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.
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.
Pretty fucking clear
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.