grind, and mix all the time in a home kitchen. These are processes, but they're not ultra-processing.
You know what I've never heard of anybody doing at home? Hydrogenating. Partially or fully, nobody does that shit in their kitchen. So. Fir
It's not the amount of processing per se (Score:1)
It's the effect the processing has on the food that counts.
If you are going to have meaningful definitions, you need to make it clear what the nutritional value of the end product is. It really doesn't matter how much or how little "processing" it took to get to that point.
Nutritionally does it really matter if I put an apple in a Vegimatic 3000(TM) and turn it up to "ultra" and leave it on for 1 minute then let it sit for an hour vs. having it "process" for a full 61 minutes?
On the other hand, putting the
Baby formula (Score:2)
Is it made from real babies? Hmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds tasty.
Re:Baby formula (Score:4, Funny)
> Is it made from real babies? Hmmm?
If you want to be certain, be sure to look for Modest Proposal brand baby food!
Modest Proposal - ask for it by name!
Re: (Score:2)
> Is it made from real babies? Hmmm?
Maybe [1]Soylent Green [wikipedia.org] Baby Formula?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green