Ultraprocessed Foods Now Comprise 2/3 of Calories in Children and Teen Diets
now.tufts.edu
now.tufts.edu
The sliced and bagged bread on the shelves is also more processed than the bread you might make at home or even buy from the bakery section of the grocery store. There's a reason it maintains perceived freshness much longer than bread you might make yourself.
I don't think their definition is a reason to discard the study. Drop the word "ultra" and it's still true that more than 2/3 of calories being consumed are from processed foods.
EDIT: The term "ultra-processed" isn't meant to be a perfect ordering of all foods' nutritional properties. That said, they didn't come up with arbitrary designations. They confirmed that the nutritional value of the foods deemed "ultra-processed" by their methodology was, on average, lower:
> “In additional analyses, we compared the composition of ultraprocessed foods to non-ultra processed foods using data from the 2017-2018 period. We found that ultraprocessed foods contain a substantially higher percent of calories from carbohydrates and added sugars, and higher levels of sodium, but also had less fiber and a lower percentage of calories from protein,” said the study’s first author, Lu Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School.
Trying to identify edge cases where their designation might fail doesn't invalidate the study. The foods in their ultra-processed category were confirmed to be, on average, nutritionally worse.
The bakery section bread is sometimes sliced too.
Using slicing and bagging to distinguish ultra-processing is not a good idea, even if it sometimes correlates.
> I don't think their definition is a reason to discard the study. Drop the word "ultra" and it's still true that more than 2/3 of calories being consumed are from processed foods.
Processing can also mean so many different things. Sliced up raw ingredients to make a salad? Now it's processed.
The definition of "ultra-processed" is in https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
"Ultra" seems subjective, but sliced bread is objectively more processed.
The mistake is assuming that "processed" is necessary a good measure of nutritional merit. A freeze dried turnip is more processed than a piece of raw honeycomb, but I'm pretty sure you'd give yourself diabetes eating honeycomb all day long while binging on turnips should be fine.
That's what the headline is implying.
But it's also that "ultra" sounds like it means a lot more than "also sliced it."
Either way, if we would all agree that it has nothing to do with nutritional merit, then go ahead and call the sliced bread whatever you want. But I don't think that was the intent of the study!
Considering the vast majority of Americans get enough protein, I'm not sure why this specific observation is considered bad. Calories from carbohydrates (including sugar) aren't intrinsically worse than calories from protein. That's not to say most ultraprocessed foods are healthy, just that the observation doesn't imply they aren't.
For comparison, here's what the CDC has to say about added sugar[1]:
> Added sugars contribute calories to your diet, but no essential nutrients. Eating and drinking too many added sugars makes it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many calories.
The important thing is that ultraprocessed foods tend to have less micronutrients and encourage eating too many calories.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/healthy_eating/sugar.html
They covered that. It's in the linked article:
> “In additional analyses, we compared the composition of ultraprocessed foods to non-ultra processed foods using data from the 2017-2018 period. We found that ultraprocessed foods contain a substantially higher percent of calories from carbohydrates and added sugars, and higher levels of sodium, but also had less fiber and a lower percentage of calories from protein,” said the study’s first author, Lu Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School.
I think too many people are getting hung up on the technicalities of processed versus ultra-processed. The distinction isn't meant to be a perfect ordering of all foods on a scale of unprocessed to ultra-processed. It's a rough spectrum with helpful, though not necessarily 100% perfect, classification guidelines.
Regardless of what you think about their classification techniques, they also showed that the nutritional composition varied significantly with the ultra-processed foods in ways that are known to be unhealthy, so it's not completely useless.
Some level of processing is unavoidable if your dinner is anything other than a foraged or garden salad. Many of our "processing" methods were once rudimentary preservation methods: pickling, curing, fermenting, etc.
The image of the greasy Costco-style pizza slice is usually held up as the poster-child for "ultra-processed" food, but they never go into great detail about which elements are particularly harmful. What if I make my pizza from scratch? Is natural-casing pepperoni still an "ultra-processed" ingredient simply by being cured? Or only if it's cured by nitrites and pumped full of preservatives? Is there any cheese that qualifies as minimally-processed versus ultra-processed?
The message gets muddled by being vague, because it always seems to come across as just "Eat healthier!", which is not terribly helpful.
Yes they do. They put a short quote in the linked article and they expand on it further in the study:
> We found that ultraprocessed foods contain a substantially higher percent of calories from carbohydrates and added sugars, and higher levels of sodium, but also had less fiber and a lower percentage of calories from protein
This study was targeted toward food science, not the general public, but in my opinion they did a decent job of explaining the difference.
Really though, the defining line between processed and ultra-processed isn't a single ingredient that will make or break your health. It's a spectrum, and this study shows that the average dietary composition is shifting further to one end of the spectrum.
If you're trying to split hairs over the dividing line between processed and ultra-processed, you might miss the point. This isn't meant to be a guidebook about which ingredients are and aren't acceptable.
Sure, and maybe it's outside of the scope of the study, but if we want the pendulum to shift back the other way, we'll probably need to allow for some baby-steps. People won't give up their burgers, pizza, and microwave popcorn overnight. But you might be able to get some people to switch to a less-processed form of popcorn if you tell them, "Microwaved popcorn is problematic because it is coated in artificially-hydrogenated coconut oil. But popcorn made in a hot-air popper or on the stove with some regular vegetable oil does not have this problem."
Similarly, a person trying to make a "healthier", non-ultra-processed burger at home might be left wondering if such a thing is even possible, since hamburger buns and most commercially-available cheeses are ultra-processed by definition. I doubt that anyone at home has the inclination to try making cheese from scratch.
"""Food substances not used in kitchens appear in the beginning or in the middle of the lists of ingredients of ultra-processed foods. These include hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, ‘mechanically separated meat’, fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, ‘fruit juice concentrate’, invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose, lactose, soluble or insoluble fibre, hydrogenated or interesterified oil; and also other sources of protein, carbohydrate or fat which are neither foods from NOVA group 1 or group 3, nor culinary ingredients from NOVA group 2. The presence in the list of ingredients of one or more of these food substances identifies a product as ultra-processed."""
- hydrolyzed proteins: vegemite
- gluten: to make seitan or add to bread dough
- fructose: agave syrup
- high fructose corn syrup
- fruit juice concentrate
- invert sugar: golden syrup
- maltodextrin: in powdered soymilk
- dextrose: artificial sweeteners are mostly this by mass
- hydrogenated oil: vegetables shortening, no less healthy than butter (assuming no trans fat)
Clearly the act of separating parts of an animal is not adding unhealthy compounds to your food.
Which then makes me think: if they are willing to include that, how low is the bar for considering something "ultra processed"?
I think they did the right thing in marking that as "ultra processed".
I am not willing to go into details on this. I will just say that "meat" does not mean the same for everyone.
Do your own research if you must. I don't recommend it.
It looks unpleasant. But the description of the process is no problem at all.
They remove most of the muscle meat, large fats, organs, and bones from a carcass, and then grind the carcass into a paste. The paste is then passed through a sieve under pressure.
nutritionally it likely has nothing to do with 'meat' as you know it from a grocery store or butcher.
The industrial processes that make grocery store flour are not just the same old milling and sifting we've been doing for centuries, but a qualitatively different way to treat food.
Further, in the USA, several states still allow the use of bromate to speed up the flour aging process. Any industrial bread in those states will have this rather unhealthy chemical in it.
I'm not remotely surprised to see sliced bread count as "ultra processed".
Perhaps the human stomach needs to take its time digesting whole foods and fibers in their natural form to produce feelings of satiety for longer periods of time?
Not sure “slicing and bagging” is actually what would qualify it as ultraprocessed, but also not sure if those additional ingredients added actually are unhealthy.
In practice I find that white bread seems to lack whatever it is that makes me feel full. I can easily eat 2-4x the calories in white bread than I could eat from standard whole wheat baked bread.
I guess white bread, white rice etc are all fairly modern too.
It's fiber
Probably also has to do with the fact that bread has so little actual nutrition. The body isn't getting what it needs, so it prompts you to eat more.
For longevity, the best you can do is the right vegetables with meats and fruits in moderation.
I'm still looking for a good non-meta study on "processed" meats to see if anyone can identify a theory on the interaction between gut biomes and various food preparations. That could be some useful science for me.
[*] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_...
No. Stop making up lies about how ultra-processed has been defined.
Compare to i.e. Europe where it is more common to have bakeries and such on nearly every neighborhood corner so you can walk over to buy fresh food every morning.
I think a lack of knowledge, interest, and time to plan and prepare healthy meals is the bigger issue. People don't need to go to the grocery store everyday to have fresh food at home. I only go shopping 2-3 times per month, and eat all home cooked meals with a heavy emphasis on fresh fruits and veggies.
Fresh lettuce, avocados, bananas, mushrooms, and berries last at least 1 week.
Bell peppers, tomatoes, zucchini, celery last at least 2 weeks in the fridge
Apples and carrots last 3 weeks.
Onions, garlic, sweet potatoes last 4 weeks not refrigerated.
Meat and fish: fresh can last 1 week, frozen for months.
Milk: 1 week for fresh or months if you get UHT milk.
Cheese: lasts 2-3 weeks.
Rice, beans, frozen fruits, frozen veggies: lasts months.
Eating fresh, healthy meals doesn't require a daily grocery trip. At most once a week, and with some planning every other week. I really think it's that people can't/won't handle the cognitive load of meal planning and preparation.
Yes, that is a big factor too. Buying healthier raw ingredients is more (mentally) difficult than buying pre-made processed stuff like hot pockets because of the preparation and planning required.
This isn't true, though. Most fruits, meats, and vegetables don't spoil in only a few days. Modern flash freezing technology also makes frozen vegetables very nutritious and flavorful.
I shop once per week and my grocery list is mostly fresh vegetables, fruits, and meats. It really doesn't take much effort. If I do pick something up that spoils quickly, I simply cook it in a meal at the beginning of the week instead of toward the end.
I wish it was more common knowledge that eating healthy isn't near as difficult or expensive as it sounds.
But flash freezing is an industrial technology not found in your standard home kitchen. Does that not qualify that food for the processed or ultra-processed categories?
This is why these labels are silly. There are a ton of edge cases that get missed.
Do you have evidence that they considered frozen vegetables to be ultra-processed? Or are you just assuming they did? The study clearly shows that the ultra-processed foods were nutritionally worse, so I doubt they were referring to frozen vegetables. Let's give them some credit, shall we?
The label isn't meant to be a guidebook for consumers. It's meant to be a classification system used for the purposes of this study.
The researches didn't just blindly categorize things as ultra-processed and forget to check the validity of their classification. They show that the ultra-processed category of foods used in this study were, indeed, nutritionally worse.
I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on assumed failures of this classification system. Even the linked article has quotes from the researchers that explain the nutritional aspects of the study. They weren't just blindly demonizing food processing.
Last time this discussion came up, I told people to just read the actual study [1]. This link has it behind a paywall, but I am pretty sure it's the same one.
Their section on "processed" describes some of the criteria as:
> These include canned or bottled vegetables or legumes (pulses) preserved in brine; whole fruit preserved in syrup; tinned fish preserved in oil; some types of processed animal foods such as ham, bacon, pastrami, and smoked fish; most freshly baked breads; and simple cheeses to which salt is added. See Table 1, below. They are made by adding salt, oil, sugar or other substances from group 2 to group 1 foods.
That reads to me as qualifying frozen vegetables as "processed" foods.
> I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on assumed failures of this classification system. Even the linked article has quotes from the researchers that explain the nutritional aspects of the study. They weren't just blindly demonizing food processing.
Likely because the headline and classification system cause people to come up with their own, not-quite-the-same idea of what "processed" and "ultra-processed" are. It reinforces the idea that "natural === good" which is not necessarily the case.
Personally, I would rather see some attempt at quantifying thresholds for these ingredients. Yes, everyone should eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. We all know that, and yet we don't. Convenience is powerful. Can I lobby my congressman to ban a particular type of preservative which is strongly linked to cancer? Can I be hyper-vigilant for it in foods that I purchase? Maybe there are multiple such ingredients. Are they acceptable at different thresholds or worse when combined?
I want something actionable, not a shock headline.
To be fair, some produce like bananas and cucumbers can go bad in less than a week. But it’s easy to avoid and if you want them fresh, picking up a handful of items mid week isn’t too much of a chore.
+ Dave's killer wholegrain english muffins
+ Bacon
+ Icelandic yogurt
And several other items count as processed:
+ Pickles
+ Lunch meat
+ Deli cheese
There are also things which sit in a weird spot that isn't clear to me, eg frozen hash browns. This is literally just potatoes and salt but has had mechanical processes and extrusion.
Unless you are eating a raw diet, a lot of your items count as ultra processed under these guidelines.
During a COVID lockdown, a once a week shop is ideal because of minimizing contact with other people. Also once a week could be delivered rather than shopped for.
You need to chill. Literally :-)
Industrial breads made only from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast are processed foods, while those whose lists of ingredients also include emulsifiers or colours are ultra-processed. Plain steel-cut oats, plain corn flakes and shredded wheat are minimally processed foods, while the same foods are processed when they also contain sugar, and ultra-processed if they also contain flavours or colours.Unprocessed foods are the ones occurring in nature. In this case: Wheat, egg, salt, yeast. Once you grind the yeast, blend the ingredients together and bake it, it becomes processed.
Bread is always processed. Grains by themselves - wheat, quinoa, rye, etc. are not.
Similarly eggs are unprocessed. Extracting and filtering the protein so that it exists as an isolate (a form far from its naturally-occurring state) is processed.
Everyone that struggles with weight can tell you, this foods are just to addictive.
For a good overview of how food industry makes it more addictive read a book Hooked by Michael Moss
How do you know?
My understanding is at odds with yours. Problems extend well beyond calorie density.
"Processing" covers a lot of things but is often performed for shelf-life reasons. Preservatives are introduced. Ingredients are cooked at very high temperatures to eliminate ambient storage issues. Processing also allows recipes to be precisely tweaked by committee, adding salt, artificial flavourings, and [often controversial] sweeteners. Colourants are dictated by marketing too.
Aside from probable direct chemical issues, these flavour- and sodium- hyperdense foods screw with our expectations from food. They're also digested too fast, exacerbating glycaemic swings, even illiciting a Pavlovian response.
Your "filler" ignores the cause of today's problems. The problems above are caused by a 70 year postwar food race. Capitalism. The way out isn't more of that, we need to recalibrate. Everyday food _should_ be boring, so that treats remain special. Reclaim a taste for the boiled veg our great grandparents had. Get away from this boomer-fuelled sugar fetish.
> The calories that children and adolescents consumed from ultraprocessed foods jumped from 61% to 67% of total caloric intake from 1999 to 2018
So about a 10% increase in 20 years.
Still troubling, of course, but the title is useless without context.
One could say "Oh, they did not have modern medicine, and blah blah blah".
The way I see, ultraporcessed food, medicines, industrialised goods are all part of the same package. And yet we always see the cup half empty.
Life span is how old a human is capable of living. This number has not changed much in hundreds or thousands of years. Life expectancy is how many humans reach any specific age. Life expectancy increases are primarily driven by decreases in infant deaths (which bring down the averages), and secondarily by better diagnosis and treatments of disease in older humans.
In any case, the existence of better medicine is not predicated on the development or consumption of ultra processed foods. There is no “same package”.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/VSRR10-508.pdf
(Note it doesn't really take into account covid at all, since it covers up to June 2020). In fact, it hasn't really increased since 2012ish.