{"id":19028,"date":"2024-06-18T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-06-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foodmedcenter.org\/?p=19028"},"modified":"2024-06-14T15:26:50","modified_gmt":"2024-06-14T19:26:50","slug":"study-spotlight-take-away-with-chef-dr-mike-plant-based-upfs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foodmedcenter.org\/es_do\/study-spotlight-take-away-with-chef-dr-mike-plant-based-upfs\/","title":{"rendered":"Study Spotlight Take-Away with Chef Dr. Mike: Plant-based UPFs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\u201cThe time has come,\u201d the Walrus said, \u201cTo talk of many things:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of shoes \u2014 and ships \u2014 and sealing-wax \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of cabbages \u2014 and kings \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And why the sea is boiling hot \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And whether pigs have wings.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\u2015 Lewis Carrol, The Walrus and The Carpenter<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

When I first started talking about what we now call ultra-processed foods or UPFs several decades ago, the conversation was somewhat more muddled than it is today. In the beginning, the attempt at definition was reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart\u2019s description of pornography in 1964; \u201cI shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material… but I know it when I see it.\u201d Or in the case of ultra-processed foods, when we taste it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Things changed in 2009 when Prof. Carlos Monteiro and his colleagues from the University of S\u00e3o Paulo, Brazil, introduced the NOVA classification. NOVA focused on the way foods were produced, which was quite a revolutionary perspective in comparison to the nutrient-based emphasis that had dominated discussions since the mid-1980s \u2013 and, in many circles, still does. NOVA provided a detailed description of what constituted an ultra-processed food or, in NOVA parlance, a Group 4 Classification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the unique things that NOVA introduced was the rationale behind why<\/em> Group 4 Classification items were manufactured: for-profit. Let me add at this juncture that there is nothing wrong with manufacturing ultra-processed foods for profit; it\u2019s a business. People have been selling or trading food long before there were UPFs. But ultra-processed foods are not simply natural foods sold or traded for profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our modern world, as NOVA correctly identifies, they are complex manufactured commodities specifically engineered to maximize profit. What this means, in practical terms, is that they are often made from the cheapest ingredients available, formulated for reproducibility, and contain additives and preservatives not found in natural foods to maximize shelf life. They are also often layered with additional salt, sugars, and fats in an effort to appeal to our basest sensual pleasures. They are, as Justice Stewart might categorize them, \u201cfood porn.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This distinction is of great importance. With a huge push from various governmental agencies and interests, including commercial interests, directing consumers towards more \u201cplant-based\u201d alternatives like plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs), being able to sort the options based on ultra-processing or not could be a critical survival skill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does it matter if plant-based foods are ultra-processed, or is the benefit of a plant-based approach manifest regardless of whether the comestibles are ultra-processed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week\u2019s study spotlight takes a deeper dive into that question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Study:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n