“Highly processed” is so unclear

[Anonymous]

American breakfast cereals are becoming more unhealthy: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/health/cereal-nutrients-unhealthy.html?searchResultPosition=3

[Anonymous]

"Yogurt" is a hard case because some yogurts are fine but virtually all of the flavored yogurts have lots of added sugar and some have other additives.

Here's a legit link: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/processed-foods-what-you-should-know

[Anonymous]

😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

Perhaps this OP is the same person who doesn’t understand why kids enjoy traveling to sports tournaments. Intellectual giant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

I’m not, though! I’m often wrong and no great thinker. But I’m not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

I’m not, though! I’m often wrong and no great thinker. But I’m not stupid.

I think you need to read a lot more on this topic if you’re actually sincere about learning about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

Well, that’s not completely true. I mean, there’s a whole internet you can use instead of DCUM but it seems you want to argue more than to actually find information

https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

[Anonymous]

OP is perhaps being somewhat intentionally obtuse BUT I think her questions and arguments are useful because the whole highly-processed issue is yet another thing that people obsess over instead of just taking a couple useful rules of thumb and moving on.

I think we all know that ideally we should eat more foods in the form in which they were grown, right? Eat more vegetables and fruit, more while grains, and some lean meat. Shop from the perimeter of the store mostly. Try not to add too much sugar, salt, and oil to your food but some to make it taste better is fine. Shelf stable foods are convenient and okay in smaller amounts, but try to eat fresh foods that don't have preservatives when you can.

What we teach our kids is that it's okay to eat thing just because they are tasty or convenient sometimes, but we should try every day to get the highly nutritious foods into our diet. So I'll stick some chips or pretzels in their lunches by I will talk about why it's important to eat their yogurt and carrots and granola first, and they mostly do, rendering the chips an okay indulgence. But if all they are were chips and pretzels and crackers, that wouldn't be a healthy diet.

So just being aware which foods are heavily processed and thus lacking in nutrients (and/or high in additives) can just help make good food choices more often than not.

When people get obsessive about any of this or judge others for what they eat, it gets tedious and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

Well, that’s not completely true. I mean, there’s a whole internet you can use instead of DCUM but it seems you want to argue more than to actually find information

https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

So that's an international or US standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously confused if plain oats and Cheerios are both the same amount of “highly processed”?

So what is the difference, health wise? This is an honest question. Cheerios are bad for me because the oats were ground up? Why?

Cheerios have added sugar and vitamins and less fiber. It’s right there, on the label.

Yeah but I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand.

I guess maybe there’s less fiber. I haven’t looked. It says “whole grain” which I thought meant the same product as my steel cut oats are just ground up.

Ok we get it. You’re being deliberately obtuse, as evidenced by the “I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand.”

Exactly.