3
Should "ultra-processed" be used as a regulatory category at all?
Results
(96 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-863425ultra-processing can be useful for public-health regulation, but it should be considered together with nutritional composition and other evidence.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-37602Ultra-processing is still required, but consumers need more information
- No, it is too poorly defined to carry legal consequencesuser-550298Many specialists talk about the drawbacks of eating ultra-processed foods. But not everyone is clear on which foods they mean. They almost always avoid products that come in boxes.
- No, the category is not scientifically validuser-476126See answers above, this is not a scientifically valid term.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-139009A better approach is to combine the degree of industrial processing with strict nutrient criteria, such as sugar, sodium, and saturated fat levels. By this way, the public can be simultaneously informed and protected from chemicals.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-558814Ultra processing is a dilution in nutrients.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-908228I think the term can be useful, but I would be cautious about using it as a stand-alone regulatory category. Processing should be considered together with nutrient composition and other relevant characteristics of the food before it is used to make regulatory decisions.
- Yes, it is a sound basis for regulationuser-194025Our physical health is in sync with nature. When we eat food in its natural state, the human body readily absorbs its nutrients and thrives. However, when those same foods are processed to extend shelf life and make them savory, they lose their essential benefits, and our bodies struggle to absorb them. This is the root cause of modern chronic illness.
- No, the category is not scientifically validuser-377267See above, an ill-defined term without any meaning for human health.
- Yes, it is a sound basis for regulationuser-890708加强监管，严格审批。
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-321135There is nutriscore in France that takes into account nutrient criteria that includes level of processing.
- Yes, it is a sound basis for regulationuser-792840This will provide a solution to a public health crisis which has arisen due to the marketing of chemically formulated junk food.
- No, it is too poorly defined to carry legal consequencesuser-573979ultra-processed expression clearly explained it should be.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-180659In my view, the idea of ultra-processed foods can be useful for regulation, but it should not be the only base for legal decision. There is still uncertain about definition and classification of this category, and not all foods in it have same nutrition. So it is better to look at degree of processing together with criteria like level of sugar, salt, fat, and fiber, and other indicator of nutritional quality. If we combine these two type of criteria, maybe we can have more scientific and fair basis for food regulation.
- Yes, but only alongside nutrient criteriauser-720069category can be useful for regulation, especially for marketing restrictions or food labelling. Nutritional quality, portion size and the overall dietary context still matter and should be added.