1,159 karma · joined April 5, 2018
"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.
It's the spam that tops the problem list.
Off from your intended vector by 0.35% when you're moving at 6500 m/s, and you're veering off course by 22 meters every second.
I'm going to guess the translations are mechanical, rather than professional?
The only possible downside I see in this very thin reporting is the usual feel of ickiness some folks get out of an appeal to nature fallacy.
* [18] https://lnakamur.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/indigenous-circ...
By all means, focus your ire on snack foods. Or seed oils. Or whatever the latest trend says is unhealthy.
My point, every time this comes up, is that "processed" is uselessly vague, unless you really do believe that adding any amount of salt/sugar/fat is harmful to human health. I believe that many people using the term do not actually know its definition and merely use it as shorthand for some nebulous set of foods they believe are "too artificial", without seriously considering which aspects of those foods should qualify them for inclusion.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods...