It isn't a meaningless word, and like my sibling poster I do wonder if that sentence is astroturfed by the junk food corpos.

The [NOVA classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification) has definitions for various levels of food processing.

▲

_aavaa_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you genuinely not understand the difference between "tends to be unhealthy" and "is always 100% unhealthy"? Do you not understand how the classification is useful even if it contains exceptions?

▲

_aavaa_ an hour ago | parent [-]

I understand the difference.

Do you understand that the classification is not based on healthy/unhealthy but based on how much “processing” was done to the food?

	▲	margalabargala an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You're so close. All you're missing is "and quantity of processing is correlated with being unhealthy, making it a useful metric".