Although frustrating how can new guidelines be implemented if there isn’t a scientific definition of the term? For example do we categorise UPF’s based on the type of food, such as ready meals and chocolate? Or do we categorise them on what they are made of – a list of chemicals that no one actually knows or recognises. This was demonstrated in the documentary by Tim Rycroft, part of the food and drink federation, who stated he rejects the data presented to him for this very reason – lack of a scientific definition. Whilst this could be an ideal message to send out to the public, proved by Brazil, France and Canada who advised their citizens to avoid UPF’s the truth is that without a scientific definition it leaves the research open to criticism from the powerful food business lobby.
Some may wonder why there seems to be an incessant need to over-analyse everything, and that it should be kept simple – avoid processed foods and consume more whole foods. There has always been an issue surrounding diet and vagueness, such as the over-suggested ‘eat more fruit and vegetables’ trope or ‘5 a day’, without explaining how they differ from a packet of crisps. Despite ultra processed foods (UPF’s) being the subject of an increased amount of scientific research that supports the hypothesis stating they are detrimental to our health, the term UPF actually still lacks a scientific definition.
0 kommentar(er)
