this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
474 points (98.2% liked)

World News

46283 readers
2480 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
474
Ultra-processed food increases risk of early death, international study finds (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Consuming large amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) increases the risk of an early death, according to a international study that has reignited calls for a crackdown on UPF.

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.

UPF is so damaging to health that it is implicated in as many as one in seven of all premature deaths that occur in some countries, according to a paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

They are associated with 124,107 early deaths in the US a year and 17,781 deaths every year in England, the review of dietary and mortality data from eight countries found.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 4 days ago (7 children)

The NOVA classifications are difficult to work with, and I think the trend of certain nutrition scientists (and the media that reports on those scientists' work) have completely over-weighted the value of the "ultra processed" category.

The typical whole grain, multigrain bread sold at the store qualifies as ultra-processed, in large part because whole grain flour is harder to shape into loaves than white flour, and manufacturers add things like gluten to the dough. Gluten, of course, already "naturally" exists in any wheat bread, so it's not exactly a harmful ingredient. But that additive tips the loaf of bread into ultra processed (or UPF or NOVA category 4), same as Doritos.

But whole grain bread isn't as bad for you as Doritos or Coca Cola. So why do these studies treat them as the same? And whole grain factory bread is almost certainly better for you than the local bakery's white bread (merely processed food or NOVA category 3), made from industrially produced white flour, with the germ and bran removed during milling. Or industrially produced potato chips, which are usually considered simply processed foods in category 3 when not flavored with anything other than salt, which certainly aren't more nutritious or healthier than that whole wheat bread or pasta.

If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don't throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).

And I'm not even going to get into how the system is fundamentally unsuited for evaluating fermented, aged, or pickled foods, especially dairy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Absolutely correct. This classification system points the finger at things that everyone (read: everyone who had a semblance of nutritional education) knows are bad for you, but then lumps in things like bread and cheese with them! So of course people who don't know much better hear this, they'll think "well if bread and cheese are just as bad for you as Cheetos, of course I'm getting the Cheetos, they're delicious".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I feel like this is an area of "science" that's just a mish mash of various corporate lobbying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don’t throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).

We've been doing that for years, and the result on public health has been fad diets and "superfoods". Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after. The categories for processed-ness are necessarily arbitrary, since we have to decide what constitutes "processed", and so sometimes relatively healthier food ends up appearing "worse" than less healthy food. But the end result is the headline above, which can be pointed to the hundred billion times it must be pointed to, in order to convince people that they should not eat a diet consisting of Doritos, mountain dew, slim jims, and ice cream.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after.

But what confounding variables have also increased during this time? Do we have endocrine disruptors in our drinking water or food packaging or in the foods themselves, from microplastics or whatever? Have we been fertilizing our fields with industrial waste containing toxic "forever chemicals"? Have we become more sedentary at home and at work? I mean, probably yes to all of these.

I do believe that nutrition is more than simple linear addition of the components in a food. But insights can still be derived from analyzing non-linear combinations (like studying the role of fiber or water or even air in foods for the perception of satiety or the speed that subject ingest food), or looking towards specific interactions between certain subsets of the population with specific nutrients. We can still derive information from the ingredients, even if we move past the idea that each ingredient acts on the body completely independently from the other ingredients in that food.

And look, I'm a skeptic of the NOVA system, but actually do appreciate its contribution in increasing awareness of those non-linear combinations. But I see it as, at most, a bridge to better science, not good science in itself.

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

I believe nutrition is quite simple: Eat real food. That will get you 90% of the way there, if you are an average person who just wants to be healthy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 82 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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.

Was a bit surprised to see bread there, as it's been a staple of many cultures' cuisines for millennia. Did a quick search, and got some clarity in this list - "mass-produced packaged bread" is UPF, not the stuff you make from scratch or perhaps pick up from the local bakery.

A relief, actually, as I just took a loaf of sourdough out of the oven and was waiting for it to be cool enough to slice into. This article took the shine off the experience for a moment there 😅

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah the typical American stuff is like 10% sugar, packed with additives like emulsifiers and preservatives, and anything that makes the production processes cheaper and faster, made from bleached flour and has most of the fibre stripped out.

If your bread is made from flour, water, salt and yeast its processed food not UPF.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The supermarket bread that looks and feels like a squeaky toy. Best to avoid that one.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

You say that like its a bad thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

So we're just doing "early death" as a cause of death now?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It's astonishing to me that scientists are using such unscientific terms like "ultra processed food". What is it about these foods that is unhealthy?

It's like saying "sports are dangerous" while including football and golf in your definition.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the media find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.

What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:

  • Very little fibre
  • Starches are all immediately accessible to digestion and so blood glucose spikes much more than for the non-UPF equivalent
  • UPF foods are soft and dry (so weigh less) making it very easy to eat a lot very fast, so you eat too many calories.
  • Relatively high in salt and sugar
  • Use of emulsifiers. These may change your gut microbiota and also make your gut more leaky causing inflammation
  • Use of preservatives and artificial colours
  • Frequently have a lot of oil

Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.

Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Those are shit definitions that come from pop-science not real science. They're so broad as to be functionally useless.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think there's a bit of a political drive to try to label chronic conditions as "lifestyle" diseases tbh, hence the loose definitions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (4 children)

There is no single definition of ultra-processed foods, but in general they contain ingredients not used in home cooking.

Many are chemicals, colourings and sweeteners, used to improve the food's appearance, taste or texture.

Fizzy drinks, sweets and chicken nuggets are all examples. However, they can also include less obvious foods, including some breads, breakfast cereals and yoghurts.

A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed, according to public health expert Prof Maira Bes-Rastrollo of the University of Navarra in Spain.

Ultra-processed foods are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fats. In the UK, look out for a "traffic light" label on the packaging.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_food

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the details - as you point out this is a functionally useless definition.

It reeks of "You know what I mean - that bad stuff". And that's not a good scientific definition.

A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed

Curry is "ultra-processed" - you heard it hear first.

Like I said - "Sports are dangerous" is a very bad way to try to categorize risky activity. Golf and football are very different as are Curry and Twizzlers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

In this reply you you talked about "some breads", the OP Post only talks about bread - and that for sure had only ingredients in using at home.

Same for French fries: potato, salt, fat .

I'm with the poor downvoted fellow, I don't understand where the risk comes from when it's described this vague.

Are home made burgers better? Is it the freezing process and I should lower my meal prep? Is it additives?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (20 children)

The fuck does "ultra processed food" mean? Isnt upf defined by it harming you? Its like saying weapons harm you when weapon is the name for something that is used to harm others.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Not even. The NOVA system has been tested and doesn't function as a system of classification. Experts cannot consistently classify things into UPF/not UPF. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1

So it's more like "there's this food and it's bad for you but idk what it is :/"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

The infuriating thing is that I believe that nutrition is more than just a linear addition of all the constituent ingredients (kinda the default view of nutrition science up through the 90's), but addressing the shortcomings of that overly simple model shouldn't mean making an even more simple model.

NOVA classification is the wrong answer to a legitimate problem.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (10 children)

What is considered an ultra-processed food? Like... Cheese is processed (all cheese; it isn't just found, it's made by processing milk). Is it ultra processed? What about a hot dog?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It seems cheese just missed the mark for ultra status according to this specification I found on webMD.

a quick summarisation is that there are 4 groups:

  1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (berries, nuts etc).
  2. Processed culinary ingredients (oils, butter, sugars etc).
  3. Processed foods (cheese, bread. Stuff with 2+ ingredients).
  4. Ultra-processed food and drink products (preservatives, additives, all the bad -ives).

So I'm guessing a hot dog would be ultra processed due to preservatives and additives often found in the 'meat'.

That was an interesting rabbit hole to go down. Feels as though what is considered ultra-processed by the experts, is what us laymen tend to refer to as processed foods. I suppose technically their terminology is correct (the best kind of correct ofc), but it just feels like an exaggeration due to everyday usage of the term being what it is.

Edit: formatting.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The food industry is going to go through the same rebuke that the tobacco industry went through only bigger.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Should go through, but it won’t.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I feel like we’ve known this for a very long time

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We've known about climate change for a long time too. "We" not all of us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Gotta up my junk food consumption then

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

It is my life's dream to die clutching my heart as I'm giving a presentation in front of hundreds of people.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 days ago

Yeah, but it's delicious and makes me feel good and I don't want to be 90 anyway. Wait, smokers say that. Shit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

this feels like common sense

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For example, US research published last year in the BMJ found that people who consume the most UPF have a 4% higher risk of death overall and a 9% greater risk of dying from something other than cancer or heart disease.

If you don't want to die of cancer and heart disease, UPF may be be a good choice.

The 4% greater risk of dying... Does that mean if I have a 10% chance of dying by age 70 it becomes a 14% chance or a 10.4% chance? I believe the latter. But that's a correlation for the people who eat the most UPF. Would have to see how that's controlled for socioeconomic class and access to healthcare.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›