Ultraprocessed foods documentary

[Robin]

Dinner tonight.
Lamb chops, roast potatoes, roast sweet potatoes, green beans, leek, Yorkshire puddings, stuffing, gravy, mushrooms.
3/9 are ultra processed.
The gravy, the Yorkshire puddings, and the stuffing. (Although the stuffing was full of fresh sage and chives from the garden!)
But I have no intention of going back to meat juice and cornflower for gravy, or mixing my own batter for Yorkshire puddings, unless it's toad in the hole.

I always make my own batter, it takes 30 seconds in the food processor, but does that then make it ultra processed? 🙄😉

 

[Eddy Edson]

Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):

‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods

(which is taken from the Brazilian NOVA classifications, apparently more or less the current de facto standard, despite imperfections).

So I don't think eg a can of tomatoes with some preservatives counts.

FWIW, you can see the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

 

[pm133]

Everybody assumes E numbers are all bad but some natural things are given an E number. So even that is no real guide.

And also, of course, not all natural compounds are safe to eat.
Arsenic is a natural compound for example.

 

[pm133]

Yes it's a shame isn't it. Would be really useful to have a way of separating the nasties from the 'reasonable' additives and extras.

But if you give the food industry an inch it'll take a yard, and I am pretty convinved that whatever stipulation you put on (eg a maximum number or percentage of additives) they'd find a way of making some hideous concoction that qualified for a 'clean' label but was actually even worse for you than the old stuff!

And I think that's an excellent point.
We all know intuitively what is good and what is bad.

The problem is legislating for the difference in an environment where, as you rightly say, these manufacturers will find ways of pushing the boundaries.

I did think that maybe we should start making food manufacturers or food processing companies have to go through some series of extended tests to prove their products come under much stricter guidelines on nasty things (whatever that may be) before they can sell to the public - in a similar way to pharmaceutical companies. It's getting to the point that something radical along those lines might be needed.
Maybe, for example, we should ban food which fails on any 2 of the traffic light labels on food. So, you can sell butter which would be red for fat but it must be green for everything else like salt. This would need a lot of thought because I also strongly believe that people have the right to choose what they do to their own bodies. But then it's society which has to foot the bill to heal them when they get ill. Definitely conflicted there.

I would also like them to include carbs on that traffic light system, given the sheer volume of diabetics out there. That might be interesting.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):

‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods

(which is taken from the Brazilian NOVA classifications, apparently more or less the current de facto standard, despite imperfections).

So I don't think eg a can of tomatoes with some preservatives counts.

FWIW, you can see the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

And much more detail on NOVA classifications & what "ultraprocessed" means in an FAO report: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

 

[Leadinglights]

We now have the news item this morning on BBC Breakfast that restaurants will have to show calories on the menu which really is not a lot of help to diabetics, perhaps somebody Diabetes UK should be lobbing for Carbs as well.

 

[helli]

My gut feel is that anything with artificial sweeteners is ultraprocessed.
I have no science to back up this feeling but would rather reduce the sugar in a recipe or avoid it alltogether than add splenda or any other sugar alternative.
I would feel nervous in a restaurant if it included all carbs in their menus (something I disagree with due to the difficulties for small flexible independent cafes and restaurants but that is a different conversation ... ooops didn't mean to side track, it's just the way my brain works). Anyway, back to the menu including carbs - if a dessert item had low carbs listed, I would be more likely to avoid it because I would suspect it was achieved with artificial sweeteners.

Thankfully, I am able to maintain my weight and my diabetes management whilst avoiding these but sometimes I wonder if I am misjudging them?

 

[Leadinglights]

My gut feel is that anything with artificial sweeteners is ultraprocessed.
I have no science to back up this feeling but would rather reduce the sugar in a recipe or avoid it alltogether than add splenda or any other sugar alternative.
I would feel nervous in a restaurant if it included all carbs in their menus (something I disagree with due to the difficulties for small flexible independent cafes and restaurants but that is a different conversation ... ooops didn't mean to side track, it's just the way my brain works). Anyway, back to the menu including carbs - if a dessert item had low carbs listed, I would be more likely to avoid it because I would suspect it was achieved with artificial sweeteners.

Thankfully, I am able to maintain my weight and my diabetes management whilst avoiding these but sometimes I wonder if I am misjudging them?

This is going to be a situation where Damned if you do Damned if you don't. I see what you are saying and perhaps we have become a nanny culture, and people should be left to make their own minds up. However the information should be available for those who request it, just as allergy info has to be.
I sometimes find people very strange, my OH's sister has to have everything organic, nothing will pass her lips or her dogs lips that isn't and yet she was a smoker for years.

 

[helli]

This is going to be a situation where Damned if you do Damned if you don't. I see what you are saying and perhaps we have become a nanny culture, and people should be left to make their own minds up. However the information should be available for those who request it, just as allergy info has to be.
I sometimes find people very strange, my OH's sister has to have everything organic, nothing will pass her lips or her dogs lips that isn't and yet she was a smoker for years.

I think you are referring to my side comment about restaurants listing the carb contents of their meals.
whilst I see the value in it, it means independent restaurants who want to use fresh, local ingredients are restricted in terms of being able to substitute say green beans for brocoli because their supplier has some great fresh beans in season or substituting cream for ice cream when they run out.
l think it stifles culinary creativity and adds extra cost and effort if you are running the kind of establishment that doesn’t just dish up the same fixed menu for months on end.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):

‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods

(which is taken from the Brazilian NOVA classifications, apparently more or less the current de facto standard, despite imperfections).

So I don't think eg a can of tomatoes with some preservatives counts.

FWIW, you can see the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.

 

[Leadinglights]

I think you are referring to my side comment about restaurants listing the carb contents of their meals.
whilst I see the value in it, it means independent restaurants who want to use fresh, local ingredients are restricted in terms of being able to substitute say green beans for brocoli because their supplier has some great fresh beans in season or substituting cream for ice cream when they run out.
l think it stifles culinary creativity and adds extra cost and effort if you are running the kind of establishment that doesn’t just dish up the same fixed menu for months on end.

Absolutely agree, they would be prevented from making substitutions if requested by the customer, or even having the dish of the day.

 

[Robin]

Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.

I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.

What is ultra-processed food and what does it mean for my health?

Ultra-processed foods have been linked to early death and more than 30 different health problems, including heart disease, cancer and anxiety.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Inka]

I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.

What is ultra-processed food and what does it mean for my health?

Ultra-processed foods have been linked to early death and more than 30 different health problems, including heart disease, cancer and anxiety.

www.bbc.co.uk

I hope so. That would seem a common sense approach.

I’ve been thinking about the carb listings. I do look up chain restaurants to check carbs sometimes, but I wouldn’t want that imposition on a small individual restaurant. Only ‘factory line’ food would be so regimented that the portions were equal, and if the portion size varied then the nutritional information wouldn’t be accurate anyway. I’m always wary of carb counts and tend to do my own calculations and checks anyway.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.

What is ultra-processed food and what does it mean for my health?

Ultra-processed foods have been linked to early death and more than 30 different health problems, including heart disease, cancer and anxiety.

www.bbc.co.uk

Did you have a look at @Eddy Edson link

the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

they are all in the ultraprocessed food diet.

The actual "bad" diet doesn't look really bad, it's not all take ways and "junk" food. The unprocessed is all top end healthly food. It's not an everyday affordable menu.
It will be an interesting program, if there was no difference in other variables, such as exercise, eg can you eat the healthy food, no exercise, and get fitter, or eat the processed diet, and even with maximum exercise, still get that bad?
Can there be a happy halfway house that lets me keep the tinned sweetcorn? (To be honest, he probably chose the sweetened variety, I go for the unsweetened, vacuum tined ones now)

 

[Eddy Edson]

Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.

Anything with emulsifiers, added flavours etc etc for "ultraprocessed", I think. Not so much preservatives, as I understand it - they're a marker for "processed" rather than "ultraprocessed".

The BBC categories are just the NOVA categories used by "everybody", including Hall in this study. But they do leave room for different interpretations.

Hall's position is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with ultraprocessed food except that (surprisingly, to him) they cause people to eat more. That might also involve eating too much sodium, not enough mucronutrients or fibre, whatever, depending on the individual details of the food - but not necessarily. You can easily imagine and identify ultraprocessed foods which are just fine nutritionally - except that they appear, on average, to cause people to over-eat.

Everybody has assumed reasons for why this is the case based on their preconceptions/cult membership/whatever but Hall himself doesn't know; there's a bunch of different hypotheses which need to be tested. Maybe there are factors which can be addressed, and you can have nutritionally fine, cheap, long-life, tasty ultraprocessed food which doesn't have the same over-eating propensity.

Meanwhile, because the world is dumb, the message is being interpreted as "ultraprocessed = bad because (insert just-so story here)".

 

[Eddy Edson]

The unprocessed is all top end healthly food. It's not an everyday affordable menu.

Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive - lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.

So, again, ultraprocessed food is fundamentally great - tasty, convenient, long-life, potentially nutritious, affordable for ervyone. It's just that the way it is now, it causes people to over-eat. What to do about that?

 

[Robin]

Did you have a look at @Eddy Edson link

the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

they are all in the ultraprocessed food diet.

Yes, I did look, and that was my point. Some of the stuff on Hall's meal plan like cheese, cream, etc, would only be on the 'lightly processed' BBC list, unless Hall was using particular brands that add other stuff. I am not familiar with the brand names.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Yes, I did look, and that was my point. Some of the stuff on Hall's meal plan like cheese, cream, etc, would only be on the 'lightly processed' BBC list, unless Hall was using particular brands that add other stuff. I am not familiar with the brand names.

He choose a highly processed burger cheese, and added a fibre supplement to the milks and creams for example, to enable the "ultra processed" label.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive - lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.

So, again, ultraprocessed food is fundamentally great - tasty, convenient, long-life, potentially nutritious, affordable for ervyone. It's just that the way it is now, it causes people to over-eat. What to do about that?

I think the answer is to look more at the snacks.
they had the biggest opportunity to make a difference for the smallest cost, and the greatest potential for over eating based on the volume to calories.
Crisps, biscuits and peanuts, all dry, calorie dense, and sweet apple sauce, versus fresh oranges and apples, raisins raw almonds, and chopped walnuts.

 

[nonethewiser]

Rather gnaw on right hand than watch these type of programs, eat this don't eat that, give me break man.