19
votes
The science of “ultra-processed” foods is misleading
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- You're being lied to about "ultra-processed" foods
- Authors
- Marina Bolotnikova
- Published
- Dec 19 2024
- Word count
- 1762 words
This article begins with complaints about bad reporting on UPFs. And then it continues with more bad reporting about UPFs. I know I talk about bad titles all the time, but this one is particularly egregious. The title at this moment is You’re being lied to about “ultra-processed” foods, and the irony of the fact is that the title is a blatant lie - there is no lies being reported, just criticism on bad reporting.
The main problem with this article is that they are misrepresenting what scientists and dieticians are saying about UPFs. The NOVA scale is not supposed to be an end-all and be-all for health advice like they claim it is. They aren't even saying they know the reasons why they're bad for you. Yes, there are many different tests we need to do to in-depth studies on multiple factors on an insane number of ingredients, but that's not realistic. Nobody's going to pay for even a portion of the work that needs to happen. And that's why the UPF category is useful to health researchers and dieticians. Even in that context, it's not meant as an absolute marker for health. Heck, practically everything the creators have written about the system talks about how it's not designed to comment on the nutritional or even safety of the given food it classifies.
The articles that it bring up at the beginning are absolutely bad journalism. But this is too, because it attempts to undermine the entire current state of our understanding on how UPFs impact our health. Honestly, I shouldn't be upset about this because it honestly seems that this is just what health journalism is now. It's a bunch of reporters looking to misrepresent scientific research in order to produce the most sensational articles possible. Nutrition is such a complicated topic that no one study will ever tell you the whole story. Our bodies are ecosystems, and that's why dietician is a specially trained field and general physicians don't get a lot of training on nutrition beyond what they need to recognize potential malnutrition.
For anyone who wants to dig deeper, the industrial documents library is a free to use online archive hosted by the university of California San Francisco. It contains industry documents released to the public because of litigation and other reasons. It started focused on nicotine and tobacco but now covers many topics including highly processed foods and opioids.
One time when I was on there, I found a current bibliography of scientific journal articles that relied on the sources in the archive which I thought was pretty cool.
At the heart of it, this definition of "ultra processed foods" is just absurdly broad to the point of being useless
Lumping everything from TOFU to hot pockets together is just pointless. And that's the highest categorization of "processed"!
The vox article posted is garbage in so many ways, but saying the Nova classification system is useless is also wrong.
Nutritional studies, and these types of information classification schemes are not meant to be used by lay people. The Nova classification system is a very broad, and simplified, classification system to roughly group similar food stuffs together, so that you can later on stratify data.
Studying nutrition is extremely hard, Nova helps a lot with analyzing diets of a very large cohort, or analyzing e.g. the assortment of foodstuffs between grocery stores (lets say your comparing Aldi stores most sold products per zipcode, or something). If you look at an individual foodstuff you'll end up sometimes with something that feels weird, but overall these errors get drowned out.
BMI serves a similar purpose, it gets it mostly right, but there is a possibility on an individual level that you can be obese, but still (mostly) healthy.
BMI was never designed to be used on individuals, and it is an absolutely abysmal tool for the job. It was designed as a metric to assess whole populations, not individuals, and it's not beyond reproach even for its intended purpose.
No, it is just that it doesn't mean what most people think it means. Extra processed in this context doesn't mean extra bad. It just so happens that in a lot of cases there is an apparent correlation. But in the basis it is a way to classify how foods are processed.
There was a previous thread about this on tildes where @geiko very kindly linked this NYT article that gives a much better understanding about it all
I think this line cuts right to the core of the matter. 'UPF' is just not a useful term in any scientific or health context. However, it has been finding plenty of use in the hands of politicians and marketers.
I couldn't stand this article and I'm not sure why. It thrives off the fact that not enough information exists and is able to take and inflame both sides of the debate it seems.
Sure I think the immediate apprehension to UPFs might be overblown. But also, why would I trust Frito-Lay or Coca Cola to create a food that nourishes me and my body? Their main goal is to make profits, and they'll alter the food in any legal way possible to get you to eat and buy more. Our health is only their concern in the event of a recall that will hurt their bottom line.
If my bias is showing it's because I recently read Chris Van Tullekens book "Ultra Processed People" and thought it was very well done in explaining why one might want to avoid UPF food, which even he admits is tricky to categorize. My wife and I ever since reading it have been avoiding almost all UPF food and even if our reaction is overblown, the worse thing that will happen to us is us eating healthier and feeling better. Articles like this saying "you probably have nothing to worry about and your concerns are likely overblown" only make me skeptical about who wanted that article written when the alternative to eating UPF is eating better food, giving massive corporations less money, and just living a healthier lifestyle.
What scares me is how RFK Jr seems to be using this movement to go against lab grown meat as it said early in the article, which has the ability to up-end our agricultural and factory farming system and lessen carbon emissions, and also probably lessening the amount of animal to human illnesses which are on the rise. Of course I'm sure the powers that be are refusing to let that happen on their watch, else massive corporate farms won't make more record profits off the pain and suffering of animals, humans, and the planet. I wonder if he's that against Doritos? I haven't checked. The article briefly mentions this at the end, if you make it that far. Are they trying to simply defend lab grown meat but feel like they need to defend junk food too? Again, I can't tell with this article.
Of course lab grown meat is a huge debate and more science still needs to happen, I'll remain open minded about it because the benefits have the opportunity to be massive. But I don't think we know enough yet. If he's taking such a hard stance this early it makes me wonder who's paying him.
And no I'm not vegan or vegetarian, just passionate about eating real food after reading that book instead of anything made in a factory to make a corporation money.
I know that I don't know much about ultra processed foods.
I also know that people frequently resent being told what to eat and what not to eat.
However I have read that the ownership of tobacco companies and major food production companies have had significant overlap. I have also read that food companies work and study and experiment to tweak flavors to cause cravings and thus sell more product. More food consumption per day leads to obesity and possibly diabetes. When I look at processed cookies and chips as engineered to be addictive, I view them as risky in a way that foods are not if they were not designed in that way.
Also Michael Pollan in his book the Omnivores dilemma, claimed that when food companies use chemical derivatives of corn in their products, they add significantly more calories that the body doesn't respond to with a satiation response. This again can lead to obesity and diabetes.