Ultra-processed food

[bob sterman]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... tudy-finds

Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone’s risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.

Damn - I'd better cut back on the cereals (NOVA group 4 "ultraprocessed") and consume more beef jerky, beer, salted and sugared nuts, cured ham (all merely NOVA group 3 "processed").

Yes - the analysis in the paper was based on % NOVA group 4 only...

Foods and beverages were classified according to the Nova food classification system into 4 major groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and UPFs. The UPF dietary share was measured on the basis of the contribution of UPF to total energy intake, which was computed as the ratio of the mean energy from the UPF group over the mean total energy intake of the diet.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 28#fig0001

[hakwright]

One thing I have long questioned is whether the NOVA guidelines for categorising UPF items are sufficiently clear and consistent. I personally think the UPF concept is very poorly defined, and so far there is no clear evidence that increased consumption of UPF items actually causes health impacts. There are just studies showing some degree of correlation/association.

Part of the issue could be that the NOVA guidelines don't actually lead to objective, consistent categorisations into one of the four NOVA food groups. I listen in on some facebook UPF groups, and there is a constant stream of questions/discussions/disagreements about whether X is UPF or not (based on the list of ingredients). There's a lot of confusion. For example, the NOVA guidelines strongly suggest that a food which contains a carbonating agent, or a raising agent is likely to be UPF. Really? So sparkling water is UPF?

I found one study that seems to confirm the confusion: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1

They asked around 200 professionals working in food and nutrition to categorise foods into the 4 NOVA groups. They had two lists each with a little over 100 food items. One list had detailed ingredient information, the other didn't. One of the most striking results:

"Only three marketed foods and one generic food were assigned to the same NOVA group by all the evaluators, and most of the foods in both lists were placed in two, three, or even four NOVA groups".

The sample of evaluators isn't huge, but yeah, even people with suitable professional experience can't agree how to classify UPF items. This rather calls into question the validity of many UPF studies.

[Woodchopper]

The sample of evaluators isn't huge, but yeah, even people with suitable professional experience can't agree how to classify UPF items. This rather calls into question the validity of many UPF studies.

I think that the sample size is all right. They’re not trying to make an estimate of the general population, and it’s probably not feasible anyway to do similar with the population of nutrition professionals. Assuming they avoided bias when selecting the 200 I think that’s enough to show that there probably isn’t much consensus.

[eliot10]

The lack of agreement on what actually counts as “ultra-processed” definitely muddies the waters. If trained professionals can’t even classify foods consistently under the NOVA system, it makes you wonder how meaningful the correlations in these studies really are. The whole UPF category seems like a catch-all for anything with more than a couple ingredients, which isn’t always fair or useful.

That said, there’s growing legal interest in holding food companies accountable. Some early cases are popping up around health impacts linked to heavy UPF diets, this food lawsuits page gives a good snapshot of where things might be heading.

[bob sterman]

Relax guidance for meat three times a week in English schools, says charity
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ys-charity

Quite sensibly - this charity are not NOVA-focused!

Because from a NOVA perspective - what if schools go ahead and replace ham and bacon (both only NOVA group 3 "processed" but consumption linked to increased cancer risk) with plant-based versions or veggieburgers (NOVA 4 "ultra processed")??

[shpalman]

Relax guidance for meat three times a week in English schools, says charity
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ys-charity

Quite sensibly - this charity are not NOVA-focused!

Because from a NOVA perspective - what if schools go ahead and replace ham and bacon (both only NOVA group 3 "processed" but consumption linked to increased cancer risk) with plant-based versions or veggieburgers (NOVA 4 "ultra processed")??

It would be great if they could offer relatively unprocessed meat, including fish and poultry, but I'm sure they don't have the budget for that.

According to current government guidance, schools should provide a portion of meat or poultry for at least three days a week in school meals, which is part of the wider school food standards designed to ensure children have a balanced diet.

However, the Food Foundation is calling for the requirement to be relaxed, and that increased consumption of fruit, vegetables, and legumes should be encouraged through a specific strategy.

That makes it sound like fruit is an alternative to meat, which of course it isn't.

[shpalman]

Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial

in Nature Medicine.

Participants were provided with an 8-week MPF diet and an 8-week UPF diet, both following EWG recommendations, in a random order, with a 4-week washout period. Participants were given all meals, snacks and drinks for both diets, which were delivered to participants’ homes twice per week. The Nova classification was used to classify food and drink into UPF and MPF*. The research team agreed on UPF items based on identifying ingredients of industrial use in product ingredient lists explicitly defining a product as UPF in published definitions (for example, cosmetic additives)*. Meals and snacks on the MPF diet were culinary preparations of individual ingredients (for example, raw meat, vegetables, oats, butter) ensuring correct Nova classification and no ambiguous decision on mixed dishes/shop-bought items.

* https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... E74D53A185

In this study, both MPF and UPF diets following national healthy dietary guidance resulted in percentage weight loss after 8 weeks, with significantly greater reductions on the MPF diet. Greater weight, BMI and fat mass loss were also observed on the MPF compared with the UPF diet, as well as greater reductions in triglycerides and cravings. Conversely, LDL-C was lower on the UPF diet. Overall, these results suggest favorable changes in body composition and craving control from adhering to national dietary guidance with a diet of MPF rather than UPF.

[hakwright]

Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial

in Nature Medicine.

Participants were provided with an 8-week MPF diet and an 8-week UPF diet, both following EWG recommendations, in a random order, with a 4-week washout period. Participants were given all meals, snacks and drinks for both diets, which were delivered to participants’ homes twice per week. The Nova classification was used to classify food and drink into UPF and MPF*. The research team agreed on UPF items based on identifying ingredients of industrial use in product ingredient lists explicitly defining a product as UPF in published definitions (for example, cosmetic additives)*. Meals and snacks on the MPF diet were culinary preparations of individual ingredients (for example, raw meat, vegetables, oats, butter) ensuring correct Nova classification and no ambiguous decision on mixed dishes/shop-bought items.

* https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... E74D53A185

In this study, both MPF and UPF diets following national healthy dietary guidance resulted in percentage weight loss after 8 weeks, with significantly greater reductions on the MPF diet. Greater weight, BMI and fat mass loss were also observed on the MPF compared with the UPF diet, as well as greater reductions in triglycerides and cravings. Conversely, LDL-C was lower on the UPF diet. Overall, these results suggest favorable changes in body composition and craving control from adhering to national dietary guidance with a diet of MPF rather than UPF.

I also saw this recently, interesting results - but for me it fails to substantiate the idea that UPF foods are significantly different to other processed foods, which is surely the concept we are being encouraged to believe. To me, all the study really shows is that weight loss is more effective if you consume minimally processed foods (based on basic raw ingredients) rather than highly processed foods. If they want to provide evidence that UPF items are significantly different to processed (but non UPF items), they should compare NOVA group 3 foods with group 4 - i.e. compare processed foods with ultra processed foods.

Though I suspect one of the major challenges in doing a study like that is having good confidence that NOVA group 3 and 4 items can be accurately and consistently differentiated. The evidence I've seen (both anecdata and one published study) suggests that even professionals in the field cannot agree what is UPF and what is not.