I don’t think it’s wise to redefine what should count as an ultra-processed food to suit your agenda. When people talk about UPFs, they’re clearly concerned about chemical additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners. As unlike wild chickens as today’s broiler chickens are, they don’t contain those things and don’t pose the same health risks that those things do. In that light, I found this discrediting:
For now I’ll just note that people are confused about processing — and the “experts” are part of the problem. That same 2024 survey of 10,000 Europeans, run by the EU- and FAO-backed EIT Food group, categorized chicken as “unprocessed” and plant-based chicken as “ultra-processed.” But both products come from processing plants. And both start as soybeans, corn, and additives. The main difference is that the chicken version includes an extra layer of “unnatural” processing — inside the stomach of a Franken-chicken confined in an animal factory.
I hope others don’t repeat it. It may well be that the general concept of UPFs is nonsense — and if so, people should argue for that, or that Beyond/Impossible doesn’t qualify under a reasonable definition — but people know what they have in mind when they use the term and will know you’re not respecting their concerns when you try to be clever like this.
Totally fair feedback. I agree that I should probably have just argued that the general concept of UPFs is nonsense. My sense is that most of the evidence for the harms of UPFs is correlational and based on studies that look at high consumption of fast food and other junk food that we know is based for you based on high sugar, salt, and caloric levels. (I.e. where you don’t need to add UPF to explain why they’d be unhealthy.)
My sense is also that the evidence for food additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners posing health risks is surprisingly weak given the public uproar. And while I agree that chicken doesn’t contain those things, chicken feed typically contains a whole different set of things that would scare people if they had to disclose them, like antibiotics, animal by-products, and lots of artificial ingredients to make up for nutritional deficiencies from a corn/soy-based diet. (Though, to be clear, I think the evidence that those feed additives pose direct health risks is also weak, with the possible exception of antibiotics contributing to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.)
I can’t argue with that! In case you’re interested, GFI Europe “recently partnered with the Physicians Association for Nutrition to publish one of the most comprehensive, evidence-based guides on plant-based foods and health”* and it makes a very strong case that UPFs are overblown when it comes to concerns over plant based meat since that’s usually healthier than conventional meat.
I directionally agree with this comment, but I think the concept of UPFs is broader / murkier than:
When people talk about UPFs, they’re clearly concerned about chemical additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners.
In addition to ingredient-level concerns, people also seem concerned with manufacturing and processing steps like freeze drying, curing, hydrogenating, extremely heating, etc. A commonly-used framework is discussed here. Unfortunately, eliminating “chemical additives” from alternative proteins strikes me as a much easier task than avoiding industrial processing.
(I do think at the consumer level, the working definition of ultra-processed food is probably more vibes-based than either of my links would imply.)
I don’t think it’s wise to redefine what should count as an ultra-processed food to suit your agenda. When people talk about UPFs, they’re clearly concerned about chemical additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners. As unlike wild chickens as today’s broiler chickens are, they don’t contain those things and don’t pose the same health risks that those things do. In that light, I found this discrediting:
I hope others don’t repeat it. It may well be that the general concept of UPFs is nonsense — and if so, people should argue for that, or that Beyond/Impossible doesn’t qualify under a reasonable definition — but people know what they have in mind when they use the term and will know you’re not respecting their concerns when you try to be clever like this.
Totally fair feedback. I agree that I should probably have just argued that the general concept of UPFs is nonsense. My sense is that most of the evidence for the harms of UPFs is correlational and based on studies that look at high consumption of fast food and other junk food that we know is based for you based on high sugar, salt, and caloric levels. (I.e. where you don’t need to add UPF to explain why they’d be unhealthy.)
My sense is also that the evidence for food additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, colorings, and artificial sweeteners posing health risks is surprisingly weak given the public uproar. And while I agree that chicken doesn’t contain those things, chicken feed typically contains a whole different set of things that would scare people if they had to disclose them, like antibiotics, animal by-products, and lots of artificial ingredients to make up for nutritional deficiencies from a corn/soy-based diet. (Though, to be clear, I think the evidence that those feed additives pose direct health risks is also weak, with the possible exception of antibiotics contributing to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.)
“the general concept of UPFs is nonsense”
I can’t argue with that! In case you’re interested, GFI Europe “recently partnered with the Physicians Association for Nutrition to publish one of the most comprehensive, evidence-based guides on plant-based foods and health”* and it makes a very strong case that UPFs are overblown when it comes to concerns over plant based meat since that’s usually healthier than conventional meat.
*Source: head of GFI Europe: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/rGt4PADp65iN6zupG/scale-up-the-neglected-bottleneck-facing-alternative?commentId=AGgZmHLmTZ89KYFa8
I directionally agree with this comment, but I think the concept of UPFs is broader / murkier than:
In addition to ingredient-level concerns, people also seem concerned with manufacturing and processing steps like freeze drying, curing, hydrogenating, extremely heating, etc. A commonly-used framework is discussed here. Unfortunately, eliminating “chemical additives” from alternative proteins strikes me as a much easier task than avoiding industrial processing.
(I do think at the consumer level, the working definition of ultra-processed food is probably more vibes-based than either of my links would imply.)