the most important takeaway I had was that there is no agreed-upon definition of what an "ultra-processed" food is. it's an "I know it when I see it" categorization. which can be fine for everyday life but it's not how science works.

for example, pretty much everyone agrees French fries aren't terribly healthy. but are they ultra-processed? you chop some potatoes and throw them in hot oil.

you end up with a circular definition, where "ultra-processed" really means "food that has unhealthy vibes" or "food that everyone knows is unhealthy...you know the ones". and then studies get published saying they're unhealthy...which, yeah, of course they are.

[–] who@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They acknowledge this in the article. The four levels of processing used in the University of São Paulo's classification system are at least a start. Clearly we need to keep learning which aspects of these foods cause harm, and improving the classifications.

I'm also curious how much of the harm is caused by plastic contamination, either while the foods are being manufactured or picked up afterward from packaging.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay?

Only solution to this is to end capitalism.

[–] GooseGang@beehaw.org 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Especially when these foods are the only option in a food desert. The companies try to make the recipe more “cost efficient” every year.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 5 points 2 days ago

Yup!

[–] promitheas@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago

shocked pikachu face