I was actually massively surprised by how helpful a label ultra-processed can be, even if there are edge cases.
Hormel are probably adding a huge number of lab-based emulsifiers, flavour enhancers and colouring, that you definitely won't have at home. It's a pretty open and shut case about whether or not its ultra-processed.
There's of course edge cases were something we think of as healthy might be ultra-processed, and something obviously unhealthy might not be considered ultra-processed. But it's a really helpful category for identifying a whole bunch of foods that are linked with a range of negative health conditions.
Even then a group classification is useless if it includes a single element with a undue influence.
Consider an arbitrary SuperGiant classification that says that SuperGiant foods are harmful. SuperGiant foods are defined as any food you can buy in a supermarket plus also Polonium. You can easily produce a wide range of statistics to show harms caused by things classed as SuperGiant foods.
That's very true, but you've intentionally made SuperGiant foods to have two distinct categories. Scientists only considering SuperGiant foods might show harm, but quite quickly a study could be done to show that specifically, Polonium is the relevant item.
If that couldn't be shown, then avoiding SuperGiant foods would be a sensible precaution, even if you suspect there's something specific causing harm that isn't in all SuperGiant foods - with the obvious caveat that you've defined SuperGiant foods to more or less impossible to actually avoid.
Currently UPF is not similar to this, in that nobody has yet shown that UPFs are a category containing something else which is bad for you. That probably is the case, but until the parallel of Polonium is found, being cautious around UPFs seems like a sensible idea.
The Siga Index seems to be better suited to aiming for positive outcomes but associating it with the term UPF then enables people to conflate findings regarding Nova results with Siga results.
>Currently UPF is not similar to this, in that nobody has yet shown that UPFs are a category containing something else which is bad for you.
There are two aspect to this, firstly it is not that there is containing something 'else'. By definition if it meets the criteria of the definition it is not an 'else' but a part of the criteria.
To phrase that a different way is to say it all fits within in the criteria but the criteria itself is not homogenous.
And that's the second problem with your statement. The Nova classification _is_ similar to this.
From Wikipedia
A number of studies show that although UPFs in general are associated with higher health risks, there exists a large heterogeneity among UPF subgroups. For example, although bread and cereals are classified as UPFs, a large 2023 study published in The Lancet finds them inversely associated with cancer and cardiometabolic diseases in the European population (hazard ratio 0.97). The study found that animal-based products (HR = 1.09) and artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages (HR = 1.09) are most strongly associated with diseases among UPFs.
They did find a parallel of Polonium, sweeteners (and another one with animal products)
and that bit of Section 49015 says:
(4) “Minimally processed prepared food” may include any food prepared using either of the following processes:
(A) Traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, for example, smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting.
(B) Physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, for example, grinding meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices.
It's not to say one couldn't use large scale machinery to make real healthy food in my general though.
UPFs usually have ingredients you've never seen for sale.
Like that definition doesn't seem to work when there's foods where the commercial variant is made differently to the normal version.
A homemade cake is minimally processed. The flour and sugar are processed but nothing that heavily alters it.
A commercial cake on the other hand has stabilizers, ph balancers, etc.
You're over thinking it. Almost nothing made at home is ultra processed unless you're doing some weird sausage making. If you can name the ingredients easily, it probably isn't ultra processed.
The extra stuff in UPFs interacts with your body in ways that you are not prepared for and some of them are designed to make you consume more. The first example that comes to mind is the sodium added to make you tolerate more sugar.
This would be a Nova Group 3 food.
Processed. But not ultra-processed.
If you buy a fresh hamburger at the butcher, made by him with salt and pepper, it's processed food.
But if you add sodium nitrite/nitrate, monosodium glutamate, phosphates, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, sodium erythorbate, carrageenan, bha/bht, propyl gallate, tbhq, soy protein isolate, modified food starch, dextrose, caramel color, red 40, yellow 5, etc... it's ultra-processed food.
Everything is a chemical. Salt is sodium chloride. Ingredients should be assessed individually and scientifically for their safety. Not just scary name equals unsafe. That's childish.
The war on monosodium glutamate is based racism and not science. It's as safe as table salt. There is no real science showing that it's anything but delicious.
Dextrose is just a simple sugar. It's essentially glucose chemically. Nothing to worry about. Your body produces glucose itself. You are not ultra processed because of that fact.
High fructose corn syrup is just fructose, another simple sugar [1], and there's no real science to back up all the fear mongering around it. It's no worse for you than any other sugar. All things in moderation.
And colorants/"food dyes" are even worse. A bunch of them are under strong suspicion of being carcinogenic, and often are used to mask the ingredients being cured for longer shelf lives or being of sub-par quality.
you are being skeptical in a very silly way, sorry to say. if you don't see the industry incentives to use trash in your food instead of normal ingredients, you are missing the point in a very unproductive way.
Come to me with scientific evidence and not fear mongering, and then we can talk on an equal field.
Two people can eat the same number of calories, but if one of them is slamming UPFs they will gain more weight.
Additionally, UPFs do not satiate hunger like more natural foods. Meaning people can eat more UPFs than more natural foods before feeling full.
There are absolutely industrial ingredients we should be banning in the US that other countries have rightfully banned.
Depending on production method, I believe MSG can be a Nova Group 2 (processed culinary ingredient) product.
The name comes from the additional step of converting some portion of the glucose to fructose after converting starch to glucose.
1. sodium nitrite/nitrate salts have been used in Europe at the very least from the 19th century to cure meat, the earliest regulations in (of course) Germany date back to 1916 [1].
2. MSG has been a part of traditional Japanese dishes, it naturally occurs in soy and fermented fish sauce.
So for these two substances, I'd say their presence in food doesn't make it "ultra processed" all on its own - they and their usage in cuisine date back to times when there was no food industry to speak of.
The public are not lab rats to be experimented on using these artificial ingredients so that companies can make money.