Funny

9315 readers

3020 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

623

Sometimes it isn't even washed before you buy it (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 18 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

That's 1 presentation. Is there much uniform agreement on it? Is the classification objectively precise & reliable?

Their School of Public Health acknowledges problems with definition & attempted standards

the definition of processed food varies widely depending on the source

The NOVA system is recognized by the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization, but not currently in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration or USDA. NOVA has been criticized for being too general in classifying certain foods, causing confusion.

Other scholarly review articles criticize the classification as unclear even among researchers.

Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges regarding classifications:

There is no consensus on what determines the level of food processing.

Classification systems that categorise foods according to their “level of processing” have been used to predict diet quality and health outcomes and inform dietary guidelines and product development. However, the classification criteria used are ambiguous, inconsistent and often give less weight to existing scientific evidence on nutrition and food processing effects; critical analysis of these criteria creates conflict amongst researchers.

The classification systems embody socio-cultural elements and subjective terms, including home cooking and naturalness. Hence, “processing” is a chaotic conception, not only concerned with technical processes.

The concept of “whole food” and the role of the food matrix in relation to healthy diets needs further clarification; the risk assessment/management of food additives also needs debate.

Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges regarding a single classification system (NOVA):

The present paper explores the definition of ultra-processed foods since its inception and clearly shows that the definition of such foods has varied considerably.

Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.

The public health nutrition advice of NOVA is that ultra-processed foods should be avoided to achieve improvements in nutrient intakes with an emphasis on fat, sugar, and salt. The present manuscript demonstrates that the published data for the United States, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and Canada all show that across quintiles of intake of ultra-processed foods, nutritionally meaningful changes are seen for sugars and fiber but not for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. Moreover, 2 national surveys in the United Kingdom and France fail to show any link between body mass index and consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Some research articles find the leading definition unreliable: low consistency between nutrition specialists following the same definition.

Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.

If experts aren't able to classify "ultraprocessed" items consistently, then what chance has anyone? At the moment, "processed food" seems more buzz & connotation than substance.

It might make more sense to classify food by something clearer like nutritional content.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

At the moment, “processed food” seems more buzz & connotation than substance

Yes, we both agree on this. Organic, natural, etc. are all, scientifically, ill defined, advertising labels. However, in this particular discussion, people are pointing towards the way it is used in common lexicon, rather than a scientific, or technical one. When your average person says these things, they mean things that have gone through more processing than what was traditionally done, before the point of making a meal from it, or the after processing it goes through to make a meal have as long a shelf life as possible, etc. These processes include things like introducing additives to make the color better, the introduction of extracts, synthesized chemicals, etc., to enhance flavor, improve presentation, extend shelf life, etc. That are not traditional things like salting, smoking, drying, freezing/cooling, etc. That page from Harvard isn't trying to be an authoritative statement on exactly what "ultra-processed" means to an industry, rather than to be a common framework, for the most general level of understanding, of the contemporary processes that food is put through, that are beyond traditional methodology.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, we both agree on this. Organic, natural, etc. are all, scientifically, ill defined, advertising labels.

Cool.

it is used in common lexicon, rather than a scientific, or technical one.

Which also isn't very clear and seems mostly buzz & connotation. While it means something, it can get awfully vague.

In common parlance, "processed" is often in context of health & medical claims attributed to scientific research: the page from Harvard is an example.

Food that contains a synthetic additive or preservative uncommon in households is certainly different. Other mass-produced food merely seems like scaled-up foods I could make at home with varying effort: bread, pastries, cheese, fermented foods, ham, sausage, sauce, etc. If they were presented with wrappers removed, I wouldn't honestly know where it came from.

Salting, smoking, adding some preservatives like vinegar, lemon, or salt are also traditional. Extracts like vanilla don't require much industry (about as much as coffee or tea) and are often used in home cooking.

When I critically examine the food we make, the label "processed" more often puzzles me than tell me anything helpful. Avoid processed foods. Cool: which? It often causes me to wonder if the person saying it has cooked, looked at cooking shows, or seen other cultures cook.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Ok a recent example I have come across.

I recently had my partner grab a loaf of pumpernickel, or other dark rye, while she was out shopping. Instead of going to the bakery we normally shop at, she grabbed a bag of "pumpernickel" off the shelf, at the super market. It is less than 2% rye. The flour mix is processed with cocoa and an unspecified alkali, to achieve the color, in the absence of enough dark rye flour. They also add an unspecified caramel coloring into the dough to complete the coloring. They then add natural, but otherwise not traditionally used, flavoring to better achieve the flavor of "pumpernickel", again, minus the proper flour mix. They then add an extract propionic acid, mixed with a synthetic sorbic acid, to extend shelf life. They use synthetic monoglycerides to improve the stability of the emulsification, which both improves texture, and extends shelf life. They add soy based lipid extracts to preserve the "moist" feel of the bread.

This is what people have in mind when they say ultra-processed. This is, in no way, how you would normally make pumpernickel. This is like a farce of this bread, that is cheaper, and much longer lasting, approximation of bread.