You’re spreading misinformation/FUD. At a minimum, Ultra Processed Food means it contains ingredients that are added because they “have” to to get it to your mouth, not because anyone wants you to put those ingredients in your body.
I agree that UPF is not rigorously defined yet, but to claim it is “so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers” is absurd. If it’s literally just kimchi, it’s not processed. If it’s kimchi that has a shelf-stable additive, and a dye to make it look pleasing, and chemicals to hide the taste of the machines that made it, then it’s processed.
If your FUD stems from your own ignorance about the subject matter, that’s a you problem, quit flaunting it around. If it stems from being a hired shill of General Mills, et al., then I hope you’re getting paid well.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
you don’t know what FUD is
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright. They are casting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the entire concept of being skeptical or critical of UPFs.
The only thing everyone agrees makes a UPF is the fact that it contains ingredients you wouldn’t otherwise seek out to put in your body. So your null hypothesis should be “let’s not put this in our body”, and not the other way around.
bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don’t mind manipulating useful idiots.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
then it’s processed.
What would make the kimchi ultra-processed?
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.
I’m guessing you don’t know how to read. This is a discussion about what constitutes ultra-processed food. It has nothing to do with whether ‘UPFs’ (the thing we’re still trying to define) are good or bad.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
Yeah, you’re too far gone. I hope you get the help you need.
You’re spreading misinformation/FUD. At a minimum, Ultra Processed Food means it contains ingredients that are added because they “have” to to get it to your mouth, not because anyone wants you to put those ingredients in your body.
I agree that UPF is not rigorously defined yet, but to claim it is “so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers” is absurd. If it’s literally just kimchi, it’s not processed. If it’s kimchi that has a shelf-stable additive, and a dye to make it look pleasing, and chemicals to hide the taste of the machines that made it, then it’s processed.
If your FUD stems from your own ignorance about the subject matter, that’s a you problem, quit flaunting it around. If it stems from being a hired shill of General Mills, et al., then I hope you’re getting paid well.
What would make the kimchi ‘ultra processed’?
I agree with the original commenter that these terms are sensationalist bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don’t mind manipulating useful idiots.
Also, you don’t know what FUD is.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright. They are casting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the entire concept of being skeptical or critical of UPFs.
The only thing everyone agrees makes a UPF is the fact that it contains ingredients you wouldn’t otherwise seek out to put in your body. So your null hypothesis should be “let’s not put this in our body”, and not the other way around.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
It is clear to me you didn’t click any of my sources and have no interest in this subject. Cheers.
It’s clear to me that you want me to say what you want me to say rather than what I am saying.
What would make the kimchi ultra-processed?
I’m guessing you don’t know how to read. This is a discussion about what constitutes ultra-processed food. It has nothing to do with whether ‘UPFs’ (the thing we’re still trying to define) are good or bad.
Yeah, you’re too far gone. I hope you get the help you need.
You’re Nestlé’s favorite kind of person. To the point that, I defy you to come up with rhetoric that is more favorable to ultra processed foods.
OMG. 🤣
Hey, don’t work for free, is all I’m sayin 😉