What does “ultra processed” mean? I can’t get the article to load.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
290 points (97.1% liked)
News
31475 readers
5149 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Part of the problem is simply defining ultra-processed foods.
The new CDC report used the most common definition based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be “hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats,” the CDC report said
I would say this is almost certainly skewed by income, with the poorest Americans getting almost all of their calories from ultra processed foods, and the share decreasing with income. I would be curious to see that spread because one of the more fucked up things about this is that there are a lot of people who eat this stuff exclusively, and this number kind of hides that.
Probably also skewed by the fact that ultra processed foods are by default more calorie dense, therefore most of a day's calories might come from that.
the problems involve people not having money to buy more nutritious food, and grocery store chains not supplying certain markets (poor people). this could be helped by giving people more money or at least providing them with food regardless of cost, and also government-run grocery stores that operate regardless of profit margin. also, people like RFK Jr complain about processed food, while drinking fishtank cleaner, popping zyn pouches, and taking steroids, so i dont really care whether food is 'processed' that much.
You know how they feed farm animals low grade corn and grains, junk byproduct of all kind of food processing, just what they need so we can get what we want out of them…everything is optimized for extraction.
They used to need us to work their factories, back when we were a manufacturing economy. They’re not bringing back the manufacturing economy, you gotta be a goddamn moron to believe that.
So if you’re not gonna pay up and eat the cheapest, shittiest food possible, and not harass them about education and healthcare and your fucking “happiness”…what the fuck do they need you around for?
The cheapest crap is fed to animals to extract more profit. The cheapest crap is mixed into manufacturing the food to make it more profitable. The cheapest crap is fed to humans to make them more profitable.
Draft pool for WWIII
07
Large portions of the United States don’t have access to grocery stores that carry fresh produce
"Ultra-processed food" is a meaningless phrase. The definitions for it are so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers.
Define the ingredients that are bad ffs. Stop with this ridiculous bs.
I have issues with sensitivity to unhealthy foods and even some vegetables set me off. Beans, potatoes, rice, sweet peas, anything spicy like onions, garlic, ginger, or peppers. Honey as well, due to being made up mostly of simple carbohydrates. A box of granola bars would spoil my day, a few slices of pizza would kick up arrhythmia, and a shot of vodka would put me in the hospital.
If it's not a plain fruit, vegetable, nut, or meat like fish or chicken, it's probably bad to at least some degree.
If it’s not a plain fruit, vegetable, nut, or meat like fish or chicken, it’s probably bad to at least some degree.
That sounds like stience to me.
Scientifically speaking, I am basically a walking index on junk food.
I love kimchi, some of my best cubicle-clearing work starts with kimchi.
I agree with you in general and recognize the validity of your point, but in this particular case we all know they mean a combination of 'meat, brain and bone slurry', 'HFCS-infused everything' and 'chlorine bleached <8% protein wheat flour'.
No, the study cited in the article doesn’t share your definition.
we all know they mean
This is my point. No, "we" don't.
combination of ‘meat, brain and bone slurry’, ‘HFCS-infused everything’ and ‘chlorine bleached <8% protein wheat flour’.
Thanks for proving my point. You just described everything from toast to sausages and even laced in some unscientific thoughts on HFCS (hint: it's sugar, sugar is bad but HFCS is no worse than sugar).
"You know - stuff I hear on Tik Tok is bad for you" is not a scientific conclusion.
I think you're myopically focusing on my humorous hyperbole and missing my point. Purely scientifically speaking you might well be able to subsist on SCoP, casein powder in water, a dry pack of chow mein noodles and a daily multi-vitamin pill and be perfectly fine. Hell, you can probably scientifically design some sort of nutritionally perfect human kibble that the peons can wash down with Real Water (tm), but is that desirable?
Now if you will excuse me, I have a sourdough bread to shove in the oven.
I think you’re myopically focusing on my humorous hyperbole and missing my point.
Ah - it seems I may have been.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
I don't think Americans eat healthy, but "ultra processed" not defined by any metric is in favor of the manufacturer. Something can be unprocessed and unhealthy and vice versa. Better regulation would help.
The article claims instant oatmeal is bad because it's sugary, salty, and has other additives then goes on to recommend eating oatmeal and adding sugar yourself. I'm not sure I understand why it's much better for you.
but “ultra processed” not defined by any metric
This is the shit that grinds me. You have the world's information at your finger tips and you're making a wild claim that there isn't a definition for something and basing your argument around that. You have gone this far in your life with the belief that there is no definition "but any metric" for Ultra Process foods?
Don't you think that's a little absurd to think this? I mean, it's literally in the word. Not processed – ultra processed; meaning, roughly, that the food or ingredients in that food are processed again after initial processing.
What I will grant you is that this word is sometimes thrown around inappropriately. You (and us all) have every right to be upset by this confusion and misrepresentation.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/what-know-about-processed-and-ultra-processed-food
Category 4: Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made from food components. They include additives that are rare or nonexistent in culinary use, like emulsifiers, hydrogenated oils, synthetic colors, texture improvers or flavor enhancers. Think chips, soda, instant soup, pastries and mass-produced breads.
Ultra-processed foods, such as soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen dishes, are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact Group 1 food.
Ingredients of these formulations usually include those also used in processed foods, such as sugars, oils, fats or salt. But ultra-processed products also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations. Some of these are directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey and gluten. Many are derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
Additives in ultra-processed foods include some also used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers. Classes of additives found only in ultra-processed products include those used to imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product. These additives include dyes and other colours, colour stabilizers; flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners; and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
A multitude of sequences of processes is used to combine the usually many ingredients and to create the final product (hence ‘ultra-processed’). The processes include several with no domestic equivalents, such as hydrogenation and hydrolysation, extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The overall purpose of ultra-processing is to create branded, convenient (durable, ready to consume), attractive (hyper-palatable) and highly profitable (low-cost ingredients) food products designed to displace all other food groups. Ultra-processed food products are usually packaged attractively and marketed intensively.
Is there much uniform agreement on it? Is the classification objectively precise & reliable?
The Harvard 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.
Ultra-Processed Foods: Definitions and Policy Issues pointed out that difficulty & inconsistent examples the definers offered to clarify.
Because of the difficulty of interpretation of the primary definition, the NOVA group and others have set out lists of examples of foods that fall under the category of ultra-processed foods. The present manuscript demonstrates that since the inception of the NOVA classification of foods, these examples of foods to which this category applies have varied considerably. Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.
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.
Ultra-Processed Foods: Definitions and Policy Issues 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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Agreed. Early on, the article points to burgers as a main culprit. I just happened to make myself a burger yesterday. Other than coarsely grinding the cut of beef (chuck), what was so ultra processed here? Was the beef so very different than the steak I could have made instead? I would imagine that the authors had envisioned a more heavily processed, meat from a tube sort of burger than mine, but that's the problem with communicating information like this. The imprecision of the language is killing the messaging and undermining the research.
The bun, any pickle and your sauces and relishes would be the places to look for ultra processed food ingredients.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1411126/episodes/17271368-ultra-processed-foods.mp3
Maintenance Phase is a dope podcast that covers the bullshit of the diet/wellness world. It's appropriately scientifically-skeptical.
This episode adds some much needed context to the idea of "processed-food".
CDC director bouta get fired
Nope. They're bucking for a promotion. Ultra-processed foods is something RFK Jr. has been bitching about for a while. He thinks everyone should go back to a more natural diet. Like eating roadkill.
To be fair, I agree with RFK on this one. If we all started eating natural whole foods, instead of all the fast food and shit we eat, it'd fix a lot of problems.
I might be open to debate it if he had any sort of definition or clue of what Ultra-Processed means.
Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday praised a company that makes $7-a-pop meals that are delivered directly to the homes of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees.
...
But an Associated Press review of Mom’s Meals menu, including the ingredients and nutrition labels, shows that the company’s offerings are the type of heat-and-eat, ultraprocessed foods that Kennedy routinely criticizes for making people sick.
The meals contain chemical additives that would render them impossible to recreate at home in your kitchen, said Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University and food policy expert, who reviewed the menu for The AP. Many menu items are high in sodium, and some are high in sugar or saturated fats, she said.
Marion Nestle
Well that's an unfortunate name for this discussion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How processed is bread with its chemistry lab of ingredients & process to yield those ingredients? Likewise, cheese?
All the "natural" and "whole grain" type breads still make me short of breath.
My understanding with processed food is that the main problem is much much less about how "healthy" the artificial ingredients are, and more about how the processing is usually designed around making the food more addictive (so you, say, crave a Cheeto more than you crave a carrot), and as a byproduct of the former, making it more calorie-dense, so you can consume more calories before you start to feel full.
Maybe better definitions on specific type of processing or their effects are needed than an unspecific term with a hazy borderline that lacks the precision of science.
view more: next ›