472
Ultra-processed food increases risk of early death, international study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
You say that like its a bad thing.
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
472 points (97.8% liked)
World News
46224 readers
2476 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So we're just doing "early death" as a cause of death now?
this feels like common sense
The NOVA classifications are difficult to work with, and I think the trend of certain nutrition scientists (and the media that reports on those scientists' work) have completely over-weighted the value of the "ultra processed" category.
The typical whole grain, multigrain bread sold at the store qualifies as ultra-processed, in large part because whole grain flour is harder to shape into loaves than white flour, and manufacturers add things like gluten to the dough. Gluten, of course, already "naturally" exists in any wheat bread, so it's not exactly a harmful ingredient. But that additive tips the loaf of bread into ultra processed (or UPF or NOVA category 4), same as Doritos.
But whole grain bread isn't as bad for you as Doritos or Coca Cola. So why do these studies treat them as the same? And whole grain factory bread is almost certainly better for you than the local bakery's white bread (merely processed food or NOVA category 3), made from industrially produced white flour, with the germ and bran removed during milling. Or industrially produced potato chips, which are usually considered simply processed foods in category 3 when not flavored with anything other than salt, which certainly aren't more nutritious or healthier than that whole wheat bread or pasta.
If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don't throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).
And I'm not even going to get into how the system is fundamentally unsuited for evaluating fermented, aged, or pickled foods, especially dairy.
Absolutely correct. This classification system points the finger at things that everyone (read: everyone who had a semblance of nutritional education) knows are bad for you, but then lumps in things like bread and cheese with them! So of course people who don't know much better hear this, they'll think "well if bread and cheese are just as bad for you as Cheetos, of course I'm getting the Cheetos, they're delicious".
I feel like this is an area of "science" that's just a mish mash of various corporate lobbying.
If specific ingredients are a problem, we should study those ingredients. If specific combinations or characteristics are a problem, we should study those combinations. Don’t throw out the baby (healthy ultra processed foods) with the bathwater (unhealthy ultra processed foods).
We've been doing that for years, and the result on public health has been fad diets and "superfoods". Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after. The categories for processed-ness are necessarily arbitrary, since we have to decide what constitutes "processed", and so sometimes relatively healthier food ends up appearing "worse" than less healthy food. But the end result is the headline above, which can be pointed to the hundred billion times it must be pointed to, in order to convince people that they should not eat a diet consisting of Doritos, mountain dew, slim jims, and ice cream.
Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after.
But what confounding variables have also increased during this time? Do we have endocrine disruptors in our drinking water or food packaging or in the foods themselves, from microplastics or whatever? Have we been fertilizing our fields with industrial waste containing toxic "forever chemicals"? Have we become more sedentary at home and at work? I mean, probably yes to all of these.
I do believe that nutrition is more than simple linear addition of the components in a food. But insights can still be derived from analyzing non-linear combinations (like studying the role of fiber or water or even air in foods for the perception of satiety or the speed that subject ingest food), or looking towards specific interactions between certain subsets of the population with specific nutrients. We can still derive information from the ingredients, even if we move past the idea that each ingredient acts on the body completely independently from the other ingredients in that food.
And look, I'm a skeptic of the NOVA system, but actually do appreciate its contribution in increasing awareness of those non-linear combinations. But I see it as, at most, a bridge to better science, not good science in itself.
I believe nutrition is quite simple: Eat real food. That will get you 90% of the way there, if you are an average person who just wants to be healthy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone’s risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.
Was a bit surprised to see bread there, as it's been a staple of many cultures' cuisines for millennia. Did a quick search, and got some clarity in this list - "mass-produced packaged bread" is UPF, not the stuff you make from scratch or perhaps pick up from the local bakery.
A relief, actually, as I just took a loaf of sourdough out of the oven and was waiting for it to be cool enough to slice into. This article took the shine off the experience for a moment there 😅
Yeah the typical American stuff is like 10% sugar, packed with additives like emulsifiers and preservatives, and anything that makes the production processes cheaper and faster, made from bleached flour and has most of the fibre stripped out.
If your bread is made from flour, water, salt and yeast its processed food not UPF.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
What is considered an ultra-processed food? Like... Cheese is processed (all cheese; it isn't just found, it's made by processing milk). Is it ultra processed? What about a hot dog?
It seems cheese just missed the mark for ultra status according to this specification I found on webMD.
a quick summarisation is that there are 4 groups:
- Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (berries, nuts etc).
- Processed culinary ingredients (oils, butter, sugars etc).
- Processed foods (cheese, bread. Stuff with 2+ ingredients).
- Ultra-processed food and drink products (preservatives, additives, all the bad -ives).
So I'm guessing a hot dog would be ultra processed due to preservatives and additives often found in the 'meat'.
That was an interesting rabbit hole to go down. Feels as though what is considered ultra-processed by the experts, is what us laymen tend to refer to as processed foods. I suppose technically their terminology is correct (the best kind of correct ofc), but it just feels like an exaggeration due to everyday usage of the term being what it is.
Edit: formatting.
Thank you. 🐇
load more comments
(9 replies)
Gotta up my junk food consumption then
It is my life's dream to die clutching my heart as I'm giving a presentation in front of hundreds of people.
The fuck does "ultra processed food" mean? Isnt upf defined by it harming you? Its like saying weapons harm you when weapon is the name for something that is used to harm others.
Not even. The NOVA system has been tested and doesn't function as a system of classification. Experts cannot consistently classify things into UPF/not UPF. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1
So it's more like "there's this food and it's bad for you but idk what it is :/"
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
A certain leader eats a shitload of them each week, so we can only hope xD
It's astonishing to me that scientists are using such unscientific terms like "ultra processed food". What is it about these foods that is unhealthy?
It's like saying "sports are dangerous" while including football and golf in your definition.
Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the media find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.
What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:
- Very little fibre
- Starches are all immediately accessible to digestion and so blood glucose spikes much more than for the non-UPF equivalent
- UPF foods are soft and dry (so weigh less) making it very easy to eat a lot very fast, so you eat too many calories.
- Relatively high in salt and sugar
- Use of emulsifiers. These may change your gut microbiota and also make your gut more leaky causing inflammation
- Use of preservatives and artificial colours
- Frequently have a lot of oil
Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.
Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life
Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad? Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A bad?
Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad?
I don't know.
My thoughts are that your total daily intake is more important than considering any single food item. As such, having some UPF in your diet is ok. The problem becomes epidemiologically measurable when, like the UK and US, 60% of calories consumed by some demographics are from UPF food.
And there are almost certainly multiple different things 'wrong' with UPF and so if you fix one problem, you may still be at risk from another. For example in your question, there are a lot of studies showing the importance of fibre in the diet, including those that add bran to whatever the person normally eats. So UPF with lots of fibre, all things equal, is likely less bad than UPF without.
Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A bad?
Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) are interesting in that they don't show benefits above RDA, and in high doses cause a long list of nasty symptoms. In particular, vitamin A in excess is correlated with increased risk of multiple major diseases and even death.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
I feel like we’ve known this for a very long time
We've known about climate change for a long time too. "We" not all of us.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The food industry is going to go through the same rebuke that the tobacco industry went through only bigger.
load more comments
(2 replies)
For example, US research published last year in the BMJ found that people who consume the most UPF have a 4% higher risk of death overall and a 9% greater risk of dying from something other than cancer or heart disease.
If you don't want to die of cancer and heart disease, UPF may be be a good choice.
The 4% greater risk of dying... Does that mean if I have a 10% chance of dying by age 70 it becomes a 14% chance or a 10.4% chance? I believe the latter. But that's a correlation for the people who eat the most UPF. Would have to see how that's controlled for socioeconomic class and access to healthcare.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›