Jump to content

Talk:Ultra-processed food

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of POV Tag

[edit]

@Sadads - you have removed the POV Tag without discussing it here and after introducing a number of extensive changes to the text. I think it would be better to discuss this here before making such changes and agreeing on a version, not simply making extensive edits and removing a tag. Ggck2 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add a bit more about the scientific debate, though the article could still use more work. For now, is it good enough from your perspective to remove the tag? AndrewNJ (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is considerably better! How do we go about discussing the tag?
I think the problem is that it is a topic that is still under a lot of discussion and it will be difficult to find a consensus either way. I wonder whether it would be better to focus on NOVA and have UPF as one subsection - would this be clearer? Ggck2 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that nobody else has responded and you started the discussion, if you are happy, then it can presumably be removed for the time being? Doubtless both you and others will continue to add more nuance.
There is now a separate Nova classification article. AndrewNJ (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I will.
Would it make sense to merge UPF and NOVA articles?Ggck2 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant; it's most helpful to have experts in the field who are willing to contribute!
Merging is an interesting question. I think it needs to be considered in the context of a series of closely related articles:
One could even include Comfort food and Food marketing in this constellation. Some languages also have an article on processed food (e.g. French has Procédé agroalimentaire, Aliment industriel, and Aliment ultratransformé – but German has none of these).
The people behind Nova do not clearly communicate which paper represents the latest version of the classification. This makes the Wikipedia page helpful for collating citations; and I think there is enough literature on Nova specifically to warrant a separate page. This also exists in French, German, and Polish.
I can on the other hand imagine merging Food processing, Ultra-processed food, and Convenience food -- possibly even Junk food and Comfort food -- into a single 'Food processing' or 'Processed food' article.
If you would like to discuss this further we should probably start a separate thread; see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers for the formal procedures. AndrewNJ (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would Comfort food fit in? It may refer to food that is high in salt, sugar, and/or fat, similar to much ultra-processed food; it may also refer to traditional dishes (nostalgia), often with a simple preparation, very different from ultra-processed food. Nø (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one who has been working on the article Frozen meal, I'd like to just chime in that it seems ridiculous to me that English Wikipedia has no article about Processed food but delightedly jumps (in the double-dog dare style) to "Ultra-processed food". Just for reference, Google says there are 22.9 million results for "processed food" BUT NOT "ultra-processed", yet only 2.12 million results for "ultra-processed food" alone. Yet, here we are, redirecting from the much larger topic to the smaller but more sensational-sounding topic. I would support @AndrewNJ: with any effort to merge under a new article called "Processed food". - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Hyperpalatable”

[edit]

Hyperpalatable food links here (and there is no article Hyperpalatability), but this article has only one reference to palatable/palatability, describing it as a frequent characteristic of ultra-processed food. This means that we are currently of no assistance to someone trying to understand the concept of hyperpalatability, which is used (sometimes hyphenated) in publications such as [1] (“to make the final product palatable or often hyper-palatable”). Wiktionary does define it, as “Extremely palatable; often applied to ultraprocessed foods designed to appeal to consumers”.

Should we either have an article on hyperpalatability (though I doubt there is much to say) or mention the concept in this article? PJTraill (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a separate Hyperpalatable food article. AndrewNJ (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all food is processed in some way?

[edit]

The article states that "virtually all food is processed in some way." This to me seems highly dubious. What about fruit, nuts, salad vegetables, milk? I've read the ref and I can't see anything in it to justify such a statement. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:8114:7082:2543:D756 (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the exact quote "virtually all food is processed in some way" on the article. From what I can see there was a line similar to that but it has now been removed from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Most" would be more appropriate than "virtually all". However, goods sold in supermarkets have been handled in various ways, that may perhaps be called "processing". Nø (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this depends a lot on the point of view: a food scientist considers washing already a type of processing, and so almost all foods are processed. This needs to be explained better. Ggck2 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the wording we are discussing was removed in this edit: diff. Nø (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Milk is unprocessed only when you drink it warm straight from the udder. Already on the farm it is refrigerated, causing irreversible changes in its casein, and equally irreversible changes in its fat. On its way to the carton (which has to be lined with plastic, so much for the "sophisticated plastic packaging") it is strained, heated, centrifugally separated, part of it removed,remixed, reheated, homogenised and refrigerated again. 2.64.3.83 (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of UPF

[edit]

The article starts with a definition of UPF as "an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds". There are two references given for this, but none of them actually uses this description, or anything similar to it. The definition at the start of the page needs to be backed up by references that support it. Given that the NOVA classification scheme is the most common definition used for UPF, wouldn't this be a better reference and definition of UPF? Howard Wright (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Wright, this is why WikiBlame exists. User:AndrewNJ, care to explain Special:Diff/1177000096? I am not convinced that the edit improves the lede graph in any way that Wright expects, nor does it appear to match the guide that the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources in WP:LEAD. --Artoria2e5 🌉 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of ultra-processed food as 'an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds' is specifically derived from these passages:
Monteiro 2010:

They are confected from various refined and processed materials whose total cost is a small fraction of the price of the product. Any ‘wholesome’ touch is often supplied by added micronutrients, whose presence is emphatically advertised. Some food technologists have celebrated products like these as ‘space age food’. Critics who prefer relatively unprocessed food call them ‘edible food-like substances' [citing Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma]

Monteiro 2011:

Products are here classified as ultra-processed not only because of their nature as unhealthy edible substances, but also because of their underlying and basic social, economic and environmental consequences.

Monteiro et al. 2019:

Ultra-processed foods are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes.

Monteiro's 2010 and 2011 articles are foundational to the literature, part of a series that he published when he was first proposing his arguments surrounding food processing for the Nova classification. The 2019 article is a widely cited summary of more recent thinking. AndrewNJ (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary talk with Durkheim.
What is an UPF?
If we don't have a definition for this object, so... what research we could do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoCV5m1NqXY Luiz Eduardo - Bromat (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of UPF 2

[edit]

We need a proper objective technical definition of 'Ultra Processed Foods' . Without this the article is meaningless. Too often the term is just used as a derogatory term to denegrate foods the author does not approve of for reasons that often have nothing to do with food safety or health benefits/disbenefits. Refs 1 & 2 for example says that bread is a UPF, because the author believes that South Americans should not eat food made from wheat, because wheat is not indigenous to South America! This has nothing to do with how it is processed or whether it is healthy or not. Gliderman (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to replace the portal paragraph by:
UPC is a contraversial food classification which replaces the traditional individual classication of foods based on their composition. It postulates four classes of foods based on a mix of sociological arguments and some aspects of their production.
The processing concept of Monteiro and his followers is completely at odds with the science of nutrition, thus making it necessary to jump through the hoops to exclude "good" foods from the UPF "definition". It is equally valid as classifying foods by their colour, red is bad (red meat) green is good (veggies) and finding a way to exclude carrots.
The de facto definition of UPF is that it is the food which people who know nothing about food processing dislike, be it for respectable reasons, such as nutritional quality, or for political reasons, such being profitable for the producers/sellers. The statistical evidence for the deletorious effects of UPF comes from the arbitrary inclusion or exclusion of "bad" or "good" foods.
Cheese is not UPF, in spite of being idustrially made, by tens of processing steps, including high temperature heating and inclusion and exclusion of components. If you include the industrially produced milk, starter culture and the enzymes which are indespensible for cheesemaking, it's literally hundreds of processing steps. Potato chips are UPF despite being made by just washing, cutting and frying (adding a few more if even oil production is included). PetrDejmek (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Bon courage (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gliderman
What this and other articles on UPFs do not have is a set of objective criteria that can be used by an assessor without reference to processing steps. The criteria should refer only to the physical and chemical composition of a food.
Such criteria could refer, for instance, to proportions of macro-nutrients, to the particle size of ingredients, and to the proportion of organic structure (undestroyed cell walls, for example).
By this methodology, natural cheeses are likely to be classified as UPFs, and that feels right.
Or maybe you know where such a definition exists. 188.30.79.168 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Honestly I would go so far as to say this article shouldn't exist if there is no way to define the topic of the article. In that case the article must exist as a meta-article that discusses primarily the fact that "Ultra-Processed Food" doesn't have a clear definition and as such cannot be scientifically researched. It seems to me it's more of a catch-all buzz word. If you can't explain the difference between "processed food" and "Ultra-Processed food" in a single sentence it's hard to argue it even exists. A food is either entirely unprocessed, as it exists in nature, or it is processed. Even washing the dirt off a potato is an industrial process. How is that fundamentally different from anything labeled "Ultra-Processed " ? OivinF (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should exist if the topic, no matter how nebulous or vague, gets enough notability. Just because something’s not definable or nebulous does not mean it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. We have an article on Aether (classical element), don't we? Same for junk food.
As for actually defining it… well, I think we agree that:
  • "Substance" is a dubious word to use when we actually mean matter. The substance link is orange for a reason. Also, what happened to "food"? Doesn't "edible substance" just resolve to "food"? (Before you throw the "for nutritional support" part at me: if someone can live on burger and diet coke, it means that they are using it for the purpose of nutrition, i.e. getting energy and molecules necessary for life from it. Even water is a nutrient.)
  • The category typically includes classical junk food and their calorie-reduced variants.
... and work from there. I would really like to undo the controversial edit too, but I am gauging that someone's gonna oppose it and we will need to have a big talk.
--Artoria2e5 🌉 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

The article needs a rewrite to make it clear that a) ultra-processed food is not an objective category, nor has it received universal acceptance among experts, and b) that the subject is highly controversial among experts.

The lede in particular is particularly egregious, as has been already pointed out. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eldomtom2 -- see the consensus making process above in the section title POV and subsequent discussion. Though some fields (i.e. Nutrition) question the framework, many others (including epidemiology and public health, and a growing number of governments, as well as a growing body of public science communication). The evidence for "controversy" is not very strong in any of the sources that have been shared so far, and the burden of proof on anyone claiming not a neutral point of view is on the person claiming its not so. Please share sources, or other evidence that the definition is being challenged. Sadads (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no real consensus as having been formed. Furthermore, I am very disturbed by how blithely you brush off "some fields" questioning the framework.
Here is a long list of recent reliable sources critiquing the concept in varying ways and to various extents:
--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Science-Based Medicine has published an article on ultra-processed food recently [2] and why the term is problematic, might be worth including on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues with UPF is that processed meats/sugar-sweetened beverages which are associated with increased disease risk are put into the same category of ultra-processed foods such as fortified breakfast cereals or breads which were know are associated with lower disease risk. I raised this issue before last year on the talk-page. We do have some sources that mention this. I have will have a look later for more sourcing. The British Heart Foundation have noted this issue [3] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, lets start with each of these references you point:
Again, I am confused how a concept that is well understood and described in epidemiology, should be overbalanced by a nutrition criticism... when we already cover that imbalance. Sadads (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think if you would like to summarize nuance to the types of criticisms being leveraged in the criticism section that would be great (the criticism section could be reorganized a bit to be more nuanced and spread out across different themes, but it doesn't change the bulk of the article, and the current layout of the content).Sadads (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources that Eldomtom2 mentioned fail WP:MEDRS so we won't be able to use them. The NOVA system does have limitations but it is widely used. We have an Wikipedia article on it Nova classification. Eldomtom2 needs to make it clear, do they take issue with the NOVA system or is it UPF. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the points raised.

  • The Nova system and ultra-processed food are not separable objects. There are other classifications for food processing, but they generally do not use the term "ultra-processed food" and studies on "ultra-processed food" nearly always use the Nova classification
  • The POV issues in the article are not just in the information presented, but in how it is displayed - "industrially formulated edible substance" is a dysphemism, pure and simple.
  • To respond to the complaints about my sources, firstly, why would they fail WP:MEDRS?
  • To respond to Sadads' complaints about each paper:
    • "this paper is not critical, but examines the nuanced policy impacts of the definitions" - impacts that are not really covered in the article. The thrust of the paper is clear - UPFs are not all bad.
    • "This paper is not critical but highlights the need for investigation of causal mechanisms, again already covered in our article" - barely covered, and again the thrust of the paper is clear - UPFs are not all bad.
    • "The first author for this paper is paid by an international food manufacturer, and uses rhetoric to repeat the criticisms in early papers, but with more fear" - it's not our job to scrutinise paper author for conflicts of interest or whether or not they're repeating old arguments.
    • "This paper is only cautioning the use in policy making" - it's critical of other aspects as well, and more importantly the stuff about policymaking isn't present in the article.
    • "This paper is only focused on the confusion among science communicators on how to use the term" - no, the article is about professionals in general, not specifically "science communicators". Communication with the public is a prominent theme, but not the only one.
    • "This article cherry picks a specific product and study" - I don't see how it's "cherrypicking" when it's responding to media coverage of a specific study
    • "This article covers the NOVA system more generally" - As I said, the Nova system and ultra-processed food are not separable objects.
  • Responding to " am confused how a concept that is well understood and described in epidemiology, should be overbalanced by a nutrition criticism... when we already cover that imbalance" - if you are saying that the field of epidemiology generally says one thing while the field of nutrition says another, this is definitely not covered in the article.

--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Fringe. We do not link to fringe or predatory journals, nor do we cite primary literature such as a single case study or weak opinion pieces so this rules out a lot of your suggested sources. Frontiers Media and MDPI are problematic publishers that are usually removed from Wikipedia very quickly. We wouldn't cite these on a mainstream article like this. Both those journals have promoted a lot quackery. This review you link to is a good source [4], most of the others we wouldn't be able to use. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "single case study" and "weak opinion piece", because at first glance a lot of the sources used in the article would seem to fall under that.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's true there are unreliable sources on the article. The article does need work. This is an example of a case study [5] you cited, this was a case study on snack bars. It also claims to be a multidisciplinary perspective but it is a weak opinion piece like some of the other articles. We do not need to remove all commentaries but there are too many of them. The best sources would be governmental guideline statements, consensus statements from health and medical organizations, meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, systematic reviews and narrative reviews. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so removing most of the article's references and the content that uses them for citations would be okay with you?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the entire article needs sorting out, updating and re-writing, however it's not something I am going to get involved with right now as I have many other articles to be editing. I think most would agree this article needs updating. You might want to ask at WikiProject Medicine what others think [6] Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, most of the content of the current article is not medical content: it describes economics, policy, social science and environmental issues. I don't think Wikipedia:MEDRS applies for all parts of the content, only that which is directly connected to medical evidence. Sadads (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claims about the health outcomes of individuals, and nutritional recommendations should meet MEDRS, but most of the other stuff is a debate of definitions or descriptions of the economic conditions creating access to public health, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So which of my sources would you consider acceptable for inclusion?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ultra-processed_food&oldid=1234892068"