Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That paper unequivocally states in the beginning that the authors aren't trying to contradict that food processing affects health outcomes, they're just dissatisfied with the low quality of the classification system.

So there's no debate that ultra processed foods affect health, there's only debate on whether the category itself is good enough. And if you go deeper into the subject, it becomes pretty obvious that the Nova system is a pretty bad model. But it's a simple model that can be easily communicated to Doomscroll Sally. The better models we have haven't caught on anywhere near as well.

"The participants in this debate agree that food processing vitally affects human health, and that the extent of food processing significantly affects diet quality and health outcomes. They disagree on the significance of ultra-processing, as defined within the Nova food classification system."



“The NO position argues that the concept of UPF is poorly defined; gives rise to misclassification of foods; is without clear mechanisms of action; and that the observed associations with obesity are likely confounded.“

Is my point. There’s a lot of correlation but whole classification system is poorly designed and mechanisms are not really explained. The whole idea of labelling foods as ultra processed as a proxy for bad seems poorly conceived. If I was to go further I’d say it has a whiff of naturalistic fallacy about it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: