▲ 80 points
back
60 comments
We need to get away from the NOVA system.
It’s terribly broken, which is unsurprising since it was never designed to do what it does, and ends up placing healthy, non addictive foods under the ultra processed category 4, while including hyper palatable foods that are not healthy at all in categories 1-3.
Hyper palatability, which is much better defined and is designed to capture what the NOVA system is actually used for, is likely a better categorization.
My favorite nonsensical category 4 classification is anything with achiote in it. It's not part of a traditional European diet, and it's often used to add color so it makes the list, despite saffron having a similar role in European food and booth being a traditional and completely unprocessed ingredient.
Speaking of Mesoamerican ingredients, nixtamal is pretty heavily processed, and is a staple in many areas, but it's much healthier than unprocessed corn which can cause pellagra when used as a staple food.
I mostly agree but wouldn't swap "Ultra" for "Hyper": those are great to sell iPhones but their maximalism tends to push our understanding in emotional zone, which is good for marketing but dommageable for decision making.
The NOVA definition is meant to classify ultra processed foods, correct?
You seem to want the NOVA definition to classify between “healthy, non addictive foods” vs “hyper palatable foods”.
What these studies are doing is finding correlations between ultra processed foods and bad health. While the definition you seem to want would cause all sorts of circular definitions.
> The NOVA definition is meant to classify ultra processed foods, correct?
Yes. It does so very badly.
> You seem to want the NOVA definition to classify between “healthy, non addictive foods” vs “hyper palatable foods”.
If by "you", you mean "a ton of people who are involved in health policy", yes.
> What these studies are doing is finding correlations between ultra processed foods and bad health.
It's flawed because (A) Nova is so ambiguous and useless that we can't actually assume that "it was categorized via Nova" is true (B) what they hone in on is not actually related to Nova, it's actually about palatability, which Nova has no framework for. Inclusion of Nova is strictly detrimental to the conversation.
"Ultra-processed foods" isn't a scientific concept.
It's like "organic".
Too many variables are conflated to make any of this reasonable.
Yes, I've begun translating "ultra-processed foods" to "junk food". It's roughly the same meaning and roughly the same amount of scientific rigor. UPF sounds scientific and specific but it's neither.
OTOH everybody intuitively understands junk food is bad for you, has a rough idea of what it is and that the definition is circular.
Anything this terribly defined, makes a poor candidate for "being treated like cigarettes"
This is giving the "ultra-processed" term too much credit. Organic is at least pretty explicitly specified by the USDA (even if that definition is perhaps not what most people think or expect when they read the term).
Ultra-processed doesn't even have a single, consistent definition.
Agreed. I hope these terms go away. I think what people tend to mean is "calorie dense, low in nutrients, low in fiber", or something along those lines, and the term "processed" makes it far more confusing.
"Processed" ends up meaning anything from "high in sugar" to "long shelf life" or "one of a dozen kinds of artificial sweetener" etc. It does more harm than good.
I can have an extremely high fiber, high protein, nutritionally well rounded meal that's also "ultra processed".
Someone mentioned Nova. Nova is a PERFECT example of how god awful the term is. When asked to classify foods into Nova categories there is almost no agreement amongst nutritionists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8181985/
Time after time, Nova is shown to be more confusing than helpful, with worse than random results. Nova itself doesn't even attempt to correlate with "healthy".
> there is almost no agreement amongst nutritionists
Neither is there for speciation. Doesn’t make the term or concept useless. And doesn’t mean we can’t make useful statements about one species versus another, even if it gets blurry at the edges.
What is helpful about Nova? What are the useful statements we can make? I would argue that Nova makes it more difficult to make useful statements. For example, someone who follows Nova would believe that taking a fiber supplement, or a multivitamin, is "ultra processed" and if they equate "ultra processed" with bad... well, they'd skip those. Meanwhile, they could eat raw mean morning to night, or drink their own urine, and they'd be on a totally unprocessed diet.
What framework has Nova helped develop for eating healthier?
Ever notice how you semantic junkies always end up defending entrenched financial interests?
Redirect your energy toward something useful.
Here’s a scientific paper written by scientists that defines UPFs:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.70066
Which variables are conflated?
That's a perfect example of the problem. It's overgeneralized to the point of meaninglessness.
It asserts that UPF is bad because they tend to result in quicker absorption, amongst many other things. So why not say quick absorbing food is bad for you, and why use a definition that also includes food that is processed to absorb slower?
Then repeat across several other characteristics. Few UPF foods will bingo on all characteristics and a lot of non-UPF foods will bingo on many of the same characteristics.
How do you show that a certain food is quickly absorbing or slowly absorbing? Would you require that every food item is evaluated on each individual characteristic?
I was thinking of the example of crisps which are basically potatoes with oil and salt, baked. If you are going to call baking ultra processing then it would include rather a lot of things.
> "Ultra-processed foods" isn't a scientific concept
This is like arguing astronomy isn’t real because colloquial definitions of space are ambiguous.
The study [1] uses a definition that finds a significant effect. We should investigate that further. If it pans out and the term ultra-processed food triggers people, we can rebrand it. (Did the cigarette lobby ever try muddying the water on what cigarettes are?)
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.70066
“Healthy”, “non addictive”, “hyper palatable” are much more unscientific concepts than for example the NOVA definitions for ultra processed foods.
And yet you would have little trouble distinguishing between those two categories if a range of food was put on a table in front of you
The Nova framework for classifying processed foods was created in 2009 by a Brazilian epidemiologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
Presumably, since the first citation in the paper is said epidemiologist (Monteiro), this is the framework they rely on.
Unless you’re intent on scientific gatekeeping, in which case having actually read the reported study (it’s linked in the article fyi) would have offered much more effective methods of rebuttal than semantic quibbles.
It's not gatekeeping to point out that multiple studies have shown that Nova is a perfect example of "no one agrees on what processed foods are". Even when given Nova criteria, nutritionists repeatedly, across studies, fail to agree on categorization.
Nova also does not even attempt to categorize in terms of health because "processed" has nothing to do with "healthy" despite being used in conversations about public health. Absolutely perfect example of how bad the term "processed" is.
When companies have engineers sitting around figuring out the precise amounts of salt, sugar, and crunch required to force a person to eat 4 servings of something in one sitting… yeah, at least put a warning label on it. I don’t know that I agree with outright bans or anything, but people should be properly warned about the risks.
As another commenter pointed out, those are hyperpalatable foods, not 'ultraprocessed foods'.
Besides, 'ultraprocessed food' itself is and has always been a useless buzzword (buzzphrase?).
"Ultraprocessed" is at least a tangible definition though (even if it's a proxy) where you can empirically show that a certain product is ultraprocessed or not based on the way it is manufactured.
It also has enough overlap with addictive food to be a useful criterion.
In contrast "hyperpalatable" is more precisely describing the problem, but seems much more difficult to proof / easy for manufacturers to wiggle out of.
How would you prove that a given food item is "hyperpalatable"?
> "Ultraprocessed" is at least a tangible definition
The Nova system's classification for UPFs seems to be what the majority of people who refer to them use as a definition.
In the Nova system, there are four main groups of food:
- Group one has 'unprocessed or minimally processed' foods, e.g. grains and fresh fruits.
- Group two has 'processed culinary ingredients'. These include foods that use naturally-derived ingredients like salt and flour.
- Group three has foods that combine the first two, like salted nuts, and can also include things with some added preservatives or flavourings.
- Group four is ultraprocessed foods. These are defined as industrially-manufactured foods made with multiple ingredients (typically multiple oils, sugars, fats, and salt) and ingredients with minimal culinary use.
The issue with group four is that it's far broader than it should be. For instance, under the Nova system sparkling water is a UPF because it's carbonated, and carbonation is considered a chemical additive. It also classifies anything with, say, Stevia as a UPF even though it's a perfectly safe artificial sweetener. It's broad enough that it covers tofu, various cheeses, and various breads, to name a few.
It also ignores the actual nutritional content of the foods (which the original Nova paper touches on, I think, specifically saying it's not meant to be used for nutrient profiling).
> How would you prove that a given food item is "hyperpalatable"?
I was recently looking at a study about this [0]. The three criterion that have been found to best define hyperpalatability are as follows:
(1) Foods with over 25% of calories from fat and more than 0.3% sodium by weight
(2) Foods with over 20% of calories from fat and more than 20% of calories from simple sugars
(3) Foods with over 40% of calories from carbs (not counting dietary fibre and simple sugars) and more than 0.2% sodium by weight
Most of the things on sale at “Whole Foods” are ultra-processed these days. Anything that requires effort to make gluten free or vegan for example. Like impossible burger. Extreme ultra-processed. Or gluten free bread.
Please don’t tell me impossible burger patties are like cigarettes.
Right, it's not that all ultraprocessed foods are bad, it's that most bad foods are ultraprocessed.
Agreed. Which makes the statement “ultraprocessed foods should be treated more like cigarettes” seem wrong.
I guess “bad foods should be treated more like cigarettes” is too obvious.
nobody has a good definition of ultra-processed food
Perhaps more obviously, a multi-vitamin is considered "ultra processed" under Nova. A fiber supplement is considered "ultra processed". Lab grade creatine is "ultra processed".
As a creatine user I thought of this, but I don't recall seeing creatine as an ingredient in most foods. I still prefer to get my protein via meat, eggs, or other basic foods rather than in the form of a highly engineered shake, not least for cost reasons.
They certainly have such offerings, but I'm perplexed at how you get to 'most of the things on sale'. The most processed things I get from there on a regular basis are bread, cookies, or alcoholic drinks. It's very rare that I find myself looking at the label of anything I can purchase there wondering how it was made.
As I said - anything surprisingly gluten free or surprisingly vegan is going to be UPF.
Sometimes I wonder if the gluten free trend is a ploy by food processing companies to whitewash expensive proprietary processed foods as “whole”.
I think you mean "anything UPF-GF or UPF-vegan is UPF". The Typical vegan and GF foods you find in a supermarket are just the same as others foods:
- non processed: fruits, grains, roots, leafs, pulses
- processed: pasta, breads, nuts milks, sorbet, fries
- UPF: most drinks, most sweeties, most prepared food
- vegan burger: some are UPF, some are just smashed fallafels
- GF bread: rice or rye bread suits most gluten intolerants. Those suffering allergies have limited options obviously (which include abstaining from bread) but their medical condition isn't a "gluten free trend".
- meats cuts: some contains sodium nitrite and other nasty additives while others are just raw animals parts.I think of “UPF” the way I think of “BMI.” Useful insofar as it provides an intial signal for further investigation. The term UPF provides a way to group certain foods according to their likelihood of helping me reach my health goals.
I don’t need a term to be perfect to be useful.
I think people's intuition is generally reliable, though. What food has the term "UPF" helped you learn is 'unhealthy', which you otherwise would have thought of as healthy?
For losing fat, "fried chicken", "chocolate cake", and "sugary drinks" are intuitively unhelpful, and "vegetables", "lean meat", "water" is more "healthy".
>What food has the term "UPF" helped you learn is 'unhealthy', which you otherwise would have thought of as healthy?
It's not that I didn't know that certain foods were unhealthy. The term UPF (understood to mean foods that are manufactured specifically to be hyper-palatable while otherwise lacking in nutrients) taught me the reasons why I find certain foods harder to resist than others, and consequently what foods I should focus on instead (higher protein / high fiber).
As long as we pretend this is all just a question of individual choice and willpower, yes. If the goal is regulating the industry so reaching health goals gets easier for everyone, UPF as a concept is useful.
There is no distinction between ultra proccessed, or hyper palatable, or most anything with a long list of ingredients.
None of it is good for you, and if you never eat sugar, will smell and taste horrible once your pallet recovers.
I never touch anything with sugar, or ingedients simmilar to those found in cleaning products, just food, I do just fine, it takes a bit more time, but I never
end up feeling off, which was common when I ate regular grocerie store products.
Quiting sugar completly, not just eliminating added sugar was the key, sugar bieng a white crystaline substance is the very deffinition of ultra proccessed, as it is absolutly concentrated and can not be refined further, and is found nowhere in nature.
Do you have anything to report in terms of mental or physical health after making this change, both short and long term? I quit sugar a long time ago I was just interested to read your experience compared to my own. I certainly had withdrawal and intense cravings to begin with and I wasn't particularly overeating or enjoying a poorly balanced diet at the time. I caught myself eating cookies and spitting them into the trash without swallowing so it "didnt count" before I decided I was going to ditch the stuff forever.
health benifits are ongoing, all of which falls under "anecdata", but given that I am pushing 60, and just put in a couple of very
physicaly active weeks building and installing heavy steel objects by hand,long hours, culminating in a 20 hr day, and am now sitting around eating and taking it easier, watching my body bulk, doing calls/emails and texts juggling half a dozen different files, then hey, nothing to complain about here:)
I'd ask the people saying "there's no definition for UPF" or that the NOVA system is terrible, try and come up with your own improvement. As they're attempts to help classify these foods.
Not everyone has a good nutritional understanding of their foods, so these are short form efforts to try and help.
Rather than knocking what's out there, how about also trying to determine an alternative and see how challenging it is.
I read a lot of people poking holes, but not a lot of suggestions of how to improve things.
Im not one, but for me I just have ingredients that write the food off for me. Sugar, maltodextrin, aspartame etc. is a no. Rapeseed oil, palm oil etc.
Its a lot easier than trying to decide if something is part of a category based on multiple factors, it either contains DO NOT EATs or it doesnt. I'm already going to read the ingredients on everything I buy so therrs no extra work. I can pick the word "sugar" out of any jumble of words immediately now.
No one has managed to come up for an improvement for the zodiac system used in astrology. There's countless studies on it, all inconclusive at best, once subject to reproduction and meta analyses. Should we keep using, despite a lack of evidence, because there's nothing better? Why not just discount it completely? If discounting astrology completely is the right move, than so is discounting the NOVA system.
We don't really "use it" and what do we use it for in the first place. Think about what the zodiac system is used for and we absolutely have alternatives. What giving people insights into their personality based on an arbitrary star pattern during the year. We do have other approaches to explain peoples personality and behavior traits that are based on evidence and science as opposed to the stars and their birth date.
What we're talking about here is similar to the food pyramid, its a generalised approach to helping people understand what they should and shouldn't eat specific to the type of food and level of "processing". Something developed based on rising scientific evidence of the impacts of large consumption of highly processed or hyper palatable foods.
I'm not saying we shouldn't use the NOVA system, I'm asking those that bash it to come up with an alternative approach or remodel it. The same way the food pyramid has changed, whilst the zodiac system hasn't.
Agreed - and in both cases the government should stay out of it.
Agreed. Government should receive its mandate through consent and if people don't want to make these choices, it's not the privilege of experts to enforce their preferences without out that concent. The state should only inform.
[dupe] You just can't resist can you.