A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
What is considered an ultra-processed food? Like... Cheese is processed (all cheese; it isn't just found, it's made by processing milk). Is it ultra processed? What about a hot dog?
It seems cheese just missed the mark for ultra status according to this specification I found on webMD.
a quick summarisation is that there are 4 groups:
So I'm guessing a hot dog would be ultra processed due to preservatives and additives often found in the 'meat'.
That was an interesting rabbit hole to go down. Feels as though what is considered ultra-processed by the experts, is what us laymen tend to refer to as processed foods. I suppose technically their terminology is correct (the best kind of correct ofc), but it just feels like an exaggeration due to everyday usage of the term being what it is.
Edit: formatting.
I feel like we’ve known this for a very long time
We've known about climate change for a long time too. "We" not all of us.
True
The NOVA classifications are difficult to work with, and I think the trend of certain nutrition scientists (and the media that reports on those scientists' work) have completely over-weighted the value of the "ultra processed" category.
The typical whole grain, multigrain bread sold at the store qualifies as ultra-processed, in large part because whole grain flour is harder to shape into loaves than white flour, and manufacturers add things like gluten to the dough. Gluten, of course, already "naturally" exists in any wheat bread, so it's not exactly a harmful ingredient. But that additive tips the loaf of bread into ultra processed (or UPF or NOVA category 4), same as Doritos.
But whole grain bread isn't as bad for you as Doritos or Coca Cola. So why do these studies treat them as the same? And whole grain factory bread is almost certainly better for you than the local bakery's white bread (merely processed food or NOVA category 3), made from industrially produced white flour, with the germ and bran removed during milling. Or industrially produced potato chips, which are usually considered simply processed foods in category 3 when not flavored with anything other than salt, which certainly aren't more nutritious or healthier than that whole wheat bread or pasta.
If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don't throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).
And I'm not even going to get into how the system is fundamentally unsuited for evaluating fermented, aged, or pickled foods, especially dairy.
The fuck does "ultra processed food" mean? Isnt upf defined by it harming you? Its like saying weapons harm you when weapon is the name for something that is used to harm others.
Not even. The NOVA system has been tested and doesn't function as a system of classification. Experts cannot consistently classify things into UPF/not UPF. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1
So it's more like "there's this food and it's bad for you but idk what it is :/"
The infuriating thing is that I believe that nutrition is more than just a linear addition of all the constituent ingredients (kinda the default view of nutrition science up through the 90's), but addressing the shortcomings of that overly simple model shouldn't mean making an even more simple model.
NOVA classification is the wrong answer to a legitimate problem.
Generally, something you can't make at home.
Ultra pasteurized milk that prevents bacteria growth is UPF.
A processed food would be like roasted nuts, a loaf of real bread, cheese, etc. an ultra processed food is anything that's been broken down into individual constituents like corn syrup, maltodextrin, sugar, white flour, etc then amalgamated back together again. But I certainly see what you mean.
"Real bread" meets that definition of ultra-processed. It's a bunch of individual constituents (flour, water, yeast, etc.) that are mixed together.
It should be more appropriately labeled Junk Food. Everyone's trying to make it sound official and it just ends up more vague.
If we were eating Seafood, Chicken, Beef, Vegatables, Salads and Whole Grains, we'd live longer.
In the end, we need to stay away from non-naturally occurring carbs and refrain from mixing naturally occurring carbs with tons of fat/salt to make them more palatable.
Muffins, Doughnuts, French Toast, Submarine Sandwiches, Pizza, Pasta, all have to be super portion controlled, we we just don't seem to have that kind of willpower.
It's astonishing to me that scientists are using such unscientific terms like "ultra processed food". What is it about these foods that is unhealthy?
It's like saying "sports are dangerous" while including football and golf in your definition.
Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the media find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.
What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:
Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.
Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life
Those are shit definitions that come from pop-science not real science. They're so broad as to be functionally useless.
I think there's a bit of a political drive to try to label chronic conditions as "lifestyle" diseases tbh, hence the loose definitions.
There is no single definition of ultra-processed foods, but in general they contain ingredients not used in home cooking.
Many are chemicals, colourings and sweeteners, used to improve the food's appearance, taste or texture.
Fizzy drinks, sweets and chicken nuggets are all examples. However, they can also include less obvious foods, including some breads, breakfast cereals and yoghurts.
A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed, according to public health expert Prof Maira Bes-Rastrollo of the University of Navarra in Spain.
Ultra-processed foods are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fats. In the UK, look out for a "traffic light" label on the packaging.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_food
Thank you for the details - as you point out this is a functionally useless definition.
It reeks of "You know what I mean - that bad stuff". And that's not a good scientific definition.
A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed
Curry is "ultra-processed" - you heard it hear first.
Like I said - "Sports are dangerous" is a very bad way to try to categorize risky activity. Golf and football are very different as are Curry and Twizzlers.
In this reply you you talked about "some breads", the OP Post only talks about bread - and that for sure had only ingredients in using at home.
Same for French fries: potato, salt, fat .
I'm with the poor downvoted fellow, I don't understand where the risk comes from when it's described this vague.
Are home made burgers better? Is it the freezing process and I should lower my meal prep? Is it additives?
Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone’s risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.
Was a bit surprised to see bread there, as it's been a staple of many cultures' cuisines for millennia. Did a quick search, and got some clarity in this list - "mass-produced packaged bread" is UPF, not the stuff you make from scratch or perhaps pick up from the local bakery.
A relief, actually, as I just took a loaf of sourdough out of the oven and was waiting for it to be cool enough to slice into. This article took the shine off the experience for a moment there 😅
Yeah the typical American stuff is like 10% sugar, packed with additives like emulsifiers and preservatives, and anything that makes the production processes cheaper and faster, made from bleached flour and has most of the fibre stripped out.
If your bread is made from flour, water, salt and yeast its processed food not UPF.
The supermarket bread that looks and feels like a squeaky toy. Best to avoid that one.
I'm sure the actual paper defines this better, but without a definition of what puts something in this category, it's not useful.
Even for bread, is it all bread? Is it added gluten? Is it a specific preservative? Is it only bread with bleached flour?
Even so, mass produced and packaged is not the actual contributor...
Same with prepared food... Costco makes prepared food that is equivalent to what you'd make at home. It's that still bad? If not, what other prepared food is fine?
Even for bread, is it all bread?
It's most bread. There will always be a few outliers, but they're a tiny minority.
Is it added gluten?
Gluten isn't 'added' to bread, it's a naturally occurring component of grains like wheat, rye and barley. Gluten free bread is made from alternative grains that naturally do not contain gluten (sorghum, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Gluten isn't unhealthy unless you have Coeliac disease or a gluten sensitivity/intolerance. It won't factor into UPF status.
Is it a specific preservative?
The ideal bread is preservative free. Mass-produced bread is almost never preservative free, because the time it takes for the bread to be baked, shipped, put on the shelf in a shop, picked up by you and taken home to eat is longer than it takes to go mouldy (particularly if it's in a plastic bag). Hence, they add a preservative to extend the shelf life.
A bakery is less likely to use preservatives, because they bake fresh daily, based on customer demand. Homemade bread also doesn't need preservatives for pretty much the same reason.
No need to demonise preservatives, or split hairs over "better" or "worse" ones, but worth being mindful of the amount you consume.
Is it only bread with bleached flour?
Bleached flour improves performance for baking (making lighter, fluffier loaves with more 'bounce' and chewiness from the gluten), but also strips out a lot of the minerals that are beneficial for your health. Mass-produced bread tends to use bleached flour, because a white and fluffy loaf is more appealling to consumers than a denser and darker one, and the lighter consistency makes it less filling, leading you to consume more of it, which means more money for them. Given the choice between bleached and unbleached flour, choose the latter if you can.
So, yes, 'mass-produced and packaged' does tend to correlate directly with the overall nutritional content.
Costco makes prepared food that is equivalent to what you’d make at home.
I can only speak for myself on this one, but I've never seen a pre-prepared meal at Costco that is the equivalent of what I'd make at home. It tends to be carb, fat and animal protein heavy, and very light on veg. My cooking is the opposite (lots of veg, some complex carbs, not too much fat or animal protein).
Just like the preservatives and bleached flour in bread, companies who mass-produce food are looking to use the cheapest ingredients with the longest shelf life to maximise their profits. Makes good business sense for them, but not good health/nutritional sense for consumers.
For example, US research published last year in the BMJ found that people who consume the most UPF have a 4% higher risk of death overall and a 9% greater risk of dying from something other than cancer or heart disease.
If you don't want to die of cancer and heart disease, UPF may be be a good choice.
The 4% greater risk of dying... Does that mean if I have a 10% chance of dying by age 70 it becomes a 14% chance or a 10.4% chance? I believe the latter. But that's a correlation for the people who eat the most UPF. Would have to see how that's controlled for socioeconomic class and access to healthcare.
We know
The food industry is going to go through the same rebuke that the tobacco industry went through only bigger.
Yeah, but it's delicious and makes me feel good and I don't want to be 90 anyway. Wait, smokers say that. Shit.
Bread is UPF???
A bread with only flour, water, salt would be a processed food only as flour is processed.
A bread with 23 items listed in it's ingredients, half of which sound like something you'd hear in chemistry class, is ultra-processed.
This is the correct answer.
Another way to distinguish the good from the bad: Good bread goes stale in a few days, it also is harder to chew. UPF bread will sit in your breadbin for 7 days without noticeable changes and is fluffy and relatively light.
The reason for the fluffiness and the shelf life is all the chemical additives.
You can see why the corporations love UPF bread - and why (if you didn't know the health impact) you might want to buy UPF bread on your weekly shop.
A bread with only flour, water, salt would be a processed food only as flour is processed.
Would be as hard as stone and not bread at all.