Processed foods are hiding in plain sight — and that could be a big public health problem - eviltoast
  • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    To my knowledge, no one has a consistent definition as to what qualifies as ultra-processed, even yours there is a bit non-standard. We’re pretty sure twinkies are ultra processed, but then there’s questions on whether something like ground beef even with minimal/zero additives counts as processed or if we do add things to it, is it ultra-processed? Vegetable soup is probably pretty alright, but hey, it might qualify as ‘ultra-processed’, the qualifiers for it are a mess.

    I agree with the sentiment they’re going for, i.e., we probably shouldn’t be eating twinkies as the cornerstone of our diet, but I wonder how these studies have shown how dangerous ultra-processed foods are when none of them seem to include a definition that you can consistently tie back to discrete items. It feels like we would all likely be better served by identifying the problematic elements (like the hydrogenated fats/etc) within the ultra-processed foods and focusing the conversation on those.

    • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The definitions are from the article.

      I agree the focus should be on the things we already analyze, like amounts of sugar, fat, and nutrients

      • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, I’m aware they’re from the article, but even you implied that those were a bit vague which was the point I was trying to strengthen.