The author Garrett Broad is The president of the plant based foods institute. Plant based foods are often considered ultra processed, because they put a lot of stuff in them to make meat based analogues or make them easier for the western diet.
I would classify this article as disinformation it’s interesting to see it posted here. I’m FOR plant based foods but denying that much of what’s out there is ultra processed and can be harmful I don’t think is right.
I don’t think you need to ask for specifics when they just proved bias as the article was written by someone with an interest in highly processed foods.
I’m FOR plant based foods but denying that much of what’s out there is ultra processed and can be harmful I don’t think is right.
The article doesn’t do that though. The main argument seems to be that ultraprocessed foods are not all equivalently bad, which is pretty obvious when you think about it for a second. Like yeah drinking sugary soda each day is obviously gonna do you way more harm than a pot of yoghurt with breakfast.
They are insinuating that the genuine and legitimate concern over UPF is a ‘ panic’ when in reality most people should be more worried than they are. I did read the article and the classifications could use improvement but let’s frame it that way and not with clickbait titles then?
No, scientists shouldn’t misrepresent fields as settled to try and drum up action.
This has been done in the past and always causes backlash. UPF classification is incoherent and there are wildly different classification and results between studies. It is good to discuss that, it is good to communicate truth.
Nowhere in the article is the author saying you should eat more, or not worry about your diet.
It turns out that certain categories of ultraprocessed foods – such as sweetened beverages like sodas and processed meats like deli meats – are consistently associated with negative health outcomes including heart disease and stroke. But other ultraprocessed products – breads, cold cereals, yogurt and even savory snacks – have actually been correlated with lower rates of these health problems.
Pretty fucking clear
Ultimately, researchers and advocates from all sides of the debate mostly agree that the modern food environment needs to be made healthier. The key point of disagreement, however, is whether policymaking and dietary guidance should directly address ultraprocessing or stick to a more traditional focus on nutrients instead.
I guess it makes sense, since the UPF framework literally and explicitly disregards substance in favor of a notion of pure sourcing. As with the genetic fallacy, it can be a useful heuristic but is ultimately unsound.
The writier beinh the presidente of a group that he talks about in this article automatically disqualifies the aeticle, it is disinformation, because its just a not so well hidden ad
Ultimately, researchers and advocates from all sides of the debate mostly agree that the modern food environment needs to be made healthier. The key point of disagreement, however, is whether policymaking and dietary guidance should directly address ultraprocessing or stick to a more traditional focus on nutrients instead.
The author Garrett Broad is The president of the plant based foods institute. Plant based foods are often considered ultra processed, because they put a lot of stuff in them to make meat based analogues or make them easier for the western diet.
Some science on it:
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38688162/
I would classify this article as disinformation it’s interesting to see it posted here. I’m FOR plant based foods but denying that much of what’s out there is ultra processed and can be harmful I don’t think is right.
The conversation has an extremely robust editorial process and articles must be well founded.
What specific claims is Garrett making here that you believe misrepresent the evidence?
I don’t think you need to ask for specifics when they just proved bias as the article was written by someone with an interest in highly processed foods.
Are you serious? Like is this good faith? I’ll take the time to explain why this is silly if you swear this is good faith
The article doesn’t do that though. The main argument seems to be that ultraprocessed foods are not all equivalently bad, which is pretty obvious when you think about it for a second. Like yeah drinking sugary soda each day is obviously gonna do you way more harm than a pot of yoghurt with breakfast.
They are insinuating that the genuine and legitimate concern over UPF is a ‘ panic’ when in reality most people should be more worried than they are. I did read the article and the classifications could use improvement but let’s frame it that way and not with clickbait titles then?
No, scientists shouldn’t misrepresent fields as settled to try and drum up action.
This has been done in the past and always causes backlash. UPF classification is incoherent and there are wildly different classification and results between studies. It is good to discuss that, it is good to communicate truth.
Nowhere in the article is the author saying you should eat more, or not worry about your diet.
Pretty fucking clear
Did you read the article? It also cites studies similar to the ones you linked. For instance:
I guess it makes sense, since the UPF framework literally and explicitly disregards substance in favor of a notion of pure sourcing. As with the genetic fallacy, it can be a useful heuristic but is ultimately unsound.
The writier beinh the presidente of a group that he talks about in this article automatically disqualifies the aeticle, it is disinformation, because its just a not so well hidden ad
What’s he advertising? eating healthier?
So sinister