The idea that you could buy any food that doesn’t fit that definition is silly, all foods have additives that’s why you can buy them and they last for more than 60 seconds on a shelf, all foods are processed because we don’t eat raw seeds as the majority of our staple diet. You have to come up with a definition of what “process” is good and bad, and what about them is “bad” before making statements like that.

That's not a clear distinction at all, since now you have to define "industrial". Why would mixing with an industrial blender lead to unhealthier food than a kitchen blender? Why would flour made with a gristmill be less healthy than a mortar and pestle? There's no theoretical basis.

Weight gain has basically happened across the whole developed world because cost per calorie has gotten so low that people just eat more calories on average. This is why semi-glutides are the first thing ever to reduce weight gain and actually make people lose weight because they encourage reduced consumption.

Don't need ultra-processed food to be unhealthy. Rich guys in the 1800s would get fat and get gout and all these issues from overconsumption. It's just they were the only ones who could back then.

People are pissed because they don't want to accept that a) most of supermarkets food is bad and b) you need to cook yourself in order to eat properly.

The scientifically measurable problem is the amount of calories people are eating, with low exercise, not that there are toxic ingredients or “bad foods”.

This is primarily a marketing distinction which appeals to natural sensibilities.

>We all know what they mean by ultra processed food

Very scientific!

It may be useful to you as a consumer as a way of avoiding sugar, fat, or whatever it is you think is unhealthy. Even that is dubious. But it's completely useless scientifically. There's no theoretical link between brightly colored boxes and weight gain. As you just admitted, that's only a proxy for something else you care about.

From the wikipedia page:

> The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling.

> Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease.

So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think it means.

> eat food, mostly plants, not too much.

If the state of physics was "stuff falls, heat sticks around, light goes fast" I think it'd be fair to describe that as "abysmal".

that's a quote from a journalist so it really drives home the point

Why plants?

Most of the packaged pre-sliced bread in the bread aisle (as opposed to the bakery area) of American supermarkets is full of ingredients not traditionally used in bread, or used in food at all until recent decades. Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed.

Some bread is! Check the ingredient list. When I bake at home, I use whole wheat flour, water, yeast, a tiny bit of salt and oil.

Things I do not include when I bake at home, which I found from the first hit I got by searching for "bread" in a local Norwegian store's web site: E 472e emulgator, E 471 emulgator, margarine, dextrose, E 300 flour treatment, amylase enzymes, xylanase enzymes.

And that's a fairly short list compared to Walmart bread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411980

It's horrifying to see the state of bread in some nations.

I really don't get why/how one of the simplest processes known to civilization needs a stock ticker and a Hogwarts-worth of chemicals thrown into it. It's really quite baffling.

The state of some of the processed packs of 'bread' I've seen/tasted shouldn't be allowed to trade using the name, tbh.

> I've heard people say

These terms have actual definitions.

Bread can be ultra-processed depending on how it’s prepared.

Better question is why you don’t think a packaged bread product with HFCS and preservatives designed for a long shelf life would be considered ultra-processed.

Some bread stays good for 2 weeks, some is moldy after 2 days. There's a reason why.

You could make your own bread so you know what is in it, and how much should be in it, and that way you’d know the difference, and probably be better off knowing you don’t have to forage twigs and berries, or be so dramatic…

Supermarket breads are trash, the first thing I found in wallmart's website:

> Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate, Monoglycerides, Mono- and Diglycerides, Distilled Monoglycerides, Calcium Peroxide, Calcium Iodate, DATEM, Ethoxylated Mono- and Diglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid), Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Propionate (to Retard Spoilage).

A good rule of thumb is that if your grandpa would have needed a PhD in chemistry to identify 80% of the ingredients it probably is ultra processed.

The same type of bread in France:

> Wheat flour 63%, water, sugar, rapeseed oil, salt, vinegar, yeast, broad bean flour, WHEAT gluten, flavouring (contains alcohol), acerola extract.

Most US made bread contains hundred additives and a good dose of sugar on top of them. Just check the list of ingredients on your supermarket bread, you'll think again about eating twigs. For comparison, my bread I get in my village (but also in the local supermarket) has exactly three ingredients (usually, unless it's some specialty).

How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? If we make the same processes commonly available to use at home, will these foods become less harmful?

I know there is science around it, but the very concept looks very unscientific, it's almost like talking about "unnatural food"

Yes, you got me, I get paid $50 Soros bucks for every snarky post. It couldn't possibly be that "not commonly used in the home" is a vague and unhelpful definition, which varies across time and cultures. Or that these researchers still haven't explained the theoretical basis linking all these wildly different "UPF"s to the negative health consequences they're supposed to explain.