A New England Journal of Medicine article argues that focusing on ultraprocessed foods won't improve public health. The NOVA classification system used to define processing is so vague it rates canned sardines as more processed than maple syrup, and plain sugar as less processed than Parmesan cheese.
Is maple syrup healthier than sardines? Okay, hear me out. I promise we're gonna get back to sugar and fish in a moment. But first, here's a quote from a brand new article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "A focus in national nutrition policy on reducing ultraprocessed food consumption won't make us any healthier." Now, before you throw your raw steak on your grounding mat in frustration, hear me out because the author makes some excellent points. First and foremost, food processing is a vague umbrella term, and that kind of imprecision creates real problems. For example, according to the most widely used classification system, NOVA, canned tuna or tinned sardines are considered more processed than sugar-loaded dried fruit or even straight-up maple syrup. In fact, plain sugar is technically less processed than cheese according to this classification system, which means a block of Parmesan could rank worse than a pile of that white granular insulin abuser. The inconsistencies go on, but the core point is this: is a broad fuzzy attack on processed foods really the best way to guide public policy and legislation? Or for now, should we just treat bad ultra-processed foods like a group text that won't die? It's there, that's fine, it's annoying, but you don't have to touch it if you don't want.
