I am still waiting for someone to standardize a definition that passes scientific rigor. The definition right now feels like "You'll know it when you see it". We've done a lot of stuff to this heavily processed item but it doesn't count, but then this minimally processed one does... When will the focus shift to the specific processes themselves that are causing issues and not a generic 'feeling' that some food or another has reached the point that it is probably not good for you.

Right now these studies are just "Food we personally feel like maybe might be bad for you proven bad" which is usually true but also not really useful. I feel like some day I'll wake up to an expose on how the whole thing is a large scale ad for the Paleo diet.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Check out the school lunch law that California passed recently, it has a pretty robust definition and even includes a list of exceptions for things that are ultra-processed but are considered worth it

It’s probably going to form the basis of a lot of research and policy going forward

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 days ago

We can use the glycemic index for the insulin spikes and calorie density for how much you can fit. But the taste isn't really measured I think.