I think it’s a good thing. The word has been far too wide an umbrella for far too long.
“Things like salmon and eggs wouldn’t have qualified under our previous definition,”
oh, dear… like, should we be listening to their other “expert advice?”
Theybwere working with 30 year old data and definitions…30 years ago eggs were poisonous!
I am ambivalent about this new definition, and really just entire direction the FDA is going.
I think the government should avoid setting rules/guidelines for subjective terms like “healthy” or “nutritious” or “beneficial”.
Because what is healthy to me, may not be for you. If I am a vegetarian, salmon is not healthy for me, even though it may be for you who is an omnivore or a pescatarian.
“Theybwere working with 30 year old data and definitions”
indeed. my point exactly… what other imperative emergency OMG recommendations are they basing on 30 year old data and definitions . . . .
my BIL did a career at the Soc Sec Admin. up thru the mid 1990’s he would call me at work to help him get his 8086 DOS computer working again . . .
This is a weird take, like saying peanuts can’t be recommended because some people are allergic.
Actually, no - salmon is still healthy, you just don’t eat it because of a dietary restriction that is unrelated.
The item’s qualities don’t change because of personal choices or restrictions or allergies.
As with the peanut example.
That’s a personal preference or choice that has no impact on a food’s health benefits.
Would it be too pedantic to point out that living things can be sick or healthy but foods should not be labeled “healthy” rather than “healthful” or “health promoting” or the like?
I listened to the NPR report, makes sense to me. In context to what they define healthy as, this makes sense.
This is really the rub, though:
“more than half the American diet comes from processed, packaged foods”
The TJ thread is pretty lengthy and a good indication
Most of what’s discussed there is new products - snacks, desserts, condiments.
Not 50% of the diet.
People also buy proteins, fruit, dairy, and veg there, they just don’t feel the need to Yea or Nay them.
But TJ relies heavily on UPF as part of their success and most of the discussed items in the thread are UPF
The incorrect assumption is they are 50% of the diet of those commenting
Absolutely…who posts about buying really great broccoli? Also thr TJ thread is usually focused on new items… pretty sure chicken and vegetables are in regular rotation.
It would be interesting to see what % of daily calorie intake even people on this board who are much more interested in food and its preparation than the “average “ person comes through UPF. The definition of UPF is very broad
Why don’t you start a poll here and find out?
Yes, but also not really standardized (probably intentionally).
But i think what you’re getting at is that people are consuming a lot more ultra processed food even when they think they’re generally healthful eaters, because they’re not counting cereal, packaged bread, cookies and crackers, deli meats and other processed proteins like bacon and sausage, ice cream, non-dairy milks, packaged cheese, and so on and so forth.
