The author Garrett Broad is The president of the plant based foods institute. Plant based foods are often considered ultra processed, because they put a lot of stuff in them to make meat based analogues or make them easier for the western diet.
Some science on it:
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38688162/
I would classify this article as disinformation it’s interesting to see it posted here. I’m FOR plant based foods but denying that much of what’s out there is ultra processed and can be harmful I don’t think is right.
Plant-based meats =/= plant-based foods
It’s also worth looking at one of the big points criticism actually is, which is that it’s such a broad label as to not be meaningful. If I lumped candy and apples together for being glucose-containing foods, we’d have a pretty poor understanding of the actual effects of apples. They point to studies on specific categories going differing ways
As a side note, it also tends to only get applied to justify whatever people want to already think. Like adding protein isolate/powder makes something automatically become a high category processed food and yet people are buying protein-XYZ products with protein isolate added to them while being against UPFs
I’m FOR plant based foods but denying that much of what’s out there is ultra processed and can be harmful I don’t think is right.
The article doesn’t do that though. The main argument seems to be that ultraprocessed foods are not all equivalently bad, which is pretty obvious when you think about it for a second. Like yeah drinking sugary soda each day is obviously gonna do you way more harm than a pot of yoghurt with breakfast.
They are insinuating that the genuine and legitimate concern over UPF is a ‘ panic’ when in reality most people should be more worried than they are. I did read the article and the classifications could use improvement but let’s frame it that way and not with clickbait titles then?
No, scientists shouldn’t misrepresent fields as settled to try and drum up action.
This has been done in the past and always causes backlash. UPF classification is incoherent and there are wildly different classification and results between studies. It is good to discuss that, it is good to communicate truth.
Nowhere in the article is the author saying you should eat more, or not worry about your diet.
It turns out that certain categories of ultraprocessed foods – such as sweetened beverages like sodas and processed meats like deli meats – are consistently associated with negative health outcomes including heart disease and stroke. But other ultraprocessed products – breads, cold cereals, yogurt and even savory snacks – have actually been correlated with lower rates of these health problems.
Pretty fucking clear
Ultimately, researchers and advocates from all sides of the debate mostly agree that the modern food environment needs to be made healthier. The key point of disagreement, however, is whether policymaking and dietary guidance should directly address ultraprocessing or stick to a more traditional focus on nutrients instead.
Is there a legitimate concern over UPF? Processing food doesn’t actually make it unhealthy, we just happen to process things in an unhealthy way most of the time. Also a very vibes-based label. If we want to be taken seriously about healthy food we should use concrete terms and labels that can’t be easily gamed by companies.
The conversation has an extremely robust editorial process and articles must be well founded.
What specific claims is Garrett making here that you believe misrepresent the evidence?
Did you read the article? It also cites studies similar to the ones you linked. For instance:
One consistent result stands out: People who consume more ultraprocessed foods are at higher risk for multiple chronic diseases and early death.
I guess it makes sense, since the UPF framework literally and explicitly disregards substance in favor of a notion of pure sourcing. As with the genetic fallacy, it can be a useful heuristic but is ultimately unsound.
The writier beinh the presidente of a group that he talks about in this article automatically disqualifies the aeticle, it is disinformation, because its just a not so well hidden ad
What’s he advertising? eating healthier?
Ultimately, researchers and advocates from all sides of the debate mostly agree that the modern food environment needs to be made healthier. The key point of disagreement, however, is whether policymaking and dietary guidance should directly address ultraprocessing or stick to a more traditional focus on nutrients instead.
So sinister
One of the funniest things you can do in literature is look at where people categorise centrifuged honey vs glucose syrup.
Extremely incoherent framework, very unusual results (e.g. Italian men mortality vs Australian men mortality comparing diets according to nova)
They probably are. I spend a lot of time overseas now. I can say that I don’t get sick from eating; well except this fake soy burger in Korea, took one bite, spit it out, and threw it away. A total waste I’d say.
