U.S. Kids Are Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories from 'Ultra-Processed' Foods

2021-08-1019:08102175gizmodo.com

Frozen and sugary foods are some the worst offenders, according to new research.

Image for article titled U.S. Kids Are Now Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories From 'Ultra-Processed' Foods

A depressing new report finds that kids and teens are eating even more ultra-processed foods than they were 20 years ago, with those foods now constituting over two-thirds of their diets.

Ultra-processed foods are heavily altered, with numerous added ingredients like fats, starches, sugars, food dyes, and stabilizers. These added components can make the food look different, taste different, or extend its shelf life in comparison with minimally processed foods that are pretty much consumed as they occur naturally. (In other words, no doughnut is a minimally processed food.) Consumed in excess, these foods are linked to obesity, heart disease, and ultimately, mortality. But in the United States, we have a dependency on the stuff.

There are various definitions of what constitutes ultra-processed food, but the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization has a helpful classification system. Ultra-processed foods are not created equally; some of that processing fortifies the food with additional nutrients, though many of processes strip the foods of fibers and proteins and replace them with sugar and salt. The new research on youth consumption of ultra-processed foods is published today in the journal JAMA.

Burgers, pizza, fries, and other goods from fast food chains.

The researchers looked at the dietary habits of American children between 2 and 19 years old, using 10 cycles of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. This survey is a CDC-organized program of health studies that take stock of numerous diseases and health indicators, including nutrition, in about 5,000 American adults and children each year. They found that by 2018, 67% of total caloric intake among children and young adults was from ultra-processed foods, compared to 61% in 1999. (That earlier number was also not good; apparently dietary habits are backsliding from bad to worse.) That caloric spike was broken down further by the research team: The largest increase in caloric intake from ultra-processed foods was from ready-to-eat and frozen foods, which sprung from 2.2% to 11.2% of the total calorie consumption. The next largest jump was in packaged snacks and desserts, which increased from 10.6% to 12.9% of total consumption. Calories from minimally processed foods fell from 28.8% to 23.5% of total diet.

On the bright side, calories from sweetened beverages halved, from 10.8% to 5.3% of overall calories.

The team saw no significant differences in ultra-processed food consumption across economic groups or parents’ education levels. “The lack of disparities based on parental education and family income indicates that ultra-processed foods are pervasive in children’s diets,” said Fang Fang Zhang, a nutrition epidemiologist at Tufts University and a co-author of the study, in a university press release. “This finding supports the need for researchers to track trends in food consumption more fully, taking into account consumption of ultra-processed foods.”

More: A New Diet Study Confirms Your Worst Suspicions About Ultra-Processed Foods


Read the original article

Comments

  • By dolni 2021-08-1019:4011 reply

    The complete lack of rigor and the use of shock-headlines around "ultra-processed" foods drives me nuts. It conveys very little useful information.

    Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.

    It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that constantly horking down Mountain Dew, Little Debbie snack cakes, and Doritos isn't good for you. We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.

    Give me some useful information. What are reasonable thresholds for these junk foods? How about for specific ingredients?

    Ranting and raving out of the way, do yourself a favor and skip to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization classification document [1] linked in the article. It actually answers some of the questions I posed.

    [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

    • By dataflow 2021-08-1019:444 reply

      > Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.

      I have to admit though, I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2021-08-1019:476 reply

        > I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people

        What does "ultra processed" mean? Cheese, bread, olive oil and most vegetables require processing to be made or nutritionally useful. Freeze-dried vegetables are quite processed and quite good for you.

        • By artimaeis 2021-08-1020:024 reply

          Ultra processed is defined by the FAO (The UN Food and Agriculture Organization) thusly:

          > Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials.

          Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

          I believe this is the widest standard used to define "ultra-processed", though there are more sentences and paragraphs in that doc explaining the definition more thoroughly.

          • By Ajedi32 2021-08-1020:231 reply

            That's pretty broad. Some of those things might be harmful, some might not be. I doubt extruding dough, cooking ("chemically modifying") it and wrapping it in plastic makes it any worse for you, for example. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, there may indeed be food additives or chemical treatment process that _do_ make things worse.

            Maybe it's not helpful to paint things with such a broad brush, and we should instead focus on specific substances or practices which might be causing problems?

            • By eurasiantiger 2021-08-1023:35

              Cooking can form many very bad things, e.g. neurotoxic heterocyclic amines.

              Plastics commonly leach hormone disruptors to food.

          • By legerdemain 2021-08-1021:182 reply

            So, almost all cow milk sold in supermarkets is ultra-processed by this definition: centrifuged, reconstituted in measured ratios of liquids and solids, and pasteurized. Likewise, non-dairy milk like soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel.

            That's a heck of a broad definition!

            • By eurasiantiger 2021-08-1023:361 reply

              Yes. Coincidently, most modern cow milk is not really good for you.

              • By legerdemain 2021-08-111:131 reply

                That's right, paleo cows produced keto-friendly milk back in the stone age.

                • By eurasiantiger 2021-08-115:42

                  Ha ha, I maek funny coment.

                  You know cows didn’t change, we just started separating the milk and reconstructing milk-like products. The classic Simpsons ”Malk” gag is not far off.

            • By ac29 2021-08-1022:531 reply

              > soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel

              I'm sure all brands differ, but the box in my fridge says "Ingredients: Water, Organic Soybeans".

              • By voakbasda 2021-08-1114:312 reply

                AFAIK, if the amount of an ingredient is small enough, it does not need to be listed on the packaging. The label is not authoritatively inclusive. Food for thought.

                • By Arrath 2021-08-1117:42

                  Example, Tic Tac mints are essentially entirely sugar yet fall under that threshold so the nutritional information reads '0g' of sugar per serving.

                • By foolfoolz 2021-08-1115:09

                  yes. very similar to how “organic” constitutes a range of acceptable values and does not mean all ingredients are organic (and organic itself does not mean zero pesticides/chemicals)

          • By SpicyLemonZest 2021-08-1020:29

            As this document acknowledges, though, quite a few normal foods fall under their definition of "ultra-processed". Pasta sauce, sausages, ice cream, even bagged bread are all included.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2021-08-1020:101 reply

            Thanks! It seems like a two- or three-prong test: (1) cannot be made at home using commonly-available tools and ingredients, (2) uses "industrial techniques" and "additives" and (3) is packaged.

            The second prong seems ambiguous to the point of uselessness. "Industrial techniques" are covered by (1); "additives" seemingly impossible to define within this context.

            • By jfengel 2021-08-1020:261 reply

              They also have a definition of "additive"

              (a) food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, (directly or indirectly) in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods. The term does not include contaminants, or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities, or sodium chloride;

              http://www.fao.org/3/Y2770E/y2770e03.htm

              The FAO has a standards body that will give you tons of detail to back up their papers.

              http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/

              • By JumpCrisscross 2021-08-1020:50

                That would still seem to cover the coagulants necessary to make tofu, the rennet used to make Gruyère or Parmigiano, or nitrates and nitrites for cured meats. I suppose "nor normally used as a typical ingredient" could be the turning point, but that does seem to acknowledge the question's complexity by, effectively, grandfathering in traditional additives.

        • By pixl97 2021-08-1019:54

          For me it is the grinding and removal of fiber.

          This is a very important distinction as it changes the glycemic index and will cause blood sugars to rise much faster on consumption than an unground food with its entire fiber content.

          The fiber commonly becomes animal feed.

        • By endisneigh 2021-08-1019:57

          One definition of processed would be the amount of "steps" required to take from the base ingredient.

          So if you make falafel for example, it's only two steps removed from chickpeas, as it's just mildly grinded and fried. That being said it's an exercise to the reader in determining if each "step" is equally bad. In general steps involving the destruction or heating of the food are worse than the "separation" (e.g. peeling or cutting vs frying or blending).

        • By Symbiote 2021-08-1019:571 reply

          In my opinion, ultra-processing requiring equipment, procedures or chemicals found only in a laboratory or factory, not a typical home kitchen from the past century or so.

          That's overly simple though, the definition is here: https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova (this seems to be a summary of the definition in FAO document linked above).

          • By panzagl 2021-08-1020:261 reply

            The guy who invented Fritos made them at home- does that mean they're not ultra-processed?

            • By dehrmann 2021-08-115:141 reply

              Potato chips are another example. They can be made at home from ingredients that could otherwise be considered healthy. It's just that when you combine them in the right proportions, it can be hard to control how much you eat.

              The other misnomer is labeling chips as "not nutritious." They're loaded in macronutrients. They often don't have many micro nutrients, but most people aren't actually short on those.

              The main problem with some of these foods is they're calorically dense, but not filling.

        • By slumdev 2021-08-1020:27

          And yet:

          - Cold-pressed, extra virgin olive oil is considered to be the healthiest due to its fat and polyphenol content.

          - Traditional cheeses are more nutritious than Kraft singles.

          - Whole grain is more nutritious than Wonderbread.

          - Freezing, cooking, and the passage of time all destroy vitamins and other micronutrients.

        • By dataflow 2021-08-1019:545 reply

          > What does "ultra processed" mean? Cheese, bread, olive oil and most vegetables require processing to be made or nutritionally useful.

          I don't have a scientific definition for you. Just use your common sense to figure out what average people would intuitively call ultra-processed, whatever it means to them. I'm pretty darn sure you would not arrive at the conclusion that ordinary people consider bread and most vegetables "ultra-processed foods".

          • By itake 2021-08-1020:015 reply

            Why is bread not considered ultra-processed?

            I am trying to use my common sense here. To create it, you must apply mechanical processing to grind wheat. Chemical processing for the yeast to reacting to the sugars. thermal processing to cook the bread. There is evaporation of the liquid in the bread.

            This seems like a lot of processes required to create this.

            • By synquid 2021-08-1020:221 reply

              They're processed foods, but not ultra-processed. Generally that means advanced factory processes and chemicals that are only used in industrial settings. Factory made bread is likely to be ultra-processed, however.

              • By itake 2021-08-1020:362 reply

                Can you provide an example of a factory process that is only performed in a factory (and not in the kitchen + grocery store, e.g. flour is preprocessed wheat)? bonus points if this process applies to bread making.

                • By fanf2 2021-08-1020:451 reply

                  Compare the Chorleywood process to the way you would make bread at home https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process

                  • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1021:321 reply

                    If I'm reading this right, literally the only difference between this process and the one used in a home kitchen is "intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers, not feasible in a small-scale kitchen".

                    Otherwise the raw materials are the same:

                    > Flour, water, yeast, salt, fat, and, where used, minor ingredients common to many bread-making techniques such as Vitamin C, emulsifiers and enzymes are mechanically mixed for about three minutes.

                    In what way does this represent "processed" food in any material sense?

                    If anything, this sounds like a perfect example of the kind of fear mongering associated with the "processed food" label...

                    • By vb6sp6 2021-08-1022:401 reply

                      > Otherwise the raw materials are the same

                      Edit: I misread, sorry

                      • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1023:101 reply

                        > one uses dissolved co2 and low protein wheat and the other high protein wheat. One also goes through a fermentation process while the other does not. Salt content also varies

                        You've misread the Wikipedia page.

                        What you're describing is Dauglish's process that preceded CBP. Here's the key bit from the introduction:

                        > In 1862 a radically new and much cheaper industrial-scale process was developed by John Dauglish, using water with dissolved carbon dioxide instead of yeast, with no need for an eight-hour fermentation. Dauglish's method, used by the Aerated Bread Company that he set up, dominated commercial bread baking for a century until the Chorleywood process was developed.

                        Notice that last part of the sentence.

                        CBP, as described in the Wikipedia article, "is achieved through the addition of Vitamin C, fat, yeast, and intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers".

                        In particular, no CO2 is used with CBP. Bread is proofed by "[placing the dough] in a baking tin and [moving it] to the humidity- and temperature-controlled proofing chamber, where it sits for about 45–50 minutes", with the process aided through the use of dough conditioners like ascorbic acid.

                        • By vb6sp6 2021-08-110:10

                          My bad, thanks for the info

                • By sorokod 2021-08-1021:071 reply

                  Not bread but... instant coffee, refined sugar.

                  • By legerdemain 2021-08-1021:241 reply

                    Instant coffee is simply coffee that is freeze-dried. That is the only step added above and beyond normal coffee-brewing. It is likely one of the least processed foods one can buy.

                    • By sorokod 2021-08-1115:55

                      Ok instant granulated coffee.

            • By chithanh 2021-08-1020:202 reply

              > Why is bread not considered ulta-processed?

              Even traditional bread is certainly highly processed, undergoing mechanical (milling), biochemical (fermentation), and thermal (baking) processing. It doesn't quite meet the definition of ultra-processed though as all these technologies are readily available to unsophisticated producers.

              I think ultra-processed is some sort of proxy for hyperpalatable here.

              • By judge2020 2021-08-1020:26

                Indeed, there's a definition but this just adds the the starting comment's point that "ultra-processed" barely means anything in relation to how healthy something is to eat (and at what quantities).

              • By legerdemain 2021-08-1021:221 reply

                Wouldn't most supermarket bread flour by itself meet the definition of ultra-processed, because it is bleached and enriched with micronutrients in a way that almost no consumer can do in the kitchen?

                • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1021:371 reply

                  > because it is bleached and enriched with micronutrients in a way that almost no consumer can do in the kitchen?

                  What gave you that idea?

                  Bleached flour and various additives (such as ascorbic acid) are routinely used in home kitchens:

                  https://thebreadguide.com/using-ascorbic-acid-when-baking/

                  What, exactly, do you think goes into making a loaf of mass-produced bread?

                  • By legerdemain 2021-08-111:121 reply

                    The bleaching is what makes the flour, and by extension the bread made from it, ultra-processed, even if the bread is baked in a home setting. You misread.

            • By fancifalmanima 2021-08-1020:16

              if you buy (from a bakery, probably not from the grocery store) or make bread made from minimally processed to processed flour, water, salt and yeast it would probably be considered minimally processed or processed. When I make homemade bread, those are literally all the ingredients. It has a very different texture, chewiness, and taste from something storebought. They're basically different things. And it doesn't last more than a day or two after cutting it open.

              If you buy bread made from bleached white flour, sugar (in pretty much any white bread you buy from the supermarket), bread conditioners, preservatives, etc, it's probably considered ultraprocessed. It can also sit in your pantry for weeks.

            • By artimaeis 2021-08-1020:06

              Bread could be classified as either processed or ultra-processed depending on ingredients and manufacturing techniques.

              Ultra-processed bread would probably be made to have a longer shelf life and likely have more additives and preservatives.

            • By slothtrop 2021-08-1020:19

              Bread can be ultra-processed. It can also be made with ground wheat grains that don't remove the germ or get bleached.

          • By the__alchemist 2021-08-1020:03

            > Just use your common sense to figure out what average people would intuitively call ultra-processed

            How do I do that? Are we averaging the opinions of other people, or taking the opinion of the average person? By what metric?

          • By willismichael 2021-08-1020:06

            > I'm pretty darn sure you would not arrive at the conclusion that ordinary people consider bread and most vegetables "ultra-processed foods".

            That depends on what you mean by bread. The sourdough loaf that I make out of flour straight from the grinder is a far cry from cheap white bread.

          • By elil17 2021-08-1020:061 reply

            Well according to the UN document linked in the article a loaf of bread is ultra-processed

            • By dataflow 2021-08-1020:421 reply

              "Another example of how broadening the initial definition of a highly or ultra-processed food may create confusion is the use of terms that, in themselves, are not precisely defined. For bread, initially defined as such in the NOVA food classification, examples might be the use of terms such as sliced, mass-produced, or sweetened. Their exact interpretation is not self-evident. [...]" [1]

              Again, there's no unambiguous definition here. The UN has drawn one line out of many potentially valid ones. My point here isn't to argue word semantics. I'm just saying look at what the average person would consider "ultra-processed", whatever their definition (or lack thereof) might be.

              P.S. I'm not even sure what you consider "ultra-processed bread" is good for people in any case.

              [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6389637/

              • By elil17 2021-08-1115:21

                I mean the whole wheat bread I eat everyday is sliced, mass produced, and sweetened a little bit (as are almost all whole wheat breads, regardless of whether they’re mass produced) - I’m pretty sure it’s as good for me as any other whole grain.

      • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1020:411 reply

        > I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people.

        So, no meat substitutes for you, then? Because if Beyond Meat burgers aren't "ultra-processed", I don't know what is.

        • By dataflow 2021-08-1020:451 reply

          > So, no meat substitutes for you, then?

          Is there something on my profile that indicates I only eat things that are good for me?

          • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1020:481 reply

            Yup, that was poorly phrased. My bad.

            Let me try that again:

            I'd say a lot of people view meat substitutes as a healthier choice. But the Beyond Meat burger is, to me, the very definition of an "ultra-processed" food.

            • By dataflow 2021-08-1020:531 reply

              "Ultra-processed => not good" does not imply "not ultra-processed => good".

              And I'm pretty sure people who believe Beyond is healthier are wrong regardless of how we classify Beyond Meat. (Though I'm not even sure the majority of Beyond Meat eaters believe it's healthier in the first place.)

              • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1021:28

                > Though I'm not even sure the majority of Beyond Meat eaters believe it's healthier in the first place.

                I disagree. I suspect a lot of people believe Beyond's products are healthier simply by virtue of not being meat.

                Heck, they might be right, though I tend to agree with you and suspect it's at best a wash.

                Also, thanks for the refresher on modus ponens and the fallacy of the inverse. ;) It's been a long time since formal logic... not that I miss it...

      • By dolni 2021-08-1022:41

        Milk is ultra-processed. Lots of folks consider milk to be a healthy beverage option (in moderation, like everything else).

        Vinegar is ultra-processed and is believed to have some health benefits. [1]

        Coffee, same deal. Ultra-processed, believed to have health benefits. [2]

        [1]: https://www.webmd.com/diet/vinegar-good-for-you#1

        [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/well/eat/coffee-health-be...

      • By mywittyname 2021-08-1020:04

        Protein powder?

        Ensure / Boost? (important for people who can't chew food)

        Canned or similarly preserved foods? (important for people without access to reliable refrigeration)

        Even staple grains (wheat, rice, corn) are pretty highly processed. One can't exactly eat these raw, they need some machinery and sometimes chemistry to really get at the nutrients.

        I guess this all depends on your definition of "ultra-processed" and "good for people." But the processing of food is a discovery that allowed for the civilizations to appear. Feeding people on fresh meat and veg doesn't scale.

    • By armchairhacker 2021-08-1020:152 reply

      I assume when people talk about “ultra-processed” they’re talking about foods which 90% would agree are bad for you: foods with a lot of added sugar or oil, or almost everything else taken out. e.g. candy, fried foods, chips, pizza on white bread, fruit juice. Is pasta ultra-processed? What about salami? Mashed potatoes? Cheese? Honestly, no. Actually, high-calorie foods like cheese or wheat pasta are very nutritious. Of course a diet consisting of pasta, salami, and cheese with a side of mashed potatoes is probably bad. But it’s better than the above.

      I wonder whether kids are really getting fat off of even hot dogs, mac and cheese, steak and cheese subs, and corn. Or if it’s the added sugar and refined carbs - candy, soda, white bread, “snacks”. People say that kids’ diet in the 60s was the former, and they were fine.

      Honestly “ultra-processed” can be misleading because it isn’t the processing which is bad, it’s the amount of fat and carbs vs. protein, fiber, water, and other nutrients. Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.

      • By CarelessExpert 2021-08-1020:40

        > I assume when people talk about “ultra-processed” they’re talking about foods which 90% would agree are bad for you

        So then we should just call it what it is: junk food.

        "ultra-processed" is no better than "gmo", i.e. a completely meaningless label designed to scare people because of spooky "technology", as opposed to actual information people can use to make informed decisions.

        > Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.

        LOL... damn, okay, I admit it, I didn't read all the way to the end before commenting. I'm leaving this here as it's a good reminder for myself to slow down...

      • By AfterShave 2021-08-1114:28

        Just as an aside. Is it really "added sugar" in candy where the entire point is that it's mainly made out of sugar?

    • By tootie 2021-08-1019:581 reply

      "Ultra-processed" is a pretty meaningless standard. Pasta and Cheerios are very processed but part of the process is being fortified with loads of micronutrients. Cheerios are better for you than something like white rice which is almost pure starch. And high-fructose corn syrup has the same nutritional value as raw honey despite being processed. There's no substitute for just reading labels.

      • By MattGaiser 2021-08-1020:061 reply

        Flour is arguably "ultra processed."

        • By artimaeis 2021-08-1020:08

          Most flour should be classified as minimally processed by the FAO source others are referencing in the thread.

          > Unprocessed foods altered by industrial processes such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, powdering, squeezing, crushing, grinding, fractioning, steaming, poaching, boiling, roasting, and pasteurization, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging, non-alcoholic fermentation, and other methods that do not add salt, sugar, oils or fats or other food substances to the original food.

          Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

    • By Dig1t 2021-08-1019:59

      This whole argument strikes me as very similar to the "appeal to nature" fallacy

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

    • By cameronh90 2021-08-1019:48

      "Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you."

      It bothers me too, but I think the problem right now is they don't exactly know what part of the "ultra processed" foods is harmful yet.

    • By foolfoolz 2021-08-1019:54

      totally agree. i think there is no baseline at all for “healthy food.” it means different things to different people. even high calorie foods can be healthy for some groups.

      i think this argument about processed foods tries to simplify it too much when there’s really a lot of different factors. high in calories? no vitamins? known carcinogens? individual allergies or trouble digesting? this one size fits all approach to labeling food good and bad ignores the details.

      and the real issue is education: do you know what you’re eating? and how much? and what your body needs? i’d rather see answers there than “big soda bad” and “chips bad”

    • By sosuke 2021-08-1019:56

      It becomes tougher when pizza or bread can exist in all of the NOVA food classifications.

      http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

    • By slothtrop 2021-08-1020:15

      All this about a headline? What kind of nuance are you demanding with respect to the impact of ultra-processed food on health in a headline?

      > We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.

      The headline doesn't communicate that. It communicates that U.S. kids are consuming an abundance of calories from those foods.

      > mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.

      It doesn't communicate that either. That is prior knowledge on your part.

    • By johnchristopher 2021-08-1020:041 reply

      > Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.

      Is someone suggesting to get 70% of calorie intake from pharmaceuticals though ?

      • By dolni 2021-08-1022:251 reply

        You've extended the analogy beyond its intent or demonstration to show what, exactly? "70% of calorie intake" is not some magic figure. There is nothing inherently important or mythical about that number.

        • By johnchristopher 2021-08-116:03

          This was not an analogy, it was a flawed comparison. Is OP supporting ultra processed food because pharmaceuticals are ultra processed ?

    • By mbrodersen 2021-08-122:41

      Food containing lots of sugar and no fibre is a good example of what people call “ultra-processed” food. Eating fructose without fibre is pretty bad.

    • By jareklupinski 2021-08-1020:131 reply

      > In other words, no doughnut is a minimally processed food.

      Will someone please let me try a minimally-processed doughnut?

      • By jpindar 2021-08-1721:20

        My mom used to make homemade doughnuts. That was a long time ago, but I don't think the process (heh) was much different from making other sweet baked goods and other fried food.

        I've never tried making them because I think muffins or cookies are just as good without the hassle of frying.

  • By onychomys 2021-08-1019:2310 reply

    So at first glance it seems like there's no way this is actually possible. There are 21 meals a week, plus enough snacking that we could probably just think of it as 28 meals a week. Kids just eat constantly, it's bonkers. Anyway, with 28 meals a week, you'd need about 20 of them to be ultra-processed in order to meet this. That's a lot!

    Except that it's actually really not. If we take my 5 year old son as a normal kid, a bowl of cereal for breakfast and then whatever random food they feed him for school lunch and we're already 2/3rds of the way to the goal. He snacks on fruit and stuff, but also on pretzel sticks and honey roasted peanuts and all sorts of other kind of junky things.

    I make dinner from scratch very nearly every night, and my kid still falls into this 70% bucket! And so I really don't have a good idea about how to change that. Maybe make our own bread and have them have toast for breakfast every day? That's going to get old quick.

    • By woodruffw 2021-08-1019:381 reply

      This is perhaps a good indicator that “processed versus unprocessed” isn’t a great signal for whether a particular fooditem should be part of one’s diet.

      Using your cereal example: I grew up eating grape nuts[1], which are probably in the ultraprocessed category. But it’s just barley flour and I ate it like most people eat muesli (with fresh fruit) — what should that count as?

      [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape-Nuts

      • By fanf2 2021-08-1020:581 reply

        Grape nuts count as "processed" because of the added salt and vitamins

        • By woodruffw 2021-08-1021:151 reply

          Right, which begs the question: if processing includes ostensibly beneficial (or at least neutral) processing as well, how important is the 70% in TFA? My intuition is that it’s still pretty important (since most people are probably eating Frosted Flakes, not grape nuts, for breakfast), but that we need a better way to talk about healthy eating habits and proportions than “most of our foodstuffs are processed.”

          • By Symbiote 2021-08-1110:49

            "Processed" and "ultra-processed" are two different things: the latter goes beyond the former.

            Grape Nuts might could as processed, and Frosted Flakes as ultra-processed.

    • By sosuke 2021-08-1019:443 reply

      Good healthy food costs more money. We've done a great job about putting the most amount of calories and flavor into cheaper than dirt forms. I think a breakfast of oats and lunch of a tuna sandwich would work. Most lunch meats are probably considered Ultra-Processed.

      I think the only ways out of this are as you said fixing everything yourself. Most things you can eat raw that isn't packaged would probably be safe. Then cooking your own meats.

      But pasta is considered Ultra-Processed, packaged bread is ultra-processed. I thought those were some of the most basic foods with the smallest number of ingredients. Maybe home made versions as you suggested are not considered Ultra-Processed.

      • By sosuke 2021-08-1020:01

        Answering my own question:

          Industrial breads made only from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast are processed foods, while those whose lists of ingredients also include emulsifiers or colours are ultra-processed. Plain steel-cut oats, plain corn flakes and shredded wheat are minimally processed foods, while the same foods are processed when they also contain sugar, and ultra-processed if they also contain flavours or colours.
        
        From http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

      • By ev1 2021-08-1020:031 reply

        They are small (flour, yeast, salt, etc) number of ingredients if you shop for bread at specialty, expensive, organic shops or make it yourself.

        At the supermarkets 99% of the US uses, even the high end bread is 15-25 ingredients at eyeball. The ingredient list for one of the most expensive packaged whole wheat bread that would show up at a regular non-Whole Foods-style place: Whole Wheat Flour , Water , Sugar , Wheat Gluten , Yeast , Wheat Bran , Salt , Soybean Oil , Raisin Juice Concentrate , Enrichment ( Calcium Sulfate , Vitamin E Acetate , Vitamin A Palmitate , Vitamin D3 ) , Calcium Propionate ( Preservative ) , Datem , Grain Vinegar , Monoglycerides , Soy Lecithin , Citric Acid , Potassium Iodate .

      • By ogwh 2021-08-1019:59

        They're made with ingredients that are processed. The flour that goes into the bread and pasta has been stripped of all fibre and micro nutrients, then some vitamins might be added back if you're lucky.

        The bread is full of refined sugar.

        You need to look at the ingredients recursively. If you eat wholegrain everything you're half way there.

        Same applies to rice etc.

        The reason they remove the good stuff is so it doesn't spoil, if you remove the nutrients it's less appetising to microbes and pests.

    • By blacksmith_tb 2021-08-1019:312 reply

      Another angle is that junk tends to be more caloric, so even if kids actually did eat their fruits and veggies, even say with 21 of those meals, they'd still only make up a comparatively small portion of all the calories in their diets. But given that they're full of other nutrients (and esp. fiber) I don't think that's so bad.

      • By taylodl 2021-08-1020:28

        My wife likes to joke no one ever got fat eating carrots and celery. The calorie dense foods kids enjoy tend to have a lot of refined sugar. Heck, that goes for most adults too. I can eat a bag of carrots and a bag of potato chips and I'll have gotten more than 70% of my calories from the chips.

      • By ffggvv 2021-08-1019:36

        yeah a bag of cheezits is ~200 calories. An orange is ~50 calories.

        So if you ate one of each youd have 80% of calories from ultraprocessed food.

    • By throwaway1777 2021-08-1019:361 reply

      Breakfast is definitely a good place to start. We eat eggs for breakfast nearly every day in my home. It’s not as simple as cereal but scrambling a batch of eggs is not too bad.

      • By xenonite 2021-08-117:27

        Not surprisingly the taste of eggs depends on the chickens' meal. For example, the protein demand is often fulfilled by fish powder or soy flour.

    • By taylodl 2021-08-1020:211 reply

      Try to minimize the amount of refined sugar and white flour in your diet. That'll get you below the 70%. As you're probably suspecting, it isn't easy! Refined sugar is in almost everything you buy at the grocery store, save for fresh produce and meat. White flour is present in many breads - even whole wheat bread! Yes - whole wheat bread oftentimes means there's whole wheat flour used in making the bread, it doesn't mean only whole wheat flour was used. And breakfast cereal? Yeah, that's going to be hard to replace, especially for a five year old! Oatmeal is a good alternative but unless you're buying a box of old-fashioned oats and making it yourself you're likely to be buying a lot of refined sugar. Those healthy granola bars? Lots of refined sugar. Trail mix, especially the ones with the M&M's? Ungodly amounts of refined sugar.

      To be honest I'm kinda surprised that it's only 70% of calories coming from refined foods.

      • By handrous 2021-08-1020:391 reply

        > Yes - whole wheat bread oftentimes means there's whole wheat flour used in making the bread, it doesn't mean only whole wheat flour was used.

        Part of the reason is that it's really hard—way more work, way more time—to get a fluffy sandwich loaf out of just whole wheat flour. Or anything that's not kinda dense and focaccia-looking, really.

        • By taylodl 2021-08-110:55

          You're not wrong! When I make home made bread I don't use only whole wheat flour - it's really difficult to work with and hard to get a good loaf, and I've been making bread on a regular basis for over 30 years! The 'whole wheat white' flours (fine ground 100% whole wheat flour) coming out are really good and allows for an excellent loaf.

    • By bell-cot 2021-08-1020:16

      A bread machine can make the "make our own bread...toast" less laborious. (Recipes printed in bread machines' instruction booklets tend toward the less-healthy, but with some experimenting...)

      Commercial breakfast cereals vary, though the least-healthy are probably the most tuned to appeal to kids. Home-cooked cereal can be far better. And easy to mix nuts, frozen berries, etc. into.

      If a bit of dressing up (squirt of mustard, bit of mayo, etc.) makes hard-boiled eggs acceptable to him, those can be made once a week and kept in the fridge.

      An old friend perfected a fairly-healthy, filling stew recipe (some meat, mostly veggies, etc.) that he could make up in large batches and keep in the fridge. As a teenager, his son consumed an enormous quantity of that over time.

    • By alex504 2021-08-1019:471 reply

      Dont feed him processed food for breakfast and pack him lunch.

      • By elliekelly 2021-08-1020:033 reply

        This is one of those things that’s easy to say but way harder for parents to actually do. You’re suggesting someone make time to prepare not one, but two homemade meals as they’re trying to get their kid (and probably themselves) out the door in the morning.

        • By paulryanrogers 2021-08-1020:11

          Kids learn quickly which foods have the most sugar and get stuck on them. I tried to prevent ours from ever tasting junk until they had broader palettes, but the moment grandparents have the kids alone or SO has a bad day... it's over.

        • By asdff 2021-08-1022:30

          For stuff like breakfast it just takes some practice getting the timing right for multitasking. Making eggs and toast is like a full sixty seconds of actual hands on time. You just space it out between heating the pan, cracking the egg and later flipping it onto a plate, and waiting for the toast, and you can totally get other things done in those gaps. Stuff like lunches you can prep in advance, there are tons of recipes these days for quick easy bulk cheap good food.

        • By slothtrop 2021-08-1020:221 reply

          Overnight oats take seconds to prepare.

          • By handrous 2021-08-1020:482 reply

            ??? How? I'm looking at a good 15 minutes, almost all hands-on time, from the moment I decide to go make overnight oats, using either of what I'm pretty sure are normal methods (crock pot, boil-briefly-and-leave-covered stovetop). That's assuming I don't discover that something I need is dirty.

            I'm not saying that's a ton of time, but seconds?

            Quick oat packets (awful stuff, full of sugar unless you get really expensive ones, cutting it 50/50 with rolled or plain quick oats helps a little and also makes up for the fact that one packet isn't, realistically, an entire serving) aren't even seconds. Talking maybe 2-3 minutes hands-on to lay out a bowl for each kid, rip and pour the packets, set the electric kettle going, then pour some on each when it boils (microwaving it with cool water is even slower once you're past a single serving—kettle saves time)

            • By plorkyeran 2021-08-112:49

              My approach to cooking steel-cut oats overnight which takes about one minute in the evening and one minute in the morning:

              1. Put oats and water in rice cooker shortly before going to bed. Turn on rice cooker. 2. Remove perfectly cooked oats in the morning and add desired seasonings.

              Since I don't have a dishwasher, washing the bowl I ate out of is the most time-consuming step other than actually eating, and when I need to eat breakfast immediately in the morning to leave ASAP I can be sitting down eating under 5 minutes after my alarm goes off.

            • By slothtrop 2021-08-1021:271 reply

              > from the moment I decide to go make overnight oats, using either of what I'm pretty sure are normal methods (crock pot, boil-briefly-and-leave-covered stovetop).

              This sounds like it's conflating porridge with overnight oats. All you have to do to prep overnight oats is soak them in liquid (and maybe rinse off excess starch). I throw the lot in the fridge at night with chia seeds, consume it in the morning with berries and yogurt.

              • By Symbiote 2021-08-1021:431 reply

                With the finely rolled oats which seem to be the most common ones available in Denmark, I'm even lazier:

                1. Put about 1-2dL of finely rolled oats into a fairly wide bowl

                2. Dribble over "enough" cold water

                3. Add yoghurt, berries, chopped fruit, coconut flakes or whatever

                • By handrous 2021-08-1021:472 reply

                  I guess my mistake is that I use steel-cut oats when I do overnight oats. AFAIK without boiling they'll still be pretty tough in the morning (else why do so many recipes call for boiling or long-term heating in the crock pot?)

                  • By Symbiote 2021-08-1111:16

                    It seems I didn't know what steel-cut oats were. I've looked it up, we apparently call that coarse oatmeal in Britain, and it's not stocked by the largest supermarkets — only health food shops.

                    Coarse/thick-rolled oats should be fine soaked overnight, or fine/thin-rolled oats for the soak-in-one-minute-in-the-morning way. Both grades are easily available in the UK. I would tend to use the thin ones for breakfast, and the coarse ones for making things like flapjack (similar to a granola bar).

                  • By slothtrop 2021-08-1023:39

                    Ah, yes. They have to be rolled oats for a soak to be sufficient. Soaking steel cut might reduce the necessary boiling time but they still have to simmer quite awhile.

    • By causi 2021-08-1019:383 reply

      Pack him a lunch instead of letting him eat cafeteria food. A ham sandwich is a lot healthier than a slice of school pizza.

      • By fancifalmanima 2021-08-1019:54

        The bread (made from processed wheat, probably bleached flour, and containing bread conditioners, preservatives) would almost surely fall into the ultra processed category, unless homemade from minimally processed whole wheat flour. The ham and cheese could as well, unless they were made with fairly traditional processes (and probably more expensive than what the typical person is buying at walmart, target, etc). They'd all probably be considered processed foods, at minimum.

      • By HeyLaughingBoy 2021-08-1019:49

        I'd be surprised if commercially made ham didn't fall into the ultraprocessed category!

        Saying this as someone who's curing his first ham in the fridge rn :-)

      • By sjwalter 2021-08-1019:511 reply

        I run a chicken farm so I'm biased but for my family I grow out a bunch of birds to be bigger than typical (9-10lbs). Roast one of these and it sits in the fridge providing sandwich meat for a week, plus the occasional plate of hot sauce and cold meat. Super delicious and healthful.

        • By Symbiote 2021-08-1020:11

          My parents did this for most of my childhood. They weren't farmers, so the meat came from the supermarket – but larger cuts of meat (or whole chickens) are much cheaper than buying jointed, pre-cut or cooked meat anyway.

    • By armchairhacker 2021-08-1020:33

      Sometimes I eat shredded wheat and bananas, yogurt and fruit, or shredded wheat + yogurt + fruit. That takes 0 effort and can be packed for breakfast or lunch.

      Also carrots and hummus, dry roasted nuts, cheese and wheat thins, PB and apple slices, are all good snacks for a kid.

    • By sparrc 2021-08-1019:484 reply

      Does cereal count as "ultra-processed"? Things like Cheerios don't seem much more processed than bread from what I can tell. Also honey-roasted peanuts?

      My understanding of ultra-processed would be things more like candy, cheetos, pringles, oreos, soda, etc.

      • By paulryanrogers 2021-08-1020:091 reply

        Check the nutrition facts on honey roasted peanuts. I was shocked at how many carbs a serving includes. Now I just eat dry roasted peanuts, and not too many since they too have plenty of carbs.

        It's hard to find a simple rule that isn't subverted. Though simpler more primitive diets (mostly low carb vegetables and high protein foods) seem best all around.

        It's sad to see folks think they've leveled up enough to 'cheat' after loading up on yams ("veg!"), carrots ("veg"), and beans ("protein!").

        • By asdff 2021-08-1022:321 reply

          What is wrong with carbs? If I don't have carbs while working all day I get tired. That stuff is brain fuel.

          • By paulryanrogers 2021-08-1023:52

            Carbs themselves are fine. It's the quantities, especially those in the form of sugars, that are excessive.

            All that said you can live without carbs and just digest fats instead. Hence the whole ketosis and low-sugar diets.

      • By deep-root 2021-08-1020:111 reply

        Check out the ingredients of Cheerios, which says a bit about the process of making them and the attempt to restore some nutrition: https://www.wdbqschools.org/Downloads/Cereal-Cheerios.pdf

        Probably Wonder Bread would look similar, but homemade bread quite different. All are processed foods of some level due to flour.

        • By nitwit005 2021-08-1020:30

          We've been deliberately fortifying foods since the 1930s to try to reduce incidence of diseases caused by lack of some vitamin or other micronutrient, which has seemed to be effective. You're required to add it for some products, although I believe quite a bit is still voluntary.

      • By armchairhacker 2021-08-1020:26

        Nuts and cereals like shredded wheat aren’t ultra-processed. But check the labels, a lot of nuts and cereal have added sugar and even oil.

        Cheerios seem surprisingly healthy (the first ingredient is whole grain oats and only 1g of added sugar). Even special K has 4g of added sugar per serving. I would consider sugar-coated cereal like raisin bran or special K with yogurt chunks ultra-processed.

      • By f6v 2021-08-1020:12

        Depends on what you mean by "cereal". Oats that you mix with nuts and fresh berries? No, unlike all those sugar-infested abominations of a breakfast food packaged in colourful boxes.

  • By TillE 2021-08-1019:375 reply

    I've recently been cutting back on salt, and it's crazy how difficult that is. Even something seemingly benign like a bag of mixed frozen vegetables has so much salt added, a few hundred grams (a reasonable portion) would be almost my entire daily sodium intake. And for all that, it doesn't even taste well seasoned.

    Gotta be careful and stick with the frozen vegetables which have nothing added.

    • By cameronh90 2021-08-1019:503 reply

      "Even something seemingly benign like a bag of mixed frozen vegetables has so much salt added"

      Have literally never experienced this except if it's something that's meant to be ready to eat or is a base mix with its own seasoning. Is it a US thing?

      • By awesomeusername 2021-08-1020:041 reply

        It is a US thing. Sugar and salt in things most of the rest of the world couldn't imagine having sugar and salt added

      • By nitwit005 2021-08-1020:35

        I think the above is only possible if they're getting vegetables with sauce in the bag. There is some salt in the vegetables themselves, of course, but it hasn't been added.

      • By foolfoolz 2021-08-1118:05

        it depends what you buy. most canned food and frozen food comes in pretty close to raw versions and seasoned versions without much change to the packaging or labeling unless you read the details

    • By axaxs 2021-08-1019:41

      I've definitely noticed this.

      As a kid we ate mostly natural food, as my parents had a decent sized farm. We always had salt on the table, and went through a lot of it.

      As an adult without a farm, I cannot remember the last time I even touched the salt shaker. I've actually made spaghetti once that was near inedible because the sodium in the sauce, cheeses, and meat made it incredibly salty tasting.

    • By maxehmookau 2021-08-1019:58

      You're in the US I assume? That wouldn't fly in the UK. It's also terrifying that it's considered normal over there!

    • By sumthinprofound 2021-08-1019:391 reply

      I gave up sugar in my coffee ~4 teasoons a day without any problems, but salt I am finding is more difficult to avoid.

      • By X6S1x6Okd1st 2021-08-1020:001 reply

        How much salt do you put in your coffee?

        • By OldTimeCoffee 2021-08-1021:19

          Probably a bit to counteract the bitterness they were trying to avoid with the sugar

    • By ant6n 2021-08-1020:011 reply

      > Gotta be careful and stick with the frozen vegetables which have nothing added.

      How about fresh vegetables?

      • By handrous 2021-08-1020:23

        Frozen veggies keep better (provided your freezer keeps working) so there's less risk of waste, and, depending on what they are, may taste better than commonly-available fresh varieties.

HackerNews