this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
112 points (94.4% liked)

News

31569 readers
4591 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xep@discuss.online 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You may misinterpreting the terms used. The "foods" within quotation marks are a specific industrially processed product:

From Taraz Foods:

After extraction, the juice is taken through an evaporation process where much of the water is extracted. Most times, this is performed under low heat to make sure the flavor and all other nutritious components within are preserved. What results from the process is a thick, concentrated liquid, usually then pasteurized to eliminate unwanted bacteria. Finally, it’s packaged and shipped off to be used in various products.

This isn't fruit juice that has been reduced using kitchenware.

Mechanically separated meat:

Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), or mechanically deboned meat (MDM) is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, mutton, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. When poultry is used, it is sometimes called white slime as an analog to meat-additive pink slime and to meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems, both of which are different processes. The process entails pureeing or grinding the carcass left after the manual removal of meat from the bones and then forcing the slurry through a sieve under pressure.

The resulting product is a blend primarily consisting of tissues not generally considered meat, along with a much smaller amount of actual meat (muscle tissue). In some countries such as the United States, these non-meat materials are processed separately for human and non-human uses and consumption.[1] The process is controversial; Forbes, for example, called it a "not-so-appetizing meat production process".[2]

Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products, such as hot dogs and bologna sausage,[2] since the late 1960s. However, not all such meat products are manufactured using an MSM process.

This isn't meat that has been cut up or even ground up using tools in the kitchen.

foods that are not heavily processed and are benign for your health to be labeled as unhealthy

With respect, which foods, according to whom, on the basis of what?

more evidence of how atrocious the whole field of nutrition is

I agree. Even studies that account for socioeconomic status and relative fitness levels are still not science, but that's epidemiological studies for you. To quote @jet@hackertalks.com, "Epidemiology is not science, it's the start of science, but it cannot establish causation." And yes, they are epidemiological studies, but Nova class 4 is is the class associated with all the chronic metabolic diseases, and yet not Nova class 1 through 3.

The Nova classification is far better than any current mainstream "dietary recommendation" or guidelines. It's a large step in the right direction, so I wouldn't brush it off as "arbitrary" just because it's not perfect. At the very least, it's useful as a tool to flag a class of products that are designed and marketed to promote overconsumption and that displace whole foods, and it needn't be the only tool we use.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

With both mechanically separated meat and the fruit juice concentrate using a vacuum evaporator there should be no difference in nutrition.

The link to metabolic syndromes and novas class 4 is what I was complaining about because they made the classification overly broad the only people who can fully avoid it are people with extra means or people who but a much more concerted effort into their health and neither of which was controlled. We already know that rich people are generally healthier than poor people so showing that foods that are in general more expensive are “healthier” is just repeating our known values and muddying the waters where it says that simple syrup is a level 2-3 (I don’t remember which and am on mobile) yet throw some ginger into that syrup and now it’s a level 4

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think you're kind of missing the point of the classification. It's not supposed to be a perfect identifier of unhealthy foods, its supposed be more useful than stuff like "red meat consumption linked to colon cancer" (when actually the steak is broadly okay, but the stuff that's been ripped apart and reformed together with a bunch of additives and eaten multiple times per week is not).

The UPF classification is an attempt to group together all the different kinds of foods that are formulated by food scientists using ingredients you wouldn't have at home, often waste or byproducts chosen for their low cost, that's been iterated over to produce the most shelf stable product which their testing shows people eat the most of while keeping profit margins high. It is almost always very easy to eat quickly and therefore overeat, while being devoid of fibre and high in sugar/salt/fat.

On the topic of fruit juice, even when the ingredients list sounds fairly innocuous, fruit juice extracts are a great way to cram sugar into a product, so you can e.g. consume an entire apples worth of sugar in one bite with none of the fibre. Thats why they count as UPF.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am seeing that point and that’s what I am disagreeing with. How is it more useful to have a list of a bunch of things, that some of which are bad rather than just talk about the parts that are bad? A lot of items are flagged as UPF with a negative connotation that are no worse or sometimes even better for you than the level 2-3 items but because of the overly broad classification they are flagged as bad.

Sure fruit juice is a way to cram a bunch of sugar into a product but so is refined white sugar and yet that’s only a level 2 along with lard.

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Because it's too complicated. It would be too long of a list for people to remember and its too difficult to prove the harm of individual ingredients and they're probably almost all fine in moderation.

Look at where we are now with saturated fats: Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets, and meanwhile hordes of people who've read a pop science book or watched a YouTube video think they know better and can eat all the fat they want.

We've tried going against fat, we've tried putting the sugar, fat and calories and packaging, people know about calories in, calories out, and yet obesity never stops growing.

UPF is about the manufacturing process. The idea is that it isn't going to include the things that you make in your kitchen from whole and processed ingredients, but it does include the cheap easy to overeat stuff cooked up by food manufacturers.

Also I'm not aware of anyone who says you should eat no UPF whatsoever. It just shouldn't be a huge part of your diet.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because it’s too complicated we should put out bad information instead?

We should flag known problems, a common thing you see in other countries is foods labeled with excess calories, excess sodium, and/or excess added sugar. Those would be a much better use of our time then an arbitrary overly broad system that falsely flags some food as unhealthy and unhealthy food as healthy

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So the UK has exactly the kind of labelling you're talking about and they're one of the fattest countries in Europe. Guess what, they also eat one of the highest proportions of UPF.

What food are you actually talking about that gets falsely flagged as unhealthy?

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

I have been listing things for a while but anything with whey protein or any form of flavor extract. But as a whole there is no knowledge on which upfs are bad as they lump everything together

400 calories of cup noodles is counted as equal as a 400 calories of a protein shake

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets

The reasons for this make for interesting reading, when you have the time.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 4 days ago

Also I'm not aware of anyone who says you should eat no UPF whatsoever. It just shouldn't be a huge part of your diet.

Hello.

Look at where we are now with saturated fats: Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets, and meanwhile hordes of people who've read a pop science book or watched a YouTube video think they know better and can eat all the fat they want.

This is actually incorrect, and I'm happy to make a new post about it if you want to have a discussion. Saturated fat, or animal fats, are very healthy and not causal with cardiovascular risk. What fats exist that aren't saturated? Industrial oils! The highly processed foods we have been discussing are exactly what's being pushed by the crusade against saturated fat

[–] xep@discuss.online 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'll add my voice to this too. You should eat no UPF whatsoever.

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 days ago

You do you, but I'm happy to enjoy an ice cream once in a while.