• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The article references another article referencing this paper that gives the following definition with reference to this paper:

    Ultra-processed foods are ready-to-eat/heat industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods, including flavors, colors, texturizers, and other additives, with little if any intact whole food.

    It seems like the last referenced paper is the deep dive: Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.

    TL;DR: It’s based on the NOVA classification system.

    (PS The “news” in USA is almost entirely propaganda and other capitalist trash. It’s no surprise when their “science” coverage is terrible. Most of the time it’s not even science.)

    • UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      I wish every article that talks about “ultra-processed” foods would just link to the NOVA system or some other reference. Otherwise it just makes their statements seem so empty.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The NOVA system is bad science, in my opinion.

      When asked to classify centuries-old staples like cheese or jam or bread or pickles, the experts struggle to find a consensus on which category any given food is. And so the classification system itself is so imprecisely defined that studies based on the system will rest on a shaky foundation.

      It’s better to identify what specific foods and what specific cooking techniques are bad and how they might be bad, rather than trying to say that the act of chopping, blending, mixing, cooking, or fermentation automatically makes a food less healthy.

      If certain additives are bad, say that those are bad. Don’t try to lump in the other processing techniques into one basket.