request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition 
There's this widespread claim that "highly-processed foods are bad for you". I'm not just talking about things like "high in sugar" here, but merely the property of it being 'processed' being considered bad.
Where does this idea come from? Does it have a legitimate scientific basis? I am seeing this argument pop up suspiciously often in the context of defending particular industries (meat, dairy).
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 Which is also one of the main criticisms of this classification: That it tends to conflate the healthiness and the 'how much prcoessed is it' aspects of foods.
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@liketechnik Yeah. Going from the history described on Wikipedia, it sounds like the whole thing is built on "treating correlation as causation"? It's not clear to me how this classification ever became a scientifically acceptable basis to build research on.
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 I remember listening to a science vs podcast episode about it. While I don't remember what their conclusion was, I can recommend listening to it (or reading the transcript). Science vs is generally a carefully considered source. https://chrt.fm/track/15E3G4/traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT5072782514.mp3?updated=1707493445
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@mvgorcum Podcasts are not really accessible to me, unfortunately.
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 does a google docs transcript help? https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTpZ2HNUMSZmtsqtLUV8Q0zRvjNAXZF7S2Tn10abJvtAUsiz2WIJPqcAJs_RQZ-7tkmUUb0-9hrx7A2/pub
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@mvgorcum Yep, it does, thanks!
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 added benefit: citations! 🎉
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@fraxinas This unfortunately seems to be yet another 'correlation study' that just observes that two things appear together, and makes no attempt to explain their relation (or provide any evidence that there's a *causal* link), if the abstract is any indication. Likewise makes no mention of poverty.
The data isn't entirely *useless*, but it also doesn't support "highly-processed foods are bad for you" either. Most nutrition studies are like this, and it's a big part of why I'm suspicious of the claims.
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@fraxinas (Aside, it observes that plant-based alternatives were not 'associated with risk' - even though these are typically processed in very similar ways to the 'risk groups' mentioned there. This alone should call into question their conclusion of "higher consumption of UPFs increases the risk [...]", because it strongly suggests a confounding factor.)
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 Het Voedingscentrum heeft een onafhankelijke en genuanceerde beschouwing hierover. Het is niet per se inherent, maar als vuistregel/in de praktijk kan gezegd worden dat ultrabewerkt voedsel eigenlijk altijd wel degelijk ongezond voedsel is. Beter om te vermijden dus. https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/service/vraag-en-antwoord/gezonde-voeding-en-voedingsstoffen/is-onbewerkt-zonder-pakjes-zakjes-en-kant-en-klaarmaaltijden-altijd-gezonder-.aspx
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@twijs Helaas haalt ook het voedingscentrum "ultrabewerkt" en "voedingswaarde" door elkaar, terwijl dat toch echt twee verschillende dingen zijn. Dat benoemen ze wel heel even in het artikel, maar vervolgens is de rest van het artikel alsnog geschreven alsof het een en dezelfde categorie is.
Dat is dus helaas niet noemenswaardig anders dan de meeste bronnen die hierover gaan. Ik zoek echt iets dat op de materie ingaat, en specifiek over de bewerkingen praat (zoals de podcast die gelinkt werd in https://chaos.social/@mvgorcum/112927867581226740).
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition
@twijs (Een ander probleem is overigens dat het voedingscentrum geen bronnen citeert; en ik dus geen idee heb waar hun beweringen op gestoeld zijn. En aangezien het meeste onderzoek over dit onderwerp echt van bedroevende kwaliteit is, is dat best belangrijk.)
request for historical/scientific context, food/nutrition :boost_requested:
@joepie91 I've recently heard[2] that one of the more common ways to categorize foods is the "Nova classification"[1]. In short, this classification groups foods "based on the extent and purpose of food processing applied to them" - and crucially, not based on what they contain (i.e. amount of vitamins, fibres, etc).
1/2
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yti10rytI1A (german)