Reply to “Highly processed” is so unclear

Forum Index » Food, Cooking, and Restaurants

Reply to "“Highly processed” is so unclear"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

Not cantankerous, just stupid.[/quote]

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

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

I actually did go learn about it and it was helpful.

The NOVA classification for highly processed foods comes from a researcher in Brazil 10-15 years ago who was observing rising rates of obesity among lower income Brazilians coinciding  with a shift in diet away from rice and beans and to include a lot more processed food. I have no doubt it was a good faith effort that has advanced our understanding. But it’s clearly tied up in a lot of cultural context and it was the starting point of research, not the conclusion.

There are also classifications like “highly palatable” food that have quantitative definitions regarding the proportion of calories and salt content.

I stand by my assertion that highly processed isn’t helpful for me as a regular person because it’s not clear, and because it doesn’t differentiate between processes and additives that are likely very different in terms of their health impact. And I think when people start talking about evolution, we’ve really devolved from fact-based inquiry. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics