Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 10 January 2025 — 1400 words/5 minutes
What are Ultraprocessed Foods? The UPF literature gives long and confused definitions, but in almost every case, falls back on the definition provided by Carlos A. Monteiro (and his colleagues Inês Castro, Renata Bertazzi-Levy, Rafael Claro and Geoffrey Cannon) in his original work in 2009 on the subject titled: “Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so muchas processing”.
[Note: The use of the word “muchas” is in the original, Monteiro is Brazilian.]
I give it here in a graphic, exactly as used in Monteiro 2019
, a restatement of the original work (link as a .docx file, much easier to read):
That definition has not changed in all these years since, but the actual lists used by researchers in all of studies ‘measuring exposure to UPFs’ in Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour dietary recalls (24HR) has changed over time – adding another layer of uncertainty to the results of the studies when pooled. Not all studies used the same FFQ and not all decisions as to which items in FFQs/24hr Recalls were to be considered UPFs for each study. Lane et al. 2023 [ .pdf ] includes this:
“SACN [UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition] expressed concerns about various key points. For example, it highlighted that the available studies applying the Nova system are primarily epidemiological in nature and may lack adequate consideration of confounding factors or covariates. Criticisms of Nova as a classification system also exist, with concerns raised about its possible imprecision and inconsistency among evaluators. In contrast, more recent assessments show acceptable construct validity and strong agreement among coders, with the definitions and examples provided by the Nova system deemed adequate in classifying more than 70% of the food items reported in food frequency questionnaires from various cohorts from the US, as well as more than 90% of the food items reported in 24 hour dietary recalls from participants in a national Brazilian dietary survey.”
Elizabeth et al. 2020 Supplementary Information gives a chart of changes to UPF items since 2009:
Then there is one of the more popular short-form definitions, offered by Dr Chris Van Tulleken, an infectious diseases doctor at University College London, a BBC science presenter and a New York Times bestselling author who, gave this simple one-sentence: “If it’s wrapped in plastic and it contains at least one ingredient that you don’t typically find in a domestic kitchen, then it’s ultra-processed food.””
The Supplemental information of Monteiro et al. 2019 labels its chart of NOVA food groups:
“NOVA food groups: definition according to the extent and purpose of food processing”
Ralph Nader refers to UPFs as “Ultraprocessed Deadly Corporate Food”.
We see the anti-corporate mantra appearing in the definitions of UPFs, even in the original from Monteiro et al. (2019):
“Their convenience (imperishable, ready-to-consume), hyper-palatability, branding and ownership by transnational corporations, and aggressive marketing give ultra-processed foods enormous market advantages over all other NOVA food groups. Marketing strategies used worldwide include vivid packaging, health claims, special deals with retailers to secure prime shelf space, establishment of franchised catering outlets, and campaigns using social, electronic, broadcast and print media, including to children and in schools, often with vast budgets.”
You may rightly ask yourself, how does the ownership of the manufacturer of a food cause heart disease? or diabetes? or all-cause-mortality? How does the “extent and purposes” of the processes used to manufacture the food cause those things? Neither food company ownership or processing purposes are physical components of the food consumed.
You would not be the only one asking. Opinion in the nutrition field is growing in both directions: support for anti-UPFs ideas has grown to include all the liberal journals and organizations, including the UN World Health Organization and various national health organization, as they flock to the band-wagon for research funds and publication credits. At the same time, individual nutrition experts are beginning to speak out against the anti-UPF movement particularly its use all-inclusive definitions and the potential to nutritionally worsen, instead of improve, human diets.
Levine and Ubbink (2023) , from the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, says this:
“The world’s daily food supply is and will remain critically and increasingly dependent on the processing of foods and ingredients. With future population growth, climate change and the need for agricultural practices to become more sustainable, continued innovation in food processing is essential to guarantee a sustainable, healthy, and abundant food supply.”
“While many types of processing can have negative effects, food processing does not need to result in only unhealthy foods, but rather constitutes a critical and essential component of our food system. Ensuring public trust in food processing technology is undermined by the categorization of ultra‐processed foods without more nuanced understanding of the factors that determine the nutritional value (positive or negative) of these foods.”
FoodDrinkEurope, an food industry advocacy group in Europe, offers a review of the science on UPFs (link is a .pdf ) which includes these critical points (out of very many):
“Classifications are ideologically biased
Classifying foods according to their assumed ‘purpose’, including their design to be, for example, ‘highly profitable’, ‘intensely appealing’ or ‘convenient’ is subjective and has been suggested to reflect an ideological bias against modern food production systems (Forde, 2023b [.pdf]; Visioli et al., 2022 [.pdf]). There is no evidence that foods which are unprofitable, unpalatable, expensive or inconvenient are linked to better health outcomes (Forde, 2023b [.pdf])
Classifications are too broad and inclusive and not based on scientific evidence
The classifications are diverse, based on the extent and nature of change in a food from its original form, including changing inherent properties of foods, the addition of ingredients, as well as considering the place of processing, and the purpose of processing. There is no agreement as to what constitutes a processed food or different degrees of processing, including to what extent they should only reflect technical processes and/or include formulation/ingredients. From a food science and technology perspective, without evidence for a correlation between the extent of processing and a products nutritional value, these aspects should remain distinct. Furthermore, the classifications seem to assume that most food processing is deleterious for health, and are hypothesis driven rather than derived from strong scientific evidence i.e. studies using NOVA to support claims made by the NOVA classification itself may represent a circular argument (Sadler et al., 2021).
Without scientific evidence for adverse effects of specific ingredients or processing methods, the ultra-processed category may be too broad and inclusive – covering a high proportion of energy sources (up to 60% in some developed countries) and approximately ten to twelve different food groups with a wide and diverse nutrient composition (Forde, 2023a [.pdf], 2023b [.pdf]).”
The FoodDrinkEurope review [remember, it was produced by a food industry advocacy group] may be biased against the anti-UPF movement, but it does include a extensive list of the literature on the subject through early 2024, and its summaries of the papers listed seem to be straightforward. In any case, it represents a good summary of the criticisms of the NOVA system of classification of foods from the professional nutrition field.
The best actual answer to the question:
“What are Ultraprocessed Foods, exactly?”
seems to be:
“Almost everything on the shelves, in the aisles, of your grocery store and in the cupboards and refrigerators of your home.”
Such an answer leaves us to ask “If not UPFs, what are people to eat?”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
This is yet another ongoing Modern Scientific Controversy (MSC). That means that scientists and experts are taking sides, for and against, and battling it out in the media and in the journals. In these controversies, these “Wars”, the usual niceties are often forgotten and papers are written to bash the “other side”, editorials are written in which insinuations of scientific impropriety are allowed to be spoken. And, as we have seen in other MSCs, views are hardened and papers become more and more biased towards whatever view attracts more research funds and buys more publication credits. Currently, journals favor “UPFs are bad”, which has become a Popular Health Fad, but, at the same time, nutrition experts willing to take a contrary view are making some headway in the journals and are being given some preferential space in the mass media as the contrarian view.
The next part of this series will cover a more in-depth view of what is up with the science, as opposed to food-world politics, of the UPF issue.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the only good food is Ugly Peasant Food that has no taste or visual appeal and is hand made by country artisans surrounded by pure* air and water.
*Pure, as in no CO2.
No. sausages are on the list. Peasants smoke, salt, and dry foods because they do not have refrigeration.
I wonder how many unpronounceable chemicals get into smoked food!
Hard to light jokes welcomed.
mkelly ==> Chemical names, for organic chemicals are all unpronounceable except to those who use the language daily. Thank heaven for the Google “pronounce” feature.
My favorite bit is Penn and Teller’s mock petition to ban DHMO (DiHydrogenMonOxide).
Walter ==> Sausages have been on and off the list — and not all sausages are the same– some are clearly UPFs (due to “additives”) and some are not. Some are UPFs due to “too much added salt”. But, UPFs are very like sausages — no one is quite sure whats in it.
A short video on meat sticks…UPF
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RvPDwTyCI8Q
Scarecrow ==> So it seems. But “There is no evidence that foods which are unprofitable, unpalatable, expensive or inconvenient are linked to better health outcomes”
Good article. Well said.
I am not saying the modern diet is good, but the demonisaiton of modern food is insane.
That said, I live on a farm. I grow my own beef, potatoes garlic, potatoes as well as and a range of vegetables. I know I am fortunate but I do not believe the food n the supermarket is any less healthy.
Heart healthy Cheerios 😉
Honey Nut Cheerios!
Derg ==> Cheerio are actually a pretty good product nutrition-wise. “Whole Grain Oats, Corn Starch, Sugar, Salt, TriPotassium Phosphate. Vitamin E” The TPP is a preservative. They throw in a vitamin mix for good measure.
Most, or at least many vitamins are produced in complexes by nature but only a single part is included in the added vitamins.
But it may be less fresh when eaten and that probably is important in some way I don’t understand.
Joseph ==> “Freshness” is an odd measure for the modern food system. For fruits and vegetables, actually eating them is far more important than ‘freshness’ – that said, nothing beats fruits and vegetables picked ten minutes ago in one’s own garden or orchard.
A hundred years ago, much of the food consumed in cities would be unacceptable today — ‘half rotten’ might be a good description. Few homes had refrigeration before 1935-1940. Bread had to be bought daily or was stale. Meats had to come fresh from the butcher.
I spent a decade in a country where only the well-to-do had operating refrigerators,thus the poor bought food daily a serious markup in price.
One odd fact: Street venders sold Hot Dogs cooked over charcoal — just the hot dog — on a little wooden stick. Reasonably priced, it was often the only safe meat in the diet for many poorer people.
“Few homes had refrigeration before 1935-1940.”
One of the many things we take for granted Kip.
Also: transportation, farming equipment, fertilizer, chemicals. Industrial food processing and packaging. Not possible to feed 9 billion people without fossil fuels.
😎
I remember seeing an old Laurel and Hardy where they are trying to deliver a block of ice up a long flight of stairs to someone who had an “ice box”.
After electricity, we call such things that serve the same function “refrigerators”.
The ice harvest on Hamilton Harbour was considered by some to be the first harvest of the year. During the winter months the ice companies had to lay up enough ice to get the city residents through the sweltering summer months.
https://www.hpl.ca/articles/ice-harvesting
John ==> My wife and I went through a ‘homesteading’ stage for years — grew or raised 80% of our own food and three healthy kids, three goats, two pigs, two dozen chickens, and spring lamb every year.
The NY Times is running a series in UPFs suggesting “better choices” — for bread, all of their suggestions are US$6.50 to US$8.00 a loaf retail. The average cost of a grocery store loaf of bread is US$2.80. The anti-UPF movement also contains a broad streak of elitism — promoting food for the wealthy.
“The average cost of a grocery store loaf of bread is US$2.80.”
Really? What sort of probability distribution are you using? In 1990 we bought a loaf of “English Muffin Bread” for 98¢ and now that is sold in the same store for over $3.
I wonder if that average is weighted by the number of loaves purchased?
Are 100 loaves of $2 bread sold while only 1 loaf of $6. On the other hand, I do sometimes buy multi-grain whole wheat on sale for about $3, while the list price is $4.50.
John==> In my comments are for the specific non-UPF brands suggested by the NY Times article. The “average price of a loaf a bread” in the United States comes from a query for that phrase.
Unfortunately most American’s can’t afford their own gardens or to raise livestock due to how expensive property is getting. In my part of the US buying a half acre with a house (to have a small garden) can easily set you back $400-$500k and that’s a house that isn’t all that great of a house, a nice house can easily set you back another $50-$150k. 25-30 year old mobile on half an acre will easily set you back $350k. Neighbors late 20’s daughter and son in law got a permit to build a home on their 40 acres. Without the having to pay for the land, shared the well and just one power pole it ran them $300k total and that’s with a “cheap” new 1200 sq ft 3 bedroom two bath double wide manufactured home. That’s with them doing all ground prep, septic, drain curtain, landscaping, fencing, water/drain plumbing to pad, driveway etc.. themselves. Easily would of run another $30k to contract out that work.
Generally best that can be expected is have enough room to grow a few potted veggies like tomatoes or a tiny raised garden. Actually trying to pick up 2 acres to have a garden big enough to can or a few head of livestock is out of reach for most our residents. More or less growing your own food is an unreachable dream. Heck it’s to the point that living the American dream of owning a house with a white picket fence and two cars in the driveway is almost a thing of the past.
A might effort is underway to make it entirely a thing of the past for all but a few.
Just like the products that fill most of the pages in a magazine such as Vogue. Only the upper 1% need apply.
but frequently less tasty, e.g. unprocessed vegetables and fruits picked early for storage life. or hybrids developed purely for shipping qualities.
Warren Buffet eat hamburgers and cherry coke all his life, and he appears to be very well for a 90 year old.
Fairly sure he can afford better healthcare than I can, though.
Bill Gates has all his pudge and more.
For all their wealth, I hope that my lifestyle choices will give me better health. Buffet can drink all the Coke he wants.
With access to any and all medical technology and treatments well beyond most people’s means, even setting aside mean insurance CEOs.
A wise person once said ‘ when you go supermarket shopping, stick to the outside walls…. never go into the middle isles.. that’s where the danger lurks’……I absolutely do that in my own local thievery outlet……I’m no way convinced that processed foods can be healthy…..convenience and time saving are encouraged in the wrestle for a buck….processed foods are a chemically refined hook to catch you and reel you in. The actual food value is extremely questionable….. just look back in history……cancer was a rarity in the 1800’s….bugger all processed food back then. The problem is that due to aggressive advertising over the years.. we have lost the will to cook…..convenience and expedience rule…………………we’re losing something important here… take another look at grandma’s recipes. Cook your own stuff with fresh produce
Given the advances in medical technology, it is not certain at all that cancer was a rarity. Diagnosis of cancer certainly was. Given also we live longer, certain ailments that do not appear at younger ages are not concerns.
That aside, one really needs to pay attention to the chemicals added and do the research. There is no one size fits all, which is the point of the article.
Personally, I grew up with the philosophy of eating close to the ground. The closer you are to the ground, the healthier.
Part of the problem also is the vast increase in population. With that one gets different results given the enlarged genetic diversity 8 billion people present versus ~1.5 billion in the 1800s. Furthermore given the best communications in the 1800s was the telegraph, what we have today is instantaneous tsunamis of data much of which we are incapable of processing (aka system overload). The point is communications and records in the 1800s were not the same as today. It is impossible to know if cancer was a rarity in the 1800s.
What would be an interesting study would be deaths due to food poisoning in the 1800s versus today. Include starvation if it seems relevant.
Water borne illnesses are certainly reduced now.
Really? There was a e. coli outbreak this year from onions.
The company that provided the onions is in Salinas CA where
they grow row crops with sewage effluent. But don’t tell anyone…
AFAIK, the salmonella outbreak was due to deer droppings in the field. Or was that an earlier fresh greens and salmonella outbreak?
I was thinking of cholera as an example of causing deaths in the 1800’s.
From the following reference, “Cholera mortality was great in the large cities. St. Louis lost 500 in 1832–35, Cincinnati 732, Detroit 322. In the 1849–51 outbreak, St. Louis lost 4,557, Cincinnati 5,969, and Detroit 700. In each outbreak, deaths totaled 5–10% of the population. Great as the losses were, the life of the larger cities went on, staggered for a while, but went on. Their business suffered, but recovered. Boards of Health were activated but lapsed after a time. After John Snow (1849) reported that drinking water was responsible for cholera in a London outbreak(3) and the 1884 discovery of the bacillus by Koch(4), sanitation efforts slowly became more sincere and, eventually, more successful. Not until the early 20th Century did truly effective systems evolve.”
Daly WJ. The black cholera comes to the central valley of America in the 19th century – 1832, 1849, and later. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2008;119:143-52
Sparta ==> Yes, people just “got poorly and died”. It was not common, sometimes illegal, to cut dead people open to find what had killed them.
Food borne illness and food poisoning were rampant.
And, yes,poor people (and their children) often starved to death or died from malnutrition.
Don’t the “scientists” know what the world’s temperature was in the 1800s?
Jerry ==> That’s a very popular viewpoint. Before the war (WWII) my grandmother had a kitchen garden which she worked alone, got up at 0400 to get the day’s bread in the oven, went out to feed her chickens so there would high-protein eggs for the kids breakfast. If she wanted meat for the table, it was either last fall’s home-preserved ham and bacon, kill a chicken herself, or a trip to town to the butcher. Grandma’s recipes were simple, because she could not afford fancy, imported or expensive ingredients. My grandmother raised the children, the kitchen livestock, the grandchildren and all the garden produce while cooking or canning six to eight hours a day over a woodburning kitchen stove.
After the farm was no longer profitable, she was able to slow down and have a better life — she could buy meat once a week and refrigerate it. Vegetables slowly became available all year around. The fresh bread truck drove through the neighborhood six days a week, selling bread that someone else had stayed up all night to bake. Dependably safe canned goods became available offering good nutrition even in winter….
If one has the time and the money (or hired servants) it is possible to eat very well and how one chooses.
My wife still bakes bread and uses her mother’s recipes. We have a vegetable garden, store squashes for the winter — but never could afford the elitist non-UPF diet being promoted in the press.
Lots of specialized jobs are a benefit to the many, regardless of the condition of some of the employees.
“when you go supermarket shopping, stick to the outside walls…. never go into the middle isles.. that’s where the danger lurks”
But… but… That’s where the ice cream lurks!
Yeah, people died of typhus or cholera long before they were old enough to die of cancer.
Those were the good old days?
Once upon a time, for a certain period in this country, ordinary jobs required only one person working to provide a decent living. Having time to cook was expected of the family’s women. While not to say that was a better social condition for women, it isn’t a possible choice for most these days.
Andy ==> The women worked — for the family — raising kids, cooking, cleaning, often making the clothes, and many/most had some little thing, today we’d call it a ‘side gig’, they did for “pin money”.
In my family, my older brother and I were endlessly engaged in little schemes to earn our own pin money. Made potholders, collect beer bottles for the deposits, made candles, and did odd jobs for neighbors.
A few years ago we were fortunate to visit Washington DC to see our daughter. Generally we found the food to be not too dissimilar to that in the U.K., however, there were some exceptions. Your bread is far too sweet and your “mature” cheddar is about as mature as a pre adolescent, against that, we thoroughly enjoyed the meals from the smokehouse barbecue establishment.
Using the list in the piece then I have been eating ultra processed food since I was weaned! Sausage, sausage rolls, pork pie, crisps(chips), chips (fries), bacon, canned soup, yoghurt (although the 1960’s version was very sour), cake, chocolate…
Although quantities were limited due to cost. I was fortunate that my grandmother baked cakes and pastries, made jam etc.
Even yogurt, by the definitions offered, is UPF.
To classify food as “ultra-processed”, the process behind the product should be somewhat “ultra”.
High pressure, extraction, use of strong acids or bases. Additon of salt, or simply mincing the meat is not “ultra”. I would classify bread as mildly processed, soy milk as UPF.
Morten ==> The UPF classifications are often nonsensical and illogical. “French Fries” (think McDonald’s and BurgerKing) are now OFF the UPF list!
How could cutting up and deep frying potatoes be Ultra Processing? On the other hand, the oil in which they are fried, and which ends up on no small quantity in the Fries, probably is.
Andy ==> Added salt — added fats/oil….and not all those “french fries” these days are actually cut up potatoes.
Its a difficult one. There does seem to be an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in the US and UK. There does seem to be evidence connecting this to diet, and in both countries diet has changed in essentially similar ways since the 1950s.
There are also countries and cultures which have multi generational records of good health and longevity, and they seem to have a similar approach to food preparation. Which is the one-liner I have quoted before: Eat food, mainly plant, not too much of it.
They seem to prepare food from scratch, eat a variety of plant foods including leaves and root vegetables, eat meat and/or dairy in moderation and as an accompaniment. And Loma Linda and the 7th Day Adventists do seem a lot healthier for it than middle America or Britain on diets that consist to a great extent of factory made pre-prepared foods.
The great British WWII experiment seems to show something similar. Rationing of meat and sugar was introduced, quite limited amounts. The extraction rate from milling flour was raised to 85%. The population health is said to have improved. Obesity was rare.
But one has to agree that the attempt to define the negatives in terms of amount of processing isn’t at all satisfactory. Consider a cheese sandwich. The bread, butter and cheese are all very processed. So are many foods the consensus thinks are healthy – yoghurt, sauerkraut, other fermented foods. Some foods are only edible at all after intensive processing. If you compare bread and rice, rice is pretty much unprocessed, bread has a large number of steps on the way from the grass to the finished product. Similarly with pasta. But there is no reason to think this makes them any less healthy. Its hard to see a fast food burger or pizza as being any more processed than lots of dishes which are regarded as healthy, but fast foods are generally condemned by the UPF activists.
Don’t know. I can’t think of anything better than the guideline above. Eat food, mainly plant, not too much of it. Where ‘food’ is ingredients which your grandmother would have recognized – and mainly in raw form, but includes things like some kinds of bread and pasta which are, in terms of number of steps of processing, indistinguishable from UPFs.
Another example: you make sourdough bread with long fermentation period, or perhaps the NYT no-knead recipe. Why is that any more processed than the much less digestible and tasty sliced white made with the Chorleywood process? But it tastes better, is more digestible and arguably healthier.
Processing steps are probably just a distraction from choosing and recommending healthy eating habits.
Mostly plants?
Doubtful we would have evolved in the same way without rising to the top of the food chain.
There are no essential carbohydrates, only essential fats and proteins. You can eat healthy without plants, but it’s difficult without meat.
The traditional Inuit diet was mostly carnivore, and modern lifestyle diseases were rare until the western diet was introduced. See Gary Taubes’ Good Calories Bad Calories
As far as I aware lions and tigers to not make vegetables a regular part of their diet.
And blubber is a treat to Inuits.
Science.
My reason, after two attempts, was that after about a year my stomach started hurting.
For many centuries in Europe, Middle East, Asia healthy people have been eating diets with some meat, fish, eggs, dairy. Diets which are also high in wheat or rice, beans and peas, green leafy vegetables of all sorts. Fruits in season, or dried and preserved. Other grains also, barley, buckwheat, corn. The wheat in bread or pasta, mostly with higher extraction rates than is common today. The evidence is that such diets are common, have been for a long time, so have led to a succession of fertile and healthy generations, and are healthy and, with proper cooking, appetizing.
I agree that sugar is a large part of the problem today. But think also that the excessive use of vegetable oil plays a large role.
Meat, fish, haven’t changed much in 20,000 years. But fruits, grains and vegetables certainly have, even in the last 50 years. (Micheal Pollan: The Botany of Desire)
There is growing evidence that modern diets are affecting cranial development, our skulls are not achieving natural shape, hence the common need for dental braces and eyeglasses.
https://smilexcellence.com.au/how-have-modern-diets-have-changed-the-human-face-over-the-years/#:~:text=Most%20people%20are%20well%20aware,as%20they%20try%20to%20erupt
Vegans look awfully sickly
Yes, a healthy diet contains meat, eggs, fish, dairy…. As I said, MAINLY plants. Exclusively plants is a very bad idea, would have been impossible before 1900 because of the lack of vitamin B12. Vegans claim we make it, as other animals do, and we do, but only after the point in the digestion when absorption has stopped. No evidence for benefits of veganism. However, lots of evidence for balanced and varied diets with some meat, fish, eggs, dairy. Not necessarily all of those, and certainly not exclusively. Moderation and variety..
michel ==> In wartime Britain, people were hungry all the time — even the farmers. Privation is not diet plan.
“Processing steps are probably just a distraction from choosing and recommending healthy eating habits.” This is quite right.
The various national “healthy plate” plans are quite reasonable and make for a decent diet.
But DIET does not equal HEALTH — that is a pernicious myth that has created a muti-billion dollar fraudulent industry of “health foods”, “supplements”, “vitamins” and “diet plans”.
I know a couple of people who were diagnosed as type 2 diabetes who reversed that condition by changing their diet to avoid most carbohydrates. I myself was diagnosed as prediabetics, on the edge of needing insulin, based on the A1C test. I brought that result down to 5.0 by dietary changes.
I do realize that a few examples aren’t ‘t proof of anything but there does seem to be a larger movement indicating positive results. Sometimes it isn’t necessary to control all factors to get a useful idea of practices.
Andy ==> I don’t mean to say that diet does not ever affect health — there are health conditions that can, for some, be brought on by bad diet choices. For instance, salt sensitive people can eat too much salt, driving their blood pressure high, while others,not salt sensitive can consume all the salt they want without any bad effect.
True diabetics have to be careful about consuming sugars because a natural function of their bodies is “broken”.
And diets can be and sometimes are, in poorer countries, simply inadequate to support good health in regards to enough protein, carbs, and vitamins and mineral content.
We can all agree, quite obviously and without question, that ultra-processing food, GMO, pesticides, preservatives, etc etc are bad for our health….
The question then becomes “How bad?”….
The answer: They do so little damage that it can’t be discerned from the noise in the data.
I agree that its not the amount of processing that is the critical variable. But surely its obvious from the levels of obesity and diabetes that something has gone wrong with the UK and US diets? Something that was going right in the much poorer (in the UK) forties and fifties of the last century?
Carbonated beverages with sugar added. Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Root Beer, you name it. I see kids suck down a whole six pack or more everyday while sitting and never having any physical activity.
My grandfather ate Karo dark syrup on bread as a desert and was skinny and lived into late 80’s. But he was a farmer so he exercised. Had he not slipped in tub he probably would have been smoking his pipe into his 90’s.
Ancel Keys is the Michael Mann of food.
michel ==> Why to you assume that diets are the cause of obesity? That is a widely assumed opinion, but the science does not back that up. For instance, for most obese people, changing diet can result in a loss of 10-20 pounds which can be kept off with effort, but seldom effects a change from obese to not-obese.
With massive effort, an obese person can become not-obese — but most revert over following years.
The new weight-loss drugs cause real weight-loss but don’t rely on changed diets.
There are a lot of unknowns about obesity.
“Why do you assume that diets are the cause of obesity?” WE
You made a similar statement years ago in another article and I commented that it was claptrap. Now you are saying it again? And it is still claptrap
A positive energy (net calorie intake) balance causes some amount of weight gain.
if you consume more calories than you burn through daily activities, you will gain weight; this is because the excess calories are stored as fat in the body.
While the basic principle that consuming more calories than you burn leads to weight gain is widely accepted, there is ongoing debate about the complexity of this concept, particularly regarding the impact of different food types and metabolic factors, meaning “a calorie is not always a calorie” and the “calories in, calories out” model might not fully explain weight management in all situations;
You seem to be denying that basic nutritional science, WE, therefore nothing you write about nutrition can be trusted.
Richard ==> You may need to reread that piece on Obesity and catch up on the science of obesity.
I think there’s no doubt that obesity has risen since the 1950s. If its not dietary changes, what is the cause?
You said in an earlier comment that people were hungry in the British rationing period. I think that is true, but its not that they were hungry in the sense of malnourished. On the contrary, health overall actually improved.
People then had a whole different attitude to the feeling of hunger. It was not a cause of distress or something demanding immediate action. It was thought of as having a healthy appetite. Children were expected to be hungry at meal times, and demands for snacks before a meal were greeted with refusal on the grounds that it would ‘spoil your dinner’. People ate meals, they didn’t snack all day on whatever took their fancy and was instantly available.
Its a difference of generations. My neighbour, a man of 80+, just fasted for two days – only tea and coffee and miso soup. Was it hard? No, with some amusement, of course you feel a bit hungry, but that isn’t hard.
I agree generally with the implications of your pieces, which seems to be that the concept of UPF isn’t very helpful. What we should be doing is focus on what a healthy diet is, as evidenced by the populations that are eating in various different ways. My take on it is that the evidence shows a healthy diet is something like this:
Meat or fish in moderation three or four times a week.
Pulses and beans two or three times.
Lots of fresh vegetables (cooked of course, not particularly raw).
Basic staples of rice, oats, corn, buckwheat, bread and pasta.
But the bread should be slow rise long fermentation. Dairy should be included as well, in moderation, butter cheese and full fat milk and fermented milk products.
I don’t think there is any evidence that whole wheat or brown rice are beneficial – the bran is indigestible, and the phytates block absorption of the extra nutrients. But I do think a higher extraction rate is a lot better than the usual white flour, and you can get something like this by adding wheat germ to bread flour if baking yourself.
The problem with making such recommendations is that people are not taught to cook like this so they find it hard to put nice dishes together. But its the way lots of healthy working populations live, and its what a lot of classic dishes are based on. Pasta with meat source, for instance, pasta fagiole, dishes with tortillas, beans and rice…
Veganism is not healthy. But a substantially plant based diet, cooked from scratch, including moderate amounts of dairy, meat, fish, eggs is. And I think the evidence is that a modern diet heavily based on factory made dishes, very flavored, with lots of sugar and vegetable oil, is not.
The other problem is the mania for reduced fat milk, yoghurt etc. All that does is raise sugar consumption. Plant based ‘milks’ also are not proper replacements for real milk. And we have the mania about avoiding gluten, which seems to me very damaging. There are a small number of people with coeliac disease who should not, cannot, eat gluten. But for most people what they claim is gluten intolerance isn’t that at all, its finding digestion of fast rise factory bread indigestible. Which is not surprising, when you look at it!
The first research showing that processed foods are not always healthy was for white rice. Beriberi was becoming epidemic (in India?). The reason is that white rice, a major part of the diet of many, has no Vitamin B1.
michel ==> You describe a good diet that most, maybe all, nutritionists would agree on. That represents most national healthy plate” diets (called different things in different countries).
When the question of obesity is research to a deep level, we still just don’t know the bottom-line cause.
Eat too much and don’t excercise enough. It’s not the diet that is at fault.
guido ==> “We can all agree, quite obviously and without question, that ultra-processing food, GMO, pesticides, preservatives, etc etc are bad for our health….”
That, I am afraid, is the problem — that statement is taken as if it were actually true and is really just a false assumption often used as a starting point for these types of epidemiological studies. There is almost ZERO real evidence for such a belief.
The problem is, that we can’t all agree with your claims, in fact some of them are provably false.
Ultra-processing has nothing to do with health, especially since nobody seems to be able to agree as to what it actually is.
There is no evidence that GMOs are bad for you.
While I wouldn’t recommend drinking pesticides, there is very little in the way of pesticides on the food you eat. If you wash it before eating there is even less. Without pesticides there would be less food available to all of us and they would be more expensive.
In the small amounts in most foods, there is no evidence that preservatives are bad for us and once again, without them there would be a lot less food available and they would be more expensive.
// The use of the word “muchas” is in the original, Monteiro is Brazilian.
Correction, muchas is a spanish word, feminine plural of mucho. The Brazilian singular equivalent is muito. The concept being expressed was ‘a lot of processing’, which would be mucho procesamiento in Spanish, or muito proccesamento in Portuguese.
So, I think the term “muchas” processing was an ungrammatical wordplay joke, borrowed from “muchas gracias” (many thanks) in Spanish.
From the article:” The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so muchas processing”.”
How about it just the lack of a space between much and as. Should read
The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing.
That’s what I thought too. Nothing more than a missingspace.
Johanus ==> While I speak a bit of both Spanish and Portuguese, I think you might be right on that one. Though it is in the original and the author’s are Brazilian.
So, yes, maybe this is exactly correct: “So, I think the term “muchas” processing was an ungrammatical wordplay joke, borrowed from “muchas gracias” (many thanks) in Spanish.”
Any native Brazilian speakers reading here? Can we get some opinions?
Were the rest of the words in good English or it is quite possible that the interpreter missed that one word? i..e.characterizing the word as “in the original” is meaningless if the rest of the original words were in the language of Brazil rather than English.
Andy ==>No,not a translation problem — I think Johanus is spot in — I have Portuguese speaking friends and will inquire.
So the bottom line is that the NOVA definition of “ultra processed” is simply ultra biased bullshit. The authors don’t like how the food is produced by “industrial processes”. Industrial process are simply large scale mechanized processes that easily and cheaply produce large volumes of food to feed large numbers of consumers.
Did they never hear the old saying, “You don’t want to know how the sausage is made”? Which refers to a mechanized large scale production of something most of us non-vegans love to eat. Hot dogs, bologna, Italian sausage, chorizo, you name it.
Besides, any food that can be industrially produced by big machines and large staffs of operators can also be produced at home, or in a small shop. Whether it is Bill the Butcher making sausage in his little shop, or Oscar Mayer producing far larger quantities in a big factory, it is the same product with the same characteristics and nutritional value.
Wine, beer, and whisky are also “ultra processed”, even more so than sugary soft drinks that the NOVA crowd despises so much. Ditto with milk, cheese, butter, and cream, all of which can be produced at small scale on the farm or at home, or also in a big dairy factory. Ditto with cooking oils.
This entire “ultra processed food” bullshit is just a form of self-defined virtue signaling. Just like the whole “organic foods” thing (note to everyone – all food is organic, by definition). Just like the “free range chickens” and “free range eggs” (I laugh every time I see that on a label …. imagining chicken eggs hanging around in a pasture eating grass). Or “gluten free” vegetable oil. It’s all virtue signaling that appeals to the snobs amongst us who fancy themselves smarter or better than the rest of us. Growing vegetables without pesticides at home is OK, but for the the 99% of us who have neither the space or the time to do that, we don’t think it makes you better or smarter. Just that you’re (as we used to say back in the 60s and70s) “doing your own thing”. Or as we say here in the American south, it makes you “special … bless your heart.”
How do you feel about personal care products that contain “no chemicals”? The unit cost is undefined.
Perhaps, in principal, they can and are but all the ultra refined ingredients, as covered in the presented definition, are rarely if ever used in home cooking or speciality shops.
My favorite quote:
“There is no evidence that foods which are unprofitable, unpalatable, expensive or inconvenient are linked to better health outcomes (Forde, 2023b [.pdf])”
My least favorite part is the listing of ice cream, of all things, as a UPF in the first graphic. Hey, I live in the middle of dairy country here in Central NY, and that is just wrong!
Multiple people have eaten only McDonald’s for many months in a row, including a high school science teacher and a man from Tennessee.
John Cisna, high school science teacher: In 2015, Cisna ate only McDonald’s for 90 days as part of a science experiment. He lost 37 pounds and lowered his cholesterol.
Kevin Maginnis, man from Tennessee: In 2023, Maginnis ate only McDonald’s for 100 days and lost 58.5 pounds. He ate three meals a day, but only half of what he ordered.
A man who ate only at McDonald’s for six months: In 2021, lost 56 pounds after eating only McDonald’s for six months.
Some say that eating only McDonald’s for a long time can have negative health effects
OK, but how about this? A man from Florida, formerly from New York, cooked fries and served drive-in customers at McDonald’s for just a few minutes and got himself elected to be President. Some say he will make America great again!
Primarily excessive sodium intake.
The only way to test the health effects of junk food would be a test of many identical twins over many decades
One twin would eat a low junk food diet and the other twin would eat a high junk food diet. They would both weigh and document the foods they ate, honestly, for many decades. Of course this is a fantasy.
Better yet, just try to avoid food that are low in vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber. Except for potato chips, which are irresistible.
Hamburgers are health food.
Veggie burgers are for losers — just read the list of the first two ingredients! Water and peas. Only loser eat pea burgers.
To reduce stress and live longer, insult a leftist every day to keep the doctor away.
Richard ==> If only we were talking about “health effects of junk food”. But we are not.
Every person may have a somewhat different definition of junk foods. That fact is irrelevant because there will be a lot of agreement.
I tried to move the subject of UPF to a higher level, which apparently does not interest you.
The only question that really matters is the health effect of a diet high in junk foods over a long period of time. O explained how that might be determined. Very difficult, so the question may never be answered.
That people can’t agree on an exact definition of UPFs (aka junk foodd) is really not very important.
I brought up a subject far more important than the definition of junk food, that I thought might interest others, and you responded with a not very polite waste of space put down.
Few people would call many grocery store products junk food, even when they are highly processed in manufacturer. The terms are not interchangeable.
Does this sound anything like climate science? Hypothesis driven rather than strong scientific evidence driven?
Whoa! I wish I had made up these words!
Jim ==> “Hypothesis driven” Great huh? I too wish I had coined the phrase.
Modern Scientific Controversey (Controversy?).
Given the high levels of ideology piled on and not genuine scientific debate or skepticism, one might just take off the “Modern” and affix a Roman numeral.
ala Scientific Controversy XXIV.
Or, perhaps use storm naming instead.
You can use Greek letters, but only up to and not including the point where they intersect with a certain transliteration of a Chinese name.
Sparta ==> Thanks Good Eye! My fingers sometimes get too enthusiastic.
Weird, that “storm naming” thing, huh? They are just weather fronts….
but naming them is such good and convenient propaganda
The elephant in the room is not ultra processing, although there are certain chemicals that are more concerning than others.
The elephant in the room is convenience.
When you cook for yourself, you are getting exercise and expending energy.
When you rip open a nutrition bar, how much exercise are you getting?
When you can open a box with 5 bars and do not pay attention, how many get eaten (my problem is this exactly).
There are benefits to not having to go to the store multiple times per week. On the other hand, walking while shopping burns calories.
Bottom line, a large percentage of the averse effects can be directly linked to the convenience factor.
Sparta ==> Do you know any single mothers with three kids, who work full-time or hold two part-time jobs? I do.
Can you afford a loaf of bread that goes for $6.50 or $8.00?
Actually you can make the NYT no-knead bread quite simply and cheaply – it takes almost no preparation time. Use strong white bread flour. You do need an oven. Its excellent, and its slow fermentation, so much more digestible. One minute to mix, and then leave it for 12-18 hours in a cool place for the first rise, so you could put it to rise overnight or first thing in the morning.
The recipe calls for a heavy dutch oven, pre-heated. I found this rather alarming to handle at 200C, but the basic recipe works OK using loaf pans. You cover with foil for the first half hour baking if you do this. A pizza stone is also possible and feels a lot safer than the dutch oven, in which case it should be covered by a stainless steel bowl for the first half hour.
Yet a not insignificant part of the economy is built around the (relatively) few who don’t have to think about spending hundreds of bucks per week for one person’s food or thousands for a month’s new clothes, not to mention really expensive things.
Andy ==> Dual-income professional couples fall into that category, of course. And Professors of Nutrition? FDA researchers? NY Times journalists?
I cannot fathom that the author of the NY Times piece actually thought that suggesting $6.50-$8.00 per loaf bread was a perfectly normal idea….talk about out of touch. It is this kind of thinking that brought the Kamala-ists and the Hilary-ists to their knees wondering “What Happened?”
Even I have a hard time understanding the financial problems that impact a huge number of American voters. But thorough our humanitarian work in other countries, I have seen what it means to struggle to feed a family even one decent meal a day.
Grocery costs are a main reason Democrats are losing everywhere. $4.50 per loaf, 70/30 hamburger $5.70 per pound, chicken breasts $6.50 per pound, catfish fillets same as salmon. The bureaucrats have jiggered with inflation numbers so severely to please politicians that they have lost sight of what is important.
I used to be able to easily go to the grocery store(s) several times per week, depending on what I wanted to fix for supper. Now, having the grocery store 100 miles way is WAY less convenient, less desirable.
Ours isn’t anywhere near 100 miles and we still try to avoid going as much as possible. We try to stick with twice a month generally. And usually planned for a time we’re going to be near one.
A major problem with ‘ultra-processed foods’ is their lack of fibre, which has been known for many years to have health risks.
There are many studies, available on the internet, which show that a very large percentage of the populations in most countries do not have an adequate amount of fibre in their diet.
“According to the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 90-97% of Americans don’t consume enough fiber. This includes more than 90% of women and 97% of men.”
“Many Europeans do not consume enough fiber in their diet. For example, in Slovenia, 90.6% of adolescents, 89.6% of adults, and 83.9% of the elderly had inadequate fiber intake. In Switzerland, 87% of adults had a dietary fiber intake of less than 30 grams per day. Some studies suggest that as few as 9% of people in Britain meet the recommended fiber intake.”
White flour and white rice lack fibre, compared with wholemeal flour and brown rice, yet it’s very rare to find a restaurant that offers brown rice. The desire for tasty food seems to be more important than a desire for healthy food.
“Wholegrain cereals and foods can reduce the risk of developing diseases such as coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes and diverticular disease.”
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/cereals-and-wholegrain-foods#benefits-of-wholegrain-cereals
It is, not doubt, a matter of background, but the whole gain varieties of many foods definitely taste better to me.
If UPFs are bad, how come we’ve nearly doubled our lifespan in the past 100+ years?
“How come we’ve nearly doubled our lifespan …”
Medicines that actually work perhaps?
how to lie with statistics?
The Nova classification – nova classificação, ‘new classification’
The issue with the UPF is endrocrine disruptors. I pointed this out
in part one and will try again . Aspertame the artificial sweetener is an
endrocrine disruptor. MSG is a flavor enhancer, and it also is an endrocrine
disruptor. MSG is in many junk foods such as Doritos and Pringles. People
try and limit their intake of sugar in soda pop so they go to the diet type and
in the end become obese due the endrocine disruptors effects of the artificial sweetener.
https://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html
https://www.salisburypediatrics.com/images/Handouts/Hidden_Sources_of_MSG.pdf
Endocrine disruptors can significantly affect appetite by interfering with the body’s natural hormonal signals that regulate hunger and satiety, potentially leading to increased food intake and contributing to weight gain; research suggests that certain endocrine disruptors may disrupt the balance of appetite-regulating hormones, causing individuals to feel less full and eat more frequently.
This change in food ingredients is the legacy of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds purchase
of Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco food company’s. They made tobacco more
addictive and used those same techniques in the food industry. The of percent of pre diabetic
school children has doubled over the past 20yrs.
The real war in the food industry here in this country is that 85% of all meat here in the US is produced is by only 4 company’s. Their control starts in Washington DC and flows down to the local level.
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/legg-regs-take-their-toll-on-plants-throughout-montana/article_130f1e33-63a3-55e5-9705-d93235b6e902.html
Locally grown food via the USDA stamp has been shut down for decades by the government working for Big Meat,
Mr Ed ==>And if UPF classification was set by specific additives, such as Aspartame or MSG, then the NOVA system would be a test for them. But UPFs are not so classified….
There are studies that have looked at Aspartame and MSG usage and health,but UPF studies do not do so and are a different topic altogether.
Meat is NOT made by 4 companies….those companies may be slaughtering and processing, or maybe just distribute, but meat is produce on thousands of ranches and pig farms and chicken farms. The larger meat processors may control prices and guide regulation, but their involvement does not make meat healthier or less healthy. do not Something seriously wrong with that idea of yours on that.
The legacy of Big Tobacco involvement with food is that young children
got addicted to these items and now we have a very large obese segment
in our country. And we all pay the price in our health care costs.
The four companies that control most of the meat industry in the United States are Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS, and National Beef Packing Company. These companies are known as the “Big Four” meat processors 85% of our meat is controlled by them.
Read the other link about “Legg regs” and see what the USDA
did to smaller processors in this area. If I wanted to get a side of
beef stamped so it could be sold in a restaurant I had to drive over
100 miles. But if I wanted to just sell a side on a private sale I have several
processors within a few miles but they couldn’t do the stamp. This has
just changed a few years ago.
Mr Ed ==> Are you saying children have been addicted to meat?
“Turning Hawaiian Punch into a kids’ drink”
“The following year, RJR bought the maker of Hawaiian Punch, which at the time was a cocktail mixer that was available in only two flavors. After conducting dozens of market research studies in children and housewives, RJR expanded Hawaiian Punch to at least 16 flavors, including many preferred by kids.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/09/19/addiction-foods-hyperpalatable-tobacco/
In 1976–1980, 5% of children ages 2–17 in the United States were obese. This was the beginning of a rapid increase in childhood obesity that continued through the 1990s. By 2015–2016, the percentage of obese children had risen to 18%
From what I’ve seen with a decline in health in children from before
big tobacco entered the food business to after there is a large
increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Are you suggesting that big tobacco’s involvement in the food business
made our children healthier?
https://www.lawinc.com/hooked-by-design-landmark-lawsuit-kraft-coca-cola-pepsico-addict-kids-ultra-processed-foods
“A groundbreaking lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County alleges that some of the world’s largest food and beverage companies—including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellogg’s, Mars, and ConAgra—systematically designed, marketed, and sold ultra-processed foods (“UPF”) with addictive qualities, particularly targeting children”
Mr Ed ==> So, in your view, and the view of anti-coporate scare mongers….making drinks, “many preferred by kids”, that kids and their mom’s like is a bad thing. Which means, conversely, that they should have been making drink mixes that kids and moms found disgusting? unpalatable? And then, 35 years later, kids are fat because of Hawaiian Punch?
Making foods that people, even children, like and find enjoyable, is not a bad thing — it is what food companies should be doing. Nobody wants to eat foods that are not enjoyable.
Labeling these foods “addictive” is just a ploy in the War on Food and is scientifically, psychologically and medically false.
My wife is a retired nurse who worked in an Endocrinology unit
for many years. My views on this subject is based on health issues
such as type 2 diabetes and obesity. The surge in these diseases
in children in this country occurred at the same time as big tobacco
was involved the food business. 1 in 3 young males in this country are currently unfit for military service due to obesity. When the other food company’s saw the money being made by big tobaccos hyper-palatability foods they did the same. The underserved inner city population
suffer the most from this situation, there are a number of MD’s who
work directly at modifying the diets of these people to improve their
health. I know several of these MD’s and suggest you find one
and do an interview it might open your eyes.
Look at the ingredients list. The shorter, the better – usually. Then, you can add what condiments you wish, but they too are often GMO’ed.
Avoid GMO foods, since it is not clear WHAT is in the ‘bioengineered’ foods. It may be harmless, it may not. You cannot know since the data is vague, ambiguous. Read the Q codes, but do not expect illumination.
One person here mentioned the high cost of UPFs. The more processing, the higher the cost is likely to be.The selection of non-GMO foods is growing. Oddly, the ‘same’ food in a GMO and non-GMO version is often cheaper in the non-GMO version. So, let the rich elites eat the trendy UPF and be the guinea pigs.
whsmith ==> There is even less evidence that the so-called GMOness of foods has any effect on nutrition or even chemical makeup of the resulting food.
On costs, UPFs are generally far cheaper than their non-UPF replacements, which is one of the major complaints of the anti-UPF movement..
You really should read up on how new varieties of crops were created prior to GMOs.
GMOs are tested extensively prior to being allowed onto the market.
Oh well, wasted 5 minutes hunting for a “words have meanings” quote that has probably been disappeared from Google because whoever said it has the wrong politics for Mountain View California.
Kevin – are you talking about this one? “Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change.” – Antonin Scalia
Law is one area where the meaning of words, such as used in the US Constitution, have changed extensively since the original, with resulting changes in interpretation by the courts, leading to significant Constitutional meaning changes, mainly in favor of more centralized government.
“pre-prepared pies and pasta products”
So if it’s baked in a factory, it’s bad, but if you bake it yourself it’s fine?
“burgers”
Is that because a machine pressed it into a patty? Or is ground beef also UPF?
Tony ==> If the definition of UPFs made sense, I could have just given it in one paragraph…..
Kip, to be fair, if the definition made sense, you probably wouldn’t have needed to publish this in the first place! 🙂
As a lazy rule, if Ralph Nader is advocating for something, there is something very seriously wrong with that Noble Cause. Saint Ralph has been so consistently in the wrong, assuming his current cause is so much hooha is a fairly safe assumption.
UPFs looks very much like a recrudescence of Sylvester Graham and John Harvey Kellogg campaigns for “simple” food.
Without real evidence, this looks like just the most recent fad diet.
Very nice Kip, you are doing important work.