Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

It seems like commercial interests are trying to muddy the waters for the definition of "ultra-processed food" in search results. The phrase as originally coined is a product of the Nova classification system [1]:

The Nova classification is a framework for grouping edible substances based on the extent and purpose of food processing applied to them. Researchers at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, proposed the system in 2009. Nova classifies food into four groups:

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods - Unprocessed foods are edible parts of plants and animals, along with algae, fungi, and water...

Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients - Processed culinary ingredients are derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes such as pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. It also includes substances mined or extracted from nature....

Group 3: Processed foods - Processed foods are relatively simple food products produced by adding processed culinary ingredients (group 2 substances) such as salt or sugar to unprocessed (group 1) foods. Processed foods are made or preserved through baking, boiling, canning, bottling, and non-alcoholic fermentation...

Group 4: Ultra-processed foods - Ultra-processed foods are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by series of industrial techniques and processes. Unprocessed (group 1) foods often compose a small proportion of their ingredients or are even lacking entirely. Ultra-processing often introduces food substances of little or no culinary use, such as hydrogenated oil, modified starch, protein isolate, and high-fructose corn syrup. The manufacturing processes for ultra-processed foods typically involve techniques such as extrusion, moulding, and pre-frying, along with the addition of various cosmetic additives, including those for flavour enhancement and colour...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

I think yogurt is a great example of the problem. In its more natural form it is healthy, particularly as a probiotic with live cultures and enzymes.

But that’s not what the majority of yogurts sold in stores are, they are heated and pasteurized killing live cultures, and then loaded with sugar added. It’s this yogurt product that more closely resembles a desert than a healthy yogurt that is bought/consumed and marketed as a health food.

It’s very similar to the majority of breakfast cereals, probably never as healthy as yogurt to begin with, but a bastardization of the “cereal grains” they are named after.

> AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable.

I remember one day I was walking through the grocery store, and was struck by the inanity of a package of candy-corn proudly declaring itself "Fat-Free!"

I still don’t understand why French fries are considered UPF, it is just potato but fried.

What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself.

A few things I notice:

- "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.)

- A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.

- For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.