Scrutable

shpalman wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 12:41 pm 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

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.

hakwright wrote: Thu May 01, 2025 11:51 am 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.

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.

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")??

bob sterman wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:15 am 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.