Ultra-Processed Food is Global Health Threat, Researchers Warn (bbc.com) 84
Action is needed now to reduce ultra-processed food (UPF) in diets worldwide because of their threat to health, say international experts in a global review of research. From a report: They say the way we eat is changing - with a move away from fresh, whole foods to cheap, highly-processed meals - which is increasing our risk of a range of chronic diseases, including obesity and depression. Writing in The Lancet, the researchers say governments need "to step up" and introduce warnings and higher taxes on UPF products, to help fund access to more nutritious foods.
[...] This review of evidence on the impact of UPFs on health, carried out by 43 global experts and based on 104 long-term studies, suggests these foods are linked to a greater risk of 12 health conditions. These include type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, depression and dying prematurely from any cause.
[...] This review of evidence on the impact of UPFs on health, carried out by 43 global experts and based on 104 long-term studies, suggests these foods are linked to a greater risk of 12 health conditions. These include type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, depression and dying prematurely from any cause.
Re: (Score:1)
A raw carrot
Pringles
Soy sauce
Are all foods for sale tested before they can go on sale? I don't think so but how about this is introduced? Manufacturers of things intended to be ingested (let's not go so far as to say 'food') could pay a nominal fee which is a function of the number and quality of ingredients.
Then, on some random schedule, a random selection of foods is collected from random sales locations and a random proportion of those tested by a party other than the one collecting the items - to ensure
Re: (Score:1)
2/3 - not bad. Soy sauce is super-processed by bacteria over a year, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
No sausage for you!
Re: For those wondering (Score:2)
Processed isn't unhealthy. It's just a really stupid way of saying junk food.
Organic backyard garden potatoes hand carved into chips then kissed with heated peanut oil that was hang wrung from all natural peanuts that were read bedtime stories every night are still just fucking potato chips.
Carbs and oil and salt, it's not great for you, and processing it more or less doesn't change anything.
Re: For those wondering (Score:2)
Trillions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Trillions (Score:1)
Thing #2,594,874,993,822,093 to worry about... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll get right on it.
Surprise!! (Score:4, Insightful)
the researchers say governments need "to step up" and introduce warnings and higher taxes on UPF products, to help fund access to more nutritious foods.
Oh look! They recommend higher prices and more taxes to "solve" this "problem". Who ever would have guessed?
Re: (Score:2)
...which is mostly consumed by poor people.
Why do you hate poor people?
Re: (Score:1)
Why should poor people eat the crap that is ultra-processed food?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should poor people eat the crap that is ultra-processed food?
Umm... because it's all they can afford? Because it's all they have access to in the 'food deserts' which they live in and don't have the means to venture out of? Because they're addicted to it? Because they don't know better? Because advertising - aka brainwashing - actually works?
Take your pick - any or all of the above, plus probably more that I didn't think of.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Surprise!! (Score:2)
I think the education, advertising and addiction are probably the main issues.
We could encourage good food education, like the Japanese do, as part of school education. But when you have political parties that label pizza as a vegetable for school lunches it might be difficult in the USA.
https://neocity.tokyo/archives... [neocity.tokyo]
https://www.organicauthority.c... [organicauthority.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of a class of people who can't afford or don't have access to real food is a policy choice, not an iron law of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Most grocery stores that sell Doritos also sell apples.
The fact that a lot of people choose to buy Doritos instead of apples really offends some people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Surprise!! (Score:2)
Most grocery stores that sell Doritos also sell apples.
The fact that a lot of people choose to buy Doritos instead of apples really offends some people.
First you say it's a matter of affordability. Now you say it's a matter of taste.
Cheap and addictive high calorie density food is hurting people. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should poor people eat the crap that is ultra-processed food?
It's called "freedom", you should try it some time.
In his case, it's people choosing for themselves what to eat, rather than having that dictated to them.
Re: (Score:1)
"freedom" indeed
quite Orwellian...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Their mantra is "GIVE US MONEY OR YOU'LL DIE!!! AND SOMEONE WILL MOLEST YOUR CHILDREN AND KILL YOUR DOG!!1"
Doesn't much matter what the subject is, it's a dire threat to human civilization and the only possible way to survive is to give the hysterical pearl clutchers all your money.
Keep it simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Beef, chicken, eggs. Fruits, veggies, pasta.
It's relatively easy and tasty to eat healthy, and it's often cheaper too, even if you get the fancier cuts. Certainly when compared to the processed crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Beef, chicken, eggs. Fruits, veggies, pasta.
It's relatively easy and tasty to eat healthy, and it's often cheaper too, even if you get the fancier cuts. Certainly when compared to the processed crap.
You had me until 'pasta'. It's almost always a highly-refined carb which will spike insulin release in a manner not that much less drastic than that associated with sugar. Even whole-grain pasta is bad in that way, because the grain is ground so fine that the fibre content does almost nothing to mediate carb absorption in the gut.
It's also important to specify WHOLE fruits and veggies - not juiced or mashed. Even the act of finely chopping these foods - especially the fruits - results in a VERY different in
Re: (Score:2)
True, if you're concerned about diabetes, then you are 100% correct.
Otherwise...meh. Pasta is a good carb, particularly for those that do a lot of cardio or weights ( or both! ). And for the most part, you really can't eat too much fruit. I know I know, it has a ton of simple carbs, but it also has a ton of water and fiber. For a health, semi-active adult, fruit is fine.
Juiced is a different story, and I agree with that, but things like apple sauce ( as long as they contain the whole fruit ) are perfect
Too Simplistic (Score:2, Interesting)
Is anyone else suspicious that this generic label of "Ultra-Processed Food" is being applied broadly without really bothering to address actual causes? For example, is it high sodium, high saturated fats, or just high caloric content in general that's the issue? All of the above and in combination, I'm sure, but this seems like a condescending and misleadingly simplistic way of communicating that. Further, it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy... It's not the fact that it's "ultra-processed" that makes it un
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
been trying to find out ever since some of the more vocal nutrition people like Jessica Knurick have started warning about UPF.
i do need to pay more attention to what & how much I eat but i'm not going back all the way to my grandma's food preparation, simply don't have that kind of time
Re:Too Simplistic (Score:5, Informative)
There is an honest-to-goodness definition. Johns Hopkins has a good article about what UPFs are: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2... [jhu.edu]
The takeaway is - "Ultra-processed foods have one or more ingredient that wouldn’t be found in a kitchen, like chemical-based preservatives, emulsifiers like hydrogenated oils, sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup, and artificial colors and flavors. UPFs undergo processing techniques like pre-frying, molding, extrusion, fractioning, and other chemical alterations that leave the final products bearing almost no resemblance to the original ingredients."
(emphasis is mine)
Re: (Score:1)
Ultra-processed foods have one or more ingredient that wouldn’t be found in a kitchen, like chemical-based preservatives, emulsifiers like hydrogenated oils, sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup, and artificial colors and flavors.
So, ultra-processed foods are anything not in my kitchen. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really narrow it down. We need specifics.
It seems to me the only discovery here is a new kind of statistical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
They gave specifics. You want the opposite. The list of ultra processed foods is larger than the list of "regular" foods.
Re: (Score:2)
So, ultra-processed foods are anything not in my kitchen. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really narrow it down. We need specifics.
Why do you need more specifics in a study that is talking about categories? The categories are defined, you can select any product and fit it in. It is specific enough.
It seems to me the only discovery here is a new kind of statistical fallacy.
It seems to me you have a pre-existing bias that is discounting something based on feels and vibes without actually putting any effort into understanding the subject or what is being talked about. The study isn't the problem here, it's you.
Re: (Score:2)
The takeaway is - "Ultra-processed foods have one or more ingredient that wouldn’t be found in a kitchen, like chemical-based preservatives, emulsifiers like hydrogenated oils, sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup, and artificial colors and flavors. UPFs undergo processing techniques like pre-frying, molding, extrusion, fractioning, and other chemical alterations that leave the final products bearing almost no resemblance to the original ingredients."
You ... do know that kitchens around the world have things like artificial vanilla flavor (and yes, even Karo corn syrup) in them, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You ... do know that Karo corn syrup is not high-fructose corn syrup, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You ... do know that Karo corn syrup is not high-fructose corn syrup, right?
Oh no! By dismissing one example, you've devastated my ... oh wait, no you haven't.
What about the artificial vanilla flavor? Is Grandma the queen of processed-ness?
Is there some percentage of kitchens that something has to be found in, to be free of the "processed-ness" taint? Do they all have to be home kitchens? I mean, since we're being so scientific about all this ...
Re: (Score:2)
Chemically it's identical to what you get from vanilla beans, and it's not synthesized in a lab. The only differences are that it's extracted from wood, and the other chemicals that give natural vanilla its rich flavor aren't there.
Re: (Score:2)
and it's not synthesized in a lab
Would ... that impart the dreaded "processed-ness"? A lab vs. a factory?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Karo is not HFCS , but yeah, lot of kitchens have hydrogenated oils (a.k.a "shortening", also "margarine"), artificial colors ("food coloring"), and flavors (vanillin probably is most common). HFCS would be unusual in a home kitchen, but "invert sugar" is less so and pretty much the same thing. Sucrose itself is already highly processed, it doesn't exactly come out of the beet as a white granular substance.
The UPF thing is woo, by people who should know better. At least the bro science people know they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Karo is not HFCS , but yeah, lot of kitchens have hydrogenated oils (a.k.a "shortening", also "margarine"), artificial colors ("food coloring"), and flavors (vanillin probably is most common). HFCS would be unusual in a home kitchen, but "invert sugar" is less so and pretty much the same thing. Sucrose itself is already highly processed, it doesn't exactly come out of the beet as a white granular substance.
Also preservatives are kind of a cornerstone of mass food production. Granted not all preservatives are the same, but I think the reason we use "chemical-based" ones (whatever that means) is that traditional ones (like NaCl) don't scale well.
Re: (Score:2)
That definition might tell us what ultra-processing is, but it doesn't tell us what food is healthy.
First, the problems are the ingredients, not the processing.
Second, many kitchens contain highly-processed ingredients, including refined sugar, corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and artificial colors.
By this definition, bread is by definition ultra-processed, even if you make it at home. Also fruit juice, and even milk, which is homogenized and pasteurized.
No, I'm not buying this definition.
Re: Too Simplistic (Score:2)
None of that explains any kind of link to health concerns, it just describes commercial and industrial food production.
If THAT's how we define processing, and fair, it seems like a useful distinction, it makes the health concerns surrounding it seem like complete bullshit. As cuckoo as anti vaxxers.
You can grow all kind of carbohydrates in your backyard, all kinds of natural walking protein, plant and animal based fats and oils, sugars, etc. Doing all that the hard and "natural" way in your kitchen to make
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They found a correlation . . . but they don't know what exactly in those foods causes the negative effects.
An alleged scientist should know better than to equate correlation with causation. Especially when the other side of their mouth is saying "We don't know the cause."
Perhaps people with poor health are more prone to eating UPFs, either from some craving caused by their poor health, or because their poor health leaves them having to buy the cheapest food possible (which will be UPFs).
Did they make any attempt to distinguish between correlation and causation? Or even acknowledge that they aren't the same thin
Re: (Score:2)
Because human biology is an incredibly complex system, you can never prove anything definitively. You can only have degrees of uncertainty. So they presented their case, and explained their conclusions. I don't know how you can ask for anything different.
And "correlation is not causation", while being true, is highly misleading. The two are not completely disconnected. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, no matter what popular opinion might wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Such as? There have been a couple of controlled studies on ultraprocessed food. They found weight gain and other things like speed of eating associated with the UPFs and not other diets. Good luck doing a decade long controlled study until people get heart disease, even if you somehow convinced an ethics committee to let you try.
https://www.cell.com/cell-meta... [cell.com]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com].
There have also been lots of mechanisti
Re: (Score:1)
It's none of the things you listed but a ton of other things that are mainly found in manufactured food products. Here's a non-exhaustive list:
Natural/artificial flavors - Tricks your body into thinking that food has nutrients it doesn't have, so when your body is low in that nutrient it causes you to crave and overeat that food and you still end up nutrient deficient.
High fructose corn syrup - Fructose causes you to crave more food.
Seed oils - These are less stable than saturated fats. Meaning they're mo
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone else suspicious that this generic label of "Ultra-Processed Food" is being applied broadly without really bothering to address actual causes?
I'm not suspicious. I recommend reading books by Robert Lustig, Gary Taubes, and Chris van Tulleken. Note that I'm not advocating just accepting everything they say - some of it is controversial for good reasons, and some of it is probably just wrong. But for me there's more than enough logic and sense in them to result in some pretty compelling suggestions for causal mechanisms.
For example, is it high sodium, high saturated fats, or just high caloric content in general that's the issue? All of the above and in combination, I'm sure, but this seems like a condescending and misleadingly simplistic way of communicating that.
Not really - especially the "high caloric" content. The bomb calorimeter - with its suggestion that all calories are equivalent -
Re: (Score:2)
All of the above and in combination, I'm sure, but this seems like a condescending and misleadingly simplistic way of communicating that.
Why are you sure? It's actually none of the above. The definition for UPF exists, and there's nothing condescending about it, e.g. the Nova scale. For example cane sugar and HFCS have the same caloric content, (actually the same for all your guessed examples), yet one is classed as a purely natural ingredient and the other as a UPF.
It's not the fact that it's "ultra-processed" that makes it unhealthy to consume, but the ingredients... right?
You're so close. Keep going. Hint: look at what UPF is specifically in relation to what is *in* it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Surely a food can be ultra-processed and also healthy?
No, it can't. You can't start with (say) an organic carrot, then add a whole load of chemical ingredients such as preservatives, emulsifiers, refined oils and whatnot and then claim it is 'healthy'. The original carrot was healthy, all you'd done to it makes it less healthy.
Same goes for something 'not healthy', such as some battery-farmed, mechanically recovered chicken meat. It's basically crap to start with, and you probably wouldn't eat it if yo
Don't forget (Score:1)
ultra-processed water [explainxkcd.com].
What is the number of processes... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
One very loose definition is that if it's something most people can make at home, it's probably not ultra-processed. If they can't, it probably is.
Not the hard-and-fast definition that most Slashdot readers are looking for, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
One very loose definition is that if it's something most people can make at home, it's probably not ultra-processed. If they can't, it probably is.
Most people cannot make any of the following at home:
Meat (beef, chicken, pork, etc)
Butter
Milk
Cheese
Vegetables
Fruits
Flour
Spices
Tea
Coffee
Sugar
Etc. etc. etc.
Some of that stuff people could make, if they didn't live in a city and had the know-how. But they don't and they don't.
The problem with these types (the researches) and they want to pretend like we don't live in a modern society. Where food is typically produced may miles away from where it is consumed, and that conditions require food be processed in ce
Re: (Score:2)
Most of your list could be "produced at home" by most people. Tea and Coffee are the largest problem on the list, but the only reason is geographic and not "processing" related. I'm pretty sure you know that, though, and are being purposefully obtuse for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't. Most people have no land to product those things, and even if they did, they don't know how.
I mean, take cheese. I have no fucking idea how to make cheese. I bet 99% of the US population doesn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you're being willfully obtuse by taking a "very loose definition" of what (or, rather, does not) "probably" constitute "ultra processed" and attacking on the details. Everything on your list (again, other than coffee and tea, along with some spices) has been "produced at home" for millennia, and the things on your list that haven't don't have anything to do with whether they could be, but only the geography of where they could be. Just like your follow up "but I don't have land" bullshit.
"Milk" is
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I took a shortcut with the definition.
The longer version is something most people can make at home with things most people already have in their kitchen.
This assumes sugar, butter, milk, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, dried pasta, spices, cut or ground meat, etc. aren't processed enough to "count" as ultra-processed foods.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very different definition, to be sure. Thanks for clarifying your intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people cannot make any of the following at home:
Meat (beef, chicken, pork, etc)
Farming is not making in common parlance. And people have been farming livestock at home for thousands of years, clearly it ain't that hard. A few people round my way have a few chickens and I live in London.
Butter
Yeah you can. You can churn it by hand with a whisk and a lot of effort. If you've ever tried to make whipped cream at home with an electric whisk (this is incredibly easy and common) you should know to not over be
Re: (Score:2)
... a food is subjected to before it's deemed ultraprocessed? Is it still healthy if it's processed with love?
Zero. The definition for UPF has nothing to do with it going through "process". It has to do with what ingredients are used in it.
For example, you mash a tomato, add some sugar, a pinch of salt, and some herbs and you've got a nice good MPF (Minimally processed food).
If instead you mash a tomato, add some HFCS, a pinch of salt, a splash of E129 to make it a deeper red colour to help sales, some E260 acetic acid to help extend its shelf life, and E900 polydimethylsiloxane to prevent it from forming unsightl
chronic diseases, including obesity and depression (Score:1)
So, you mean sugar. No, Ultra Processed Sugar!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Whey Protein is ultra processed (Score:1)
And tremendous for you
How many ... (Score:1)
... grams of proceed-ness per serving are the limit?
You know, since we're being scientific ...
Food should have a 'health' number on packaging (Score:2)
100 is the best. What would reduce the number?
Sugar, HFCS and sugar substitutes
Artificial flavors and dyes
Preservatives
Packaging emits microplastics
Bad carbs or excess carbs
etc
Let nutritionists not paid by big-food create the standard.
Not what’s commonly thought (Score:2)
Stop blaming processing...it's the ingredients! (Score:1)
Bread is ultra-processed, even if you make it at home. But the stuff you make at home is far more healthy than Wonder bread.
Milk is ultra-processed, it's homogenized and pasteurized.
Pasta, even whole-grain pasta, is ultra-processed (extruded and ground).
Fruit and vegetable juices are ultra-processed (ground, filtered, and often cooked).
Some processing, such as cooking, actually *adds* nutritional value.
Some unprocessed foods are downright dangerous and have little nutritional value, like animal fat.
So stop
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong!
Bread is a *processed* food, not ultra-processed. Same goes for milk (although homogenising it is definitely pushing the boundaries a bit).
You're being too polarised - there's another notch of difference you've ignored. Processed food is generally not great either, but it's okay to make processed food at home (if you're sensible). Things get murky when you process food (like bread) and add a preservative or something - then it's bordering into 'ultra-processed'.
Like most things in life, nuance is impo
Re: (Score:2)
Things get murky when you process food (like bread) and add a preservative or something
The preservatives are in the flour. I've made bread with unbleached, organic, non preservative flour. The finished loaves kept for about a week before the mold set in. The unused flour, not much longer.
Never again. When my doctor told me I needed more greens in my diet, I didn't think he meant mold.
Re: (Score:2)
You would call a simple cup of coffee "ultra-caffeinated, supercharged, mega-boosted, hyper-energizing, turbo java" that promises to launch you into orbit!
You do not know what "ultra" does to the meaning of words. Take your bipolar meds yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Although the definitions are hazy, the ingredients in question are those that would NOT be found in home cooking or restaurant cooking of freshly prepared foods. Mostly ingredients added to enhance taste and/or increase shelf stability of stored foods.
That said: One solution to the shelf life of food is ... (get ready for left wing screeching) ... irradiation. Use that and you can greatly diminish or even eliminate the addition of preservatives.
And for those of you who pooh-pooh preservation in favor of "
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently didn't read my list.
Who *doesn't* have homogenized, pasteurized milk in their refrigerator? Who *doesn't* have pasta in their pantry? Who *doesn't* have some kind of juice in their refrigerator?
Also, those of us who cook, additionally have processed ingredients in our pantries like corn syrup, flour, refined sugar, just to name a few.
It's the non-food ingredients, not the processing.
Failure to communicate (Score:3)
"ultra processed food" is a term of art. For the small number of people who are well versed in the literature, it has a meaning that is not obvious or even evident to the large number of people who aren't part of that subculture.
Sort of like "income inequality," it has a very clear denotative meaning, so 99% of the people who encounter it think they know what's being discussed, and they think (quite reasonably) that it's much ado about nothing. Of course some people are always going to have more income than others. Of course some foods are always going to be more processed than others.
But the denotations are quite different from the connotations, so what looks like communication is actually a complete disconnect. There's no shared understanding of the items term, so there's no actual communication happening. Just a lot of people talking past each other.
Has anybody here switched? (Score:3)
I would honestly like to know if anyone here has switched from typical consumer food to home cooked non UPF, and can tell us how their body changed or felt? Personally I think I eat a combination of pretty high quality food with some things that must be UPF even McDonalds once in a blue moon fast food but not much cooking at home. Is there a significant change like weight reduction, improved mood/sleep/energy levels, etc. with home cooking and no UPFs?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly though, this doesn't answer your question since there are no ultra-high processed "fresh vegetables".