Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?
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]
Okay.
So are we ready to ban bread? Is that really what you're proposing? Or white-rice?
> 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).
So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
McDonalds fries and potato chips are fine because they're all natural ingredients, amirite?
“French Fries Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [wheat And Milk Derivatives]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (maintain Color), Salt. natural Beef Flavor Contains Hydrolyzed Wheat And Hydrolyzed Milk As Starting Ingredients. Contains: Wheat, Milk.”
Source: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/small-french-frie...
I guess replace my earlier comment with Five Guys fries then. https://www.fiveguys.com/-/media/public-site/files/allergen-...
> Five Guys Style [Fries]: Potatoes, Refined Peanut Oil, Salt
Its gonna make you fat and clog your arteries either way.
----------
My point is that "processing" food doesn't seem to make it more, or less, healthy. The amount of "processing" that Pasta has (Dry the Flour, Wet the Flour, Dry the Pasta, Wet the Pasta/Boil it, and sometimes further Drying+Wetting steps after that) is one of those running jokes in culinary circles.
Because Pasta is a hell of a lot more "processed" than a typical French Fry
Not only are they cooked differently but you've added extra non processed stuff to the pasta and culminated in using a simple sweeping term of "healthy"
You can also add herbs to fries and cook them in an air fryer. What about if I add broccoli to the fries and throw some hot sauce on?
Both of those things have a place in a well balanced diet
It's also got nothing to do with health (or lack thereof).
I guarantee you there are fewer processing involved in Five Guys French Fries compared to white flour alone, let alone all the extra steps before you have a good meal.
Do you think there is a Pesto recipe that has less processing than the typical oils used for French Fries?
-------
I'm simply pointing out that a Bowl of Spaghetti + Pesto on it is highly processed. To far greater degrees than highly unhealthy and fattening foods we already know about.
You're arguing in bad faith. Nobody said banning, the article said that there should be warning labels.
So yes, people should be aware that when they get a wonderbread sandwhich it has more sugar added to it than a dumdum lollipop. Some other breads are much less processed though.
> So Lays potato chips (only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt on the ingredients list) don't need a warning label?
"Potato chips are made through processes like frying, adding artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives. They are designed to be convenient and hyper-palatable, fitting the definition of ultra-processed foods."
What I am saying is that stores should delineate products that are solely a source of calories from those that meet our nutritional needs. A red/yellow/green system would be useful. Or warning labels.
Lays Potato chips are made up of only Potatoes, Oil, and Salt.
Its as simple as you're going to get. I get that you're trying to make "Ultraprocessed" actually encapsulate "unhealthy foods", but there's no colorings here.
Its just carbs, oil, and salt. Of which many Breads have a similar set of ingredients. Your typical Pesto or other "healthy and organic" dips have more processing than Lay's Potato Chips.
That's the thing. I know that Ultraprocessed is just a word tossed around with no definition. Its just everything "wrong" with today's food that rallies up a crowd, but no one has ever actually defined "Ultraprocessed" in a way that matches what normal people understand as "healthy" vs "unhealthy".
In any case, I'm actually for things like increased soda-taxes and other penalties to provably unhealthy foods. But we need to get the definition correct, and "Ultraprocessed" is such a bad baseline for discussion.
Lay’s potato chips: not UPF
McDonald’s fries: UPF due to the presence of beef flavor, hydrogenated oils, and other similar ingredients.
But I do not partake in the ketosis fad: I eat a small amount of carbs with almost every meal, and if I don't, I get heart palpitations. (And I've seen studies showing the ketosis is a strain on the heart.)
I've started to looked at packaged food ingredients and now avoid foods with added phosphates and nitrates.
> Noodle production starts with dissolving the salt, starch, and flavoring in water to form a mixture that is then added to the flour. The dough is then left for a period of time to mature, then for even distribution of the ingredients and hydration of the particles in the dough, it is kneaded. After it is kneaded, the dough is made into two sheets compounded into one single noodle belt by being put through two rotating rollers. This process is repeated to develop gluten more easily as the sheet is folded and passed through the rollers several times. This will create the stringy and chewy texture found in instant noodles.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_noodles#Production
In the USA there's 'just soak in hot water' rice noodle packs though I normally use the soak in hot water mung bean noodles. Both of which would be considered highly processed.
I think a problem being shown in is we are so many layers deep into processing it's confusing what is being discussed.
I'd really try not to eat individually packaged ramen that's for sure, especially cup-o-soup style where you then add the layer of cooking in the cheapest container made for shipping and cost savings more than it's qualities as a safe cooking surface.
But then maybe noodles do need to be fried or baked to have a long shelf life in hot weather when refrigeration is not available? But even in a hot climate, white flour has a long shelf-life, and a person without a refrigerator can make noodles from scratch like the Italians like to do. (The Italians tend to add eggs, but I am guessing grandparent has regular access to eggs.)
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
The mechanically-separated pink sludge McNuggets may be ultra processed, but I'd like to know if I put a chicken in a blender myself, is it going to be "processed" too. Or maybe the problem is not processing, but just HFCS additives?
As a whole the definition is too close to "natural" fallacy to me.
In the case of a fresh chicken with nothing done to it but blended, then it would be a minimally processed food.
But if you take the blended chicken and add Water, Vegetable Oil (canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil), Enriched Flour (bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Bleached Wheat Flour, Yellow Corn Flour, Vegetable Starch (modified Corn, Wheat, Rice, Pea, Corn), Salt, Leavening (baking Soda, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Calcium Lactate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Spices, Yeast Extract, Lemon Juice Solids, Dextrose, Natural Flavors.
Then it is considered ultra-processed.
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".
I would personally use this as a signal when making choice among other factors.
Say I am choosing between two types of ham.
I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this would help you with ham though. Probably either all ham counts as ultra processed, or none of it does. (My money is on the former)
If it was based on the number of ingredients, maybe there would be some case where one ham has an additional flavoring or something that puts it over the limit. But how likely is it that the extra ingredients would have a significant effect? Probably not much compared to the ham itself, plus the salt or whatever that's in it.
But I think corps likely apply tons of chemicals to extend shelf life, make process faster and improve taste.
From another hand, I had no idea what is the process until I just googled. And I buy many types of food, and don't have chance to do my research, so labeling would be superhelpful.
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.
You say we should be more on the cautious side. Sure, that’s a fine take. But without actual classification as to what counts as “ultra-processed” food that actually maps to harm in some way, you end up with the California-style “potential carcinogen” sticker warning slapped on almost everything. Which is useless at best.
The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount. Part of my point is that I don't think science will ever be fast enough to satisfy the type of person who wants a study telling them that their staple shouldn't be top ramen. And yet, I still think we should discourage it.
> The other thing is that the risk likely depends on the ingredient and the amount
Heavily agreed. Which is why I believe that the whole UPF classification is a silly and impractical idea. But I am fully on-board with targeting specific ingredients and their relative amounts, and issuing warnings on product labels based on that (while explicitly pointing out those ingredients, the risks, and by how much of a factor there is too much of it [in case there is a normal/safe amount for that particular ingredient]).