• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.