Talk:Ultra-processed food/Archive 1

Move

User:Alexbrn it looks like this has been incorrectly WP:CUTPASTE moved. Widefox; talk 00:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't be moved because the target article existed already (?). An admin could reconcile the histories but there's no discussion or editing of significance worth preserving is there? Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn Moving it was right, I'd considered doing it myself but left it after creating the redirect. Even with a redirect at the target, it was still movable via uncontroversial technical WP:RM or any extendedmovers like me can swap them with no admin required. What makes you say there's nothing worth preserving as there's several editors at the old article? Did you read CUTPASTE? Widefox; talk 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read it. I'm not up on the technicalities of moving so if you can clean up that would be great. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have nistory-merged it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Super, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Risk of industry bias on this page

It's not controversial to say that the food industry has a vested interest in nutrition legislation or controls.

The Wikipedia page on Ultra Processed Food is therefore liable to be a target for self-interest, WP:COI, and this is likely to continue since large sums of money are at stake. And I see on the page evidence of activity by both proponents and critics of the principles of ultra processed food.

There are two paragraphs of criticism. The second one, under Ultra-processed_food#Press_coverage, seems reasonable. But the first one, 'The utility of the NOVA classification has been subject to criticism.[6]', cites a study that has been criticised as bearing the hallmark of industry sponsorship.. The lead author of that article is Michael Gibney who says of himself:

"I was a member of the former Nestle Nutrition Council (1994–2017) and still contribute ad hoc consultancy services to Nestle on dietary survey analysis and nutrient profiling for adults and toddlers. I chaired an international scientific panel advising the food industry–funded Evolved Nutrition Label Initiative on the development of food portion sizes for Europe and also chair the International Breakfast Research Initiative, which is funded by Cereal Partners Worldwide."

FoodPolitics.com examines the influence of industry sponsorship on science, and refers to an article in the European Journal of Nutrition in which 9 [the article says 8] of the 11 authors are employed by Nestle, and of which Michael Gibney is one.

In the interests of balance, I would add that Gibney points out that any association with industry can be used to cast doubt on independence of thought.

Sadgrove (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Massive Quote from WFP

@Eugenie54: we don't use large quotes like that on Wikipedia pages, typically we try to paraphrase and summarize rather than use long quotes. See WP:LONGQUOTE for further information about the expected practices that the community has reached a consensus on. If you need help, I am around -- and I will probably be around in the next few weeks and would be happy to contribute to the article if you would like a partner in the revisions, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Blather

this article is just blather. Compare with the abstract here youll see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:3D7C:891A:9755:F237 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

I think the introduction to this topic is not as neutral as it should be. The concept of UPF (and NOVA) is still controversially discussed and I think that the introduction should reflect this. It would be good to state that it is a definition based on the "NOVA" system which is still discussed. Likewise, the claim that intake is associated with health effects - and this is also still a bit controversial. A suggested revision which is shorter but more neutral:

"Ultra-processed foods, also referred to as ultra-processed food products (UPP), is a classification within the NOVA food classification system that categorises foods according to the nature, extent and purpose of food processing.[1][2][3]

In epidemiological studies, ultra-processed food consumption has been associated with adverse health outcomes."

Ggux (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Article largely reads as an Opinion.

This article reads as one-sided and contains many statements that appear to be opinions. It does not meet the standards founds in most other Wikipedia entries. I visited to learn what UPF stood for, and felt like I was being proselytized and not given any/many facts. 2603:8090:2200:35CE:3CAC:15AD:C7E9:78B9 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

POV

This appears to be very one-sided and ignores the considerable criticism of the concept of UPF. The topic is clearly relevant, but there is a clear discrepancy between the discussion in the media and general public, and that in the scientific community where it more nuanced but also more critical. The current article does not reflect this and appears to suggest that this is an accepted concept.

Ggck2 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ggck2 please point to reliable sources criticizing the work. I am not sure what kinds of criticism you mean, but the concensus in the scientific literature is that they are connected with negative effects. Sadads (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. For example this one [1], and there are others as well.

It is difficult to find a neutral review as the topic appears to be quite controversial. While some studies show an adverse effect, others, such as this one [2], are a bit more ambiguous.

I need to declare a COI here as well as I have published a review on the topic, and hence I would find it inappropriate to add to the main article, but considered it appropriate to highlight the lack of balance.

Ggck2 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you believe that the article is unduly negative toward ultra-processed foods. You brought this up on the article talk page, but you need to be specific about what changes you want. You referenced a source. I think the objection is that while ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, it's not because they are ultra-processed, but because they are high in sodium, sugars, fats  and/or other unhealthy additives and low in fiber and nutrition.

So maybe the process could benefit mankind if used correctly and there are lots of unhealthy foods that are not ultra-processed. I suggest taking a less confrontational approach and returning here if and when you don't make progress. TFD (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is not neutral as it does describe only one point of view (i.e. the negative impact) and dismisses critics as "influenced by the food industry" (as e.g. @Sadads wrote in the revision). The problems is that there is no review or article that both sides would agree to be reasonable neutral as opposition to the concept of UPF is generally seen as biased - but to name a few:

• the definition is ambiguous as there is no single definition that everyone can agree on. Some include the purpose of processing (i.e. making profit), others don't. Some include additives, others don't. Observational studies investigating the effect of UPF often have to rely on several experts to make decisions and make assumptions (e.g. bread in the UK is UPF, but in France it is not). Beer is another example, which can be UPF depending on production methods
• observational studies sometimes rely on food-frequency-questionnaires - but many of those are not suitable to estimate UPF intake reliably as they simply don't have the resolution
• the results are confounded by socio-economic factors: the group of people consuming high UPF often have other risk factors for disease, so it becomes difficult to disentangle

The study by Hall has shown higher energy intake with UPF - but this is a primary source.

So shouldn't one make very clear that this is a somewhat controversially discussed topic? Ggck2 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here from WP:NPOV/N. After skimming the article, I have to say it fails the NPOV smell test, in that I got a sense of the primary contributors' opinions on the topic. It has a decided "here's why this thing is bad" element to it. I recognize that this is a term that exists, but it feels dangerously close to a WP:POVFORK of convenience food (which itself suffers from some of these same problems). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien those are definitely two different articles -- convenience foods looks at how they are sold, while ultraprocessed food focuses on the public health/policy choices aorund these things. From a seperate article perspective too: the main reason for keeping it seperate is that UN and other public policy agencies and several other prominent research orgs have produced research and recommendations solely based on the definition of the concept. I think the problem is that the criticism of the definition could be framed earlier on with a bit more summary. However, I get the impression that @Ggck2 -- is an author of some of the criticisms.

Additionally, Ultra-Processed food is not a nutritional category (or meant to be) but a commercial/industrial category -- and most of the studies are corollary from a public health perspective. Nutrition and public health related food research took a hard fork many decades ago (there was a podcast I recently listened about this can't find it now), and they use two different methodologies for finding "truths" -- one more biochemical and trial based and the other based on systems effects and social interventions. I doubt you would be able to get both groups to agree because they are looking at different evidence, and have different standards for what is "good" for the food system. Sadads (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have written about UPF and have made this clear - hence I would find it inappropriate to contribute to the article - but I don't think it would stop me from commenting as I do have some expertise. The concept is far from universally accepted among nutrition scientists because there are numerous problems with the definition, but this is not reflected in the article here. There are recommendations by the FAO, but most national organisations are very quiet about it (IIRC, France and Brazil do use it, but EFSA, FDA or UK does not).

Ultra-processed food is commonly used as a category of food - whether it is commercial or not is an interesting question (some of the definitions require this, others don't). Being involved in nutrition and nutrition related public health, I seriously question that these two separated decades ago - both is exactly the type of research I am involved in and a lot of nutrition funding is exactly looking into links between nutrition, health and public health nutrition (one example is the UK's TUKFS programme [[3]]).

But in the end, this does not really address the initial question, i.e. whether this article is NPOV or not - and I think not including criticism and dismissing critics for having industry links does not make it NPOV. Ggck2 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ggck2 I tried clarifying the criticism in the lead, per the discussion here using the sources already in the article and mentioned in the discussion. I could agree that the overall article needs a lot of work -- and the useful thing would be citations from non-experts critiquing the definition, more broadly. I am happy to read and summarize them, or if you have suggestions on how to improve sections happy to do it.

That being said -- the overwhelming evidence that highly processed and engineered foods are both a) addictive and b) leads to eating behavior's that is correlated with a number of public health issues -- is hard to avoid, and is the dominant opinion of press and the literature I have seen. Though we should include the criticism, this is more a matter of WP:UNDUE rather than NPOV-- placing too much emphasis on the criticism of the definition, reflects a substantial minority group of investigators doing good work from an academic perspective (i.e. making sure we are using language and science precisely), but doesn't necessarily represent the overwhelming weight of opinions from sources using the concept "Ultra-processed food", Sadads (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sadads - I don't think that 'overwhelming evidence' is really a consensus. If you look at this comment here [[4]] (and I appreciate that this is not ideal), you will notice that the concept is still under a lot of discussion. Hence my criticism regarding neutrality. My only experience here is with nutrients and bioactives - where there are very clear rules against the use of primary literature - and this article does not meet these criterias.

If it is permissible, I would really like to have @Zefr's opinion as this editor has been shown to be quite critical of unfunded claims. Ggck2 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Best if we have a proposed statement accompanied by a reputable review, of which there are several in the article. Zefr (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no secondary literature quoted in the article - there are some meta-analyses available, but they rely exclusively on observational data which is a bit hit (24h recalls, diaries) and miss (FFQ), but that would definitely be better. But this doesn't really address the main criticism, which is that the definition is ambiguous (see e.g. here [[5]] for a comparison of expert classifications).

As @Thebiguglyalien commented: the current article is not neutral but focuses on one side (all bad) and dismisses criticism (linked to industry). Considering that most people who work with food processing have links to industry (not many people outside do food processing), this is not really surprising, but does not mean they are invalid. Ggck2 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A valid criticism of the NOVA method of categorising foods as "ultra-processed" is that fortified breakfast cereals will be classified as ultra-processed foods and lumped into the same category as sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meat, and ready meals. The problem here is that many breakfast cereals, especially fortified and ones that have a good fibre content are not unhealthy foods. The British Heart Foundation have noticed this [6] and there is epidemiological data to support it, for example this review [7] that found that breakfast cereals were associated with a lower mortality risk whilst processed meat and sugar-sweetened beverages significantly increase the risk. However, there is a large agreement that most ultra-processed foods are not healthy. There are only a few exceptions, breakfast cereals are the most notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to take out the stronger statements - I think there are a lot of nuances that need to be addressed that are (IMHO) beyond the scope of this article. Ggck2 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The article still needs more work, but could I suggest that enough has been done to remove the POV tag? AndrewNJ (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)