Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation. Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials. Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals. Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.[22]

Science will give you conclusions you can be confident in. But who would be paying for the research? Would there ever be that much incentive to investigate individual ingredients? How long would it take?

I'm sure somebody a lot more diligent than I am can point you to all of those instances in the past where we created harm by exposing ourselves to something novel, prior to it being understood scientifically. I don't think exercising caution is unscientific.

What can we actually do to make people eat healthier though? Rising obesity rates are one of those societal problems where I'm not sure what the solution is. The best strategy I can think of is something like "do our best to solve poverty and hope that this helps with obesity as well".

[0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ultraprocessed-foods/

However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions.

It's not so much if something is a UPF or not, but its to what degree is that particular food processed and is it so processed that it is considered a UPF.

I'd recommend reading the labels here https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

There is so much nuance in here, yes drinking lots of coke which is considered a UPF is bad for you and there's plenty of studies to show that. However like many things its the dose that makes the poison, which is also true of many foods considered processed or not.

Studies are showing that introducing things like 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 are introducing unhealthy outcomes

If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.

Also, the health impacts alleged are negligible and will be altered drastically in 5 years.

Ergo, none of this is worth thinking about and is just a busybox for people's death anxiety.

There are some very good definitions and approaches to UPF's, like many have said the NOVA classification has a good definition and classification matrix.

However, nothing's perfect and these definitions are trying to generalise all possible foods and cannot replace having an understanding of nutrition that allows you to make some of your own decisions.

In your example, a "good" cheese bought from the store would be considered a processed food, but the question is to what degree is it a processed food and how much does the food represent its natural form.

In the NOVA classification, a brie would be considered a processed food, but not ultra processed like a coke or chocolate bar. Having said that, just because something isn't considered processed, doesn't mean it's something we should eat in abundance.

I didn’t include it in the comment, but in the book he elaborates that the proposed mechanism of action for UPFs is basically: people have innate homeostatic mechanisms to keep them from eating too much, but food scientists at major manufacturers (e.g. Kraft) have figured out how to use artificial flavors and modified starches and oils to control the flavor and texture of food with extreme precision (he gives the example of a company who made an ice cream that doesn’t melt at room temperature out of modified starches), and their goal is to sell you food, so they engineer their products to subvert your body’s feedback mechanisms and entice you to eat much more than you actually want. The presence of artificial flavors and modified starches is basically an indicator that the food you’re eating was produced via this process, and your body will probably react in the way the food’s engineers intended and crave more than is satisfying.

edit: example, "it's 'natural'," and my typical response, "your liver, pancreas and kidneys don't care."