Ultra-processed foods: largest ever review shows many ill effects on health(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
Ultra-processed foods: largest ever review shows many ill effects on health
https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-largest-ever-review-shows-many-ill-effects-on-health-how-to-understand-the-evidence-224806
36 comments
I found out that if I don't eat for a day, I feel less gloomy and less exhausted immediately. Over here the ingredients are getting tampered with because of shrinkflation. What used to be healthy suddenly jumps into the UPF category. Feels like avoiding the poison in food is becoming a fulltime job.
That could be multiple things. Fasting in general will improve mood. I noticed the same thing and began intermittent fasting. Felt great until I ate. Then I learned part of the reason was because I was switching into keto mode while fasting, which also improves mood. So then I switched to the keto diet to try and capture that feeling full time and not just when I'm fasting. In general I feel a lot better. But even though I do keto and intermittent, eating very little processed foods, I still feel best while fasting. There's a lot going on but I think everyone should experiment with fasting. It isn't for everyone definitely, but some people naturally feel better managing their food intake in that way.
People are far too concerned about feelings. There are serious industry considerations concerning scale and modern manufacturing processes that have scientific backing about their implementation. Industry scientists with PhDs in food safety are responsible for your food. The human obsession with well being is disgusting actually. Trust the science people, please.
You need to look at the real incentives in a system, not pick out what you would like to happen.
Large multi-national profit-focused companies are responsible for your food. (To be more precise, something like 60% of calories consumed by western nations is produced by a small number of international companies... I think my point is clear enough.)
Their overriding goal is to make money. It is not to make healthy food.
They do not comprehensively test new ultra-processed ingredients before using them in foods. This is partly why there is a cycle of "oh no, X is bad for you" and "don't worry, we can fix all of this by using Y" and "oh no, Y is bad for you". The test is live, on everyone, happening right now.
There are no general regulations preventing them to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of "food", so long as they are not obviously killing people. There are many "slightly bad" side effects of this that will pass unnoticed until investigated with great effort and cost.
That's what this review is.
You are finding out now, after the fact.
Don't misjudge the cause though. It's not the ingredients. It's the system that underpins the entire (food) industry.
Large multi-national profit-focused companies are responsible for your food. (To be more precise, something like 60% of calories consumed by western nations is produced by a small number of international companies... I think my point is clear enough.)
Their overriding goal is to make money. It is not to make healthy food.
They do not comprehensively test new ultra-processed ingredients before using them in foods. This is partly why there is a cycle of "oh no, X is bad for you" and "don't worry, we can fix all of this by using Y" and "oh no, Y is bad for you". The test is live, on everyone, happening right now.
There are no general regulations preventing them to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of "food", so long as they are not obviously killing people. There are many "slightly bad" side effects of this that will pass unnoticed until investigated with great effort and cost.
That's what this review is.
You are finding out now, after the fact.
Don't misjudge the cause though. It's not the ingredients. It's the system that underpins the entire (food) industry.
This sort of thinking risks putting doubt in the medical industry that we rely on for our safety. This is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to abysmal Covid booster numbers.
When did McDonalds and General Mills become part of the medical industry?
They both follow safety standards we as a democracy have voted are best for our health via non partisan and objective health authorities.
[deleted]
You are making a hasty generalisation. Foods are not nearly as well controlled as medications, and even then vaccines only represent a subset of medications. Where food is sold, known human carcinogens are freely accessible on the open market and are very popular. Processed meats like bacon, ham, etc. are listed known human carcinogens but persist despite health concerns because of their popularity.
Some medications are also human carcinogens but tend to only be accessible through a doctor where the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks in a professional capacity. It's not like you can just go out and buy a box of azathioprine because you feel like your immune system is being a bit overdramatic lately.
According to the WHO, there is increasing evidence that aspartame may be carcinogenic, a sweetener which has been on the market for decades at this point. Here in the UK even, government interventions to reduce sugar in products have even encouraged manufacturers to include this in even more products.
The real problem is that discovering health risks is a hard problem which often don't appear for decades.
Some medications are also human carcinogens but tend to only be accessible through a doctor where the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks in a professional capacity. It's not like you can just go out and buy a box of azathioprine because you feel like your immune system is being a bit overdramatic lately.
According to the WHO, there is increasing evidence that aspartame may be carcinogenic, a sweetener which has been on the market for decades at this point. Here in the UK even, government interventions to reduce sugar in products have even encouraged manufacturers to include this in even more products.
The real problem is that discovering health risks is a hard problem which often don't appear for decades.
I think you mean that the motives of the food industry isn't in the health of the consumers, but rather the profit of the stock holders and the practitioners of food science.
As opposed to the medical industry which has the health of the consumers at it's heart. Which is manifest that so few medical companies have been issued multimillion fines for malpractice. Like we see so few companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Phizer having record breaking fines levied against them. I mean GSK didn't get a whopping 3 billion fine or something. Hmm, you know what. I think you have convinced me. Thank you.
As opposed to the medical industry which has the health of the consumers at it's heart. Which is manifest that so few medical companies have been issued multimillion fines for malpractice. Like we see so few companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Phizer having record breaking fines levied against them. I mean GSK didn't get a whopping 3 billion fine or something. Hmm, you know what. I think you have convinced me. Thank you.
They are but they aren't necessarily concerned with long term effects or how it makes you feel. The priorities are different. Making things shelf stable for longer or taste better doesn't go hand in hand with the healthiest possible option.
I was with you until you said it’s disgusting, how is it disgusting to put an extreme emphasis on health, when it’s been neglected for like all of human history.
Like sure, maybe it doesn’t make sense for most people to put so much focus on something they have little control over, but disgusting? Nah.
Also trusting science is a complete misunderstanding of science. That’s how religion operates.
Edit: Also also, I have some faith in the scientific process, as soon as business and money enters the picture though all trust goes out the window. Corporations do not care what poison they give you, as long as it does not affect their bottom line. Have no doubt that they will ignore their scientists if they can get away with it.
Like sure, maybe it doesn’t make sense for most people to put so much focus on something they have little control over, but disgusting? Nah.
Also trusting science is a complete misunderstanding of science. That’s how religion operates.
Edit: Also also, I have some faith in the scientific process, as soon as business and money enters the picture though all trust goes out the window. Corporations do not care what poison they give you, as long as it does not affect their bottom line. Have no doubt that they will ignore their scientists if they can get away with it.
Processes for safely and hygienically injecting vast quantities of sugar, salt and fat into "food" != good nutrition.
The scientists with phds who study nutrition science are pretty clear on what a good diet for healthy living and longevity is.
A mostly plant based Whole Foods diet with small amounts of fish.
There’s a whole lot of nonsense that food industry scientists will try and spread to confuse the issue but the science is pretty clear on this.
Lately we also have a whole class of “influencers” who jump onto the latest trend because they can make hundreds of millions selling supplements.
Finally, there’s also a class of doctors, who are driven heavily by anecdotes and ignore the actual science. Doctors are not scientists people. For one thing, doctors, almost by definition in the minds of most people, deal with people who are sick. For another they deal almost entirely with anecdotes. Unfortunately a lot of doctors let these anecdotes and a few cases of possible genuine anomalies due to allergies, etc drive their opinions about nutrition which isn’t based on actual science.
A mostly plant based Whole Foods diet with small amounts of fish.
There’s a whole lot of nonsense that food industry scientists will try and spread to confuse the issue but the science is pretty clear on this.
Lately we also have a whole class of “influencers” who jump onto the latest trend because they can make hundreds of millions selling supplements.
Finally, there’s also a class of doctors, who are driven heavily by anecdotes and ignore the actual science. Doctors are not scientists people. For one thing, doctors, almost by definition in the minds of most people, deal with people who are sick. For another they deal almost entirely with anecdotes. Unfortunately a lot of doctors let these anecdotes and a few cases of possible genuine anomalies due to allergies, etc drive their opinions about nutrition which isn’t based on actual science.
> too concerned about feelings
> it’s disgusting
Massive contradiction here.
> it’s disgusting
Massive contradiction here.
Yeah. I was being sarcastic. The contradiction is when people trust scientists and when they don't. I find it amusing. It's a bit of a social contagion.
Science is one lens to view reality. So is personal experience. So is emotion.
In my experience bread makes me feel tired and anxious. Do I really need science to tell me that I should or shouldn’t eat bread? I hypothesized that bread is making me feel like crap and have confirmed it many times. I don’t believe there is a local bread scientist in my small town so I’m just going to go with my gut on this one.
In my experience bread makes me feel tired and anxious. Do I really need science to tell me that I should or shouldn’t eat bread? I hypothesized that bread is making me feel like crap and have confirmed it many times. I don’t believe there is a local bread scientist in my small town so I’m just going to go with my gut on this one.
It's exactly this sort of thinking that results in the dismal booster uptake numbers in the general population. Too many people "doing their own research".
You are dragging the discussion towards to a potently ideological topic with a very tenuous connection. Evidently you feel very strongly about such topic - I am wondering if you are unaware of just how much your own emotions are actually at play here.
that's not how it works.
there is good science and bad science. there is also bad or malicious application of good science.
i trust independent scientists and a scientific consensus. but that does not imply that all use of that science is good. what's happening in the industry is often not good as they use science to further their own goals and not in the interest of society
there is good science and bad science. there is also bad or malicious application of good science.
i trust independent scientists and a scientific consensus. but that does not imply that all use of that science is good. what's happening in the industry is often not good as they use science to further their own goals and not in the interest of society
[deleted]
Superficial and pointless article. Starts off ok but drives no point whatsoever. Just list all the UPFs and known digestive, mental, metabolic, and quality of life implications.
I miss the fat and salt manifestos of the old days. And by miss I mean, those that explain how fat and salt is actually needed and sugar, milk, and wheat not so much.
I miss the fat and salt manifestos of the old days. And by miss I mean, those that explain how fat and salt is actually needed and sugar, milk, and wheat not so much.
I guess you didn't click through to any of the links. Here, let me help you:
* Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024): https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/384/bmj-2023-077310.full.pdf
* New study finds poor diet kills more people globally than tobacco and high blood pressure(2019): https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-release...
* Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (2019): https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2819...
* Processing the evidence to evaluate mechanisms, costs and future solutions (editorial, 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nbu.12623
* Speed limits: the effects of industrial food processing and food texture on daily energy intake and eating behaviour in healthy adults (2023): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-023-03202-z
* Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease (2024): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-024-00893-5
I eagerly await your sparkling insights on the subject.
* Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024): https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/384/bmj-2023-077310.full.pdf
* New study finds poor diet kills more people globally than tobacco and high blood pressure(2019): https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-release...
* Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (2019): https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2819...
* Processing the evidence to evaluate mechanisms, costs and future solutions (editorial, 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nbu.12623
* Speed limits: the effects of industrial food processing and food texture on daily energy intake and eating behaviour in healthy adults (2023): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-023-03202-z
* Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease (2024): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-024-00893-5
I eagerly await your sparkling insights on the subject.
Taking the time to offer direct links was definitely helpful; but the added snark, detracts:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Shallow dismissals annoy me: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
More snark instead of owning your own failing. I didn't make a shallow dismissal. I praised what you did correctly, and gently reminded you to help keep this site from degrading.
So sorry for not immediately humbling myself before you. Don't read my comments, then. There are browser extensions you can use to help you with this.
I do love how you assumed I was talking about you in my reply, though. Sounds like something you should work on.
Good day.
I do love how you assumed I was talking about you in my reply, though. Sounds like something you should work on.
Good day.
I sent an innocuous and gentle reminder that your snark was out of line. It doesn't matter what anyone else did, it didn't give you the right to break the rules. In the future, please just watch the snark, and help make this site a better place.
Good day.
Good day.
UPF isn't about what nutrients are in the food, it's about what optimizing for manufacturing process and hyper-palatability moderates the effects the food has in our bodies.
What I absolutely don't get is:
Processed food is mostly junk food. How does this approach account for that? They don't control for junk food (at least not mentioned in the abstract).
Noone would argue that junk food is bad for you and if 90% of UPF is junk food then please spare me the article.
For a good study shouldn't you have an index of "hypothetical healthiness" and have two groups (Proccessed and non-processed) that are the same in "hypothetical healthiness" and see the results?
This shows that junk food == bad and not processed == bad imo.
Processed food is mostly junk food. How does this approach account for that? They don't control for junk food (at least not mentioned in the abstract).
Noone would argue that junk food is bad for you and if 90% of UPF is junk food then please spare me the article.
For a good study shouldn't you have an index of "hypothetical healthiness" and have two groups (Proccessed and non-processed) that are the same in "hypothetical healthiness" and see the results?
This shows that junk food == bad and not processed == bad imo.
The specific factors that cause ultra processed food to be bad are already understood and no one is attempting to claim that there is something inherently wrong with them.
The point of the classification is to give people a simple rule of thumb on what to eat. It’s much easier to understand “avoid processed foods” than the hundred factors that go into a good diet. In other words processed food is a classification system the same way junk food is, but more rigorously defined.
The point of the classification is to give people a simple rule of thumb on what to eat. It’s much easier to understand “avoid processed foods” than the hundred factors that go into a good diet. In other words processed food is a classification system the same way junk food is, but more rigorously defined.
A diet that restricts "processed" rather than "ultra processed" food is quite limited, since that includes a large majority of items in the grocery store. IMHO there are many healthy foods in this category, e.g. lentils for vegetarians or ground beef for carnivores. But there are few healthy ultra processed foods, if any.
Yesterday saw video about cheese... And I started to wonder is all cheese "processed" food... I mean you do stuff to milk... And then on other hand, is milk as in semi-skimmed or skimmed also processed? UHT must certainly be... So where is the line truly?
Sometimes, yes, it is. Real cheese is in a way a creation of a new food item as one raw ingredient (milk) is used by microorganisms to create another food product. Skimmed milk though can be considered a processed food item as it is a "waste" by-product of extracting cream from it. Cooking is also "processing" raw ingredients. But we know that "processing" by cooking raw ingredients to prepare dishes is beneficial for us despite the slight loss of nutrition (it allows our body to digest food more easily, and thus absorb nutritions better). We also know over-cooking (burning) food makes them carcinogenic. Factory "processing" of food essentially tends to strip off nutrition from food, in favour of taste (and sometimes digestibility). Ultra processed food tends to do this to an extreme. (For example, fruit juice seem more tastier because when we eat fruit the fibres slow down the release of sugar to our body. Fruit juice essentially strips of this fibre allowing our body to absorb sugar faster.)
But I can still be healthy with ultra processed food. It's doing it a disservice imo and focusing on the entirely wrong things regarding nutrition.