Garrett Broad

Nova group 4 is a broad range of products that vary widely in composition, processing, and nutrient profiles. Some UPFs (eg, yoghurts, breakfast cereals, and packaged breads) might be superior than others (eg, soft drinks, cookies, and reconstituted meat products). However, within each category of food, the composition and processing characteristics of ultra-processed versions make them inferior to their non-ultra-processed counterparts. For instance, ultra-processed yoghurts—often made from skimmed milk powder, modified starches, sugar or non-sugar sweeteners, emulsifiers, flavourings, and colourings—are inferior to plain yoghurts with fresh fruits. Ultra-processed breakfast cereals, made from sugar, extruded starches, and additives, are inferior to minimally processed steel-cut oats. Ultra-processed wholewheat breads, made with refined flour, added bran and germ, and emulsifiers, are inferior to processed breads made with wholewheat flour and without emulsifiers. Soft drinks are clearly less healthy than water or pasteurised, 100% fruit juices; cookies less healthy than fruits and nuts; and reconstituted meat products less healthy than freshly prepared meat dishes. Possible exceptions—such as ultra-processed infant formulas compared with minimally processed cow's milk (although not human milk), or ultra-processed plant-based burgers compared with processed meat burgers (though not processed tofu or tempeh)—do not invalidate the general rule that ultra-processed versions of foods are inferior to their non-ultra-processed counterparts. This rule is what supports the hypotheses that the displacement of dietary patterns based on Nova groups 1–3 by the ultra-processed pattern is linked to worsening diet quality and an increased risk of multiple diseases.

Included in that definition is a note that there are possible exceptions to the claim that all UPFs are inferior to their non-UPF counterparts, noting the examples of infant formula and plant-based meats. It concludes that these exceptions don't "invalidate the general rule." Why not? Because.

Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence This first paper in a three-part Lancet Series combines narrative and systematic reviews with original analyses and meta-analyses to assess three hypotheses concerning a dietary pattern based on ultra...

A new article in The Lancet on ultra-processed foods summarizes the main thesis and evidence regarding effects on health. The definition of UPFs is 736 words long. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

The UPF literature is a mess. bsky.app/profile/garr...

The concept of "ultra-processed foods" (UPFs) was supposed to IMPROVE conversations about food systems, nutrition, & the environment. I wrote about why that has NOT been the case -- for the 25th anniversary issue of @gastronomica. 1/ online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica...

"At no other point in human history could someone opt for the meat of their choice for three meals every day, without getting any blood on their own hands, and then post about it on social media to claim they are living like their ancestors."

Read more here and feel free to reach out if you need help accessing the paper. 9/9 online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica...

But efforts to make food systems healthy need to be based in 1) good nutritional evidence, 2) good environmental evidence, and 3) realistic social contexts. To this point, the UPF/NOVA frameworks are not cutting it. 8/

It can be hard to argue against the UPF concept without sounding like a shill for processed foods. To be clear, we should be supporting efforts to help people eat minimally processed whole foods! And the food industry has done some bad stuff to get people hooked on junk food! 7/

Just as important, the rhetoric of the anti-UPF brigade is deeply alarmist, often disconnected and elitist, and frequently selling you something. In the case of RFK Jr/MAHA, it's also a distraction from the ways they are undermining effective public health approaches. 6/

The idea that UPFs are uniquely bad for the environment is upended by the fact that lots of animal-sourced foods with demonstrably poor environmental impacts are granted a non-UPF halo while lots of environmentally sound plant-based foods are deemed destructive UPFs. 5/

The NOVA system is just not good! The categories are confusing and unreliable. Some UPFs are actually good for you. Some non-UPFs are clearly unhealthy. Evidence connecting UPFs to poor health is mostly explained by a few categories -- especially sugar-sweetened beverages. 4/

But as UPFs have permeated nutritional discourse, it's proven to be just as reductionist as its predecessors -- just in different ways. Now, whether a food is "good" or "bad" gets decided by its place within the 4 categories of NOVA. But here's the problem... 3/

When I first learned about UPFs and the NOVA system, I was optimistic. I agree that the "goodness" of a food should not JUST be about its nutritional composition. Reductionism can be bad! We should consider food's impacts on culture and ecology too! 2/

The concept of "ultra-processed foods" (UPFs) was supposed to IMPROVE conversations about food systems, nutrition, & the environment. I wrote about why that has NOT been the case -- for the 25th anniversary issue of @gastronomica. 1/ online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica...

If it comes down to late-breaking undecideds, I think Ciattarelli will be the next governor. At the very least, he comes across as authentically FROM HERE, whereas she seems like she was made in a lab by highly-paid Democratic consultants. I hope I'm wrong...

Prediction markets have Sherrill at around 85% to win NJ governor, but I gotta say it feels much more like a toss-up/lean Ciattarelli based on my unscientific observational drives through South Jersey. Absolutely no enthusiasm for Sherrill...

A useful rejoinder to the Consumer Reports study on lead in protein powders...

No, your protein powder isn’t poisoning you New testing finds two-thirds of popular protein powders exceed lead limits — especially plant-based brands. What you need to know before your next scoop — and why the reality is different.

You may have read that your protein supplements are giving you lead poisoning. That's not the case. If you want to have protein shakes, that's fine. But whether you need to and whether they're safely regulated is a different story. My latest for @vox.com.

www.vox.com/future-perfe...

Also, they don't report the primary registered outcome (sperm DNA methylation, which they say they will report in a future paper), and they don't say why.

And it doesn't seem to occur to them that sat fat, sugar, and fiber, rather than processing, might be the issue.

HT @garrettbroad.bsky.social

tldr on the latest ultraprocessed foods experiment -- turns out a diet with "elevated levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, refined grains, added sugars, & dairy products & lower amounts of fiber" can lead to bad outcomes. Sorry but this is not a shocking finding about the harms of food processing!

The idea that processing is the only thing that matters irrespective of nutritional composition is bizarre. We can do multiple things at once -- encourage minimally processed foods (which are good!), limit nutritionally poor UPFs, AND improve nutrition of UPFs because they have useful functions too.

Ultra-processed foods destroy health in 3 ‘alarming’ ways: ‘We were shocked’ UPFs are characterized not only by their potentially dangerous and lab-made ingredients but also by the industrial scale of their manufacturing.

Given that, this result seems like something that shouldn't be so shocking, despite the NYPost headline and the quote from the lead author? UPFs tend to have much worse nutritional composition, we've known this! Why do we act like we're uncovering some big mystery? nypost.com/2025/10/06/h... 3/

"Compared with the unprocessed diet, the ultra-processed diet contained elevated levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, refined grains, added sugars, and dairy products and lower amounts of fiber." So while these diets were matched for calories, they were NOT NUTRITIONALLY EQUIVALENT. 2/

Effect of ultra-processed food consumption on male reproductive and metabolic health This randomized controlled nutrition intervention conducted in males of reproductive age shows that, compared with an unprocessed diet, consumption of ultra-processed foods impairs metabolic and repro...

Another RCT on ultra-processed vs minimally processed foods came out! The headline from this one -- despite matching diets for calories, the UPF diet impaired cardiometabolic and male reproductive health, independent of caloric intake! But let's read closer... 1/
www.cell.com/cell-metabol...

Journalism Has Become More Challenging, for Reporters and Sources Researchers are more reluctant to give interviews since Trump returned to the White House.

One of our reporters had a source back out, worried they might lose their federal funding depending on the coverage. The story was about a rewilding project (the benefits are not controversial!) but it didn't matter. @gracehussain.bsky.social wrote about it here:
sentientmedia.org/journalism-h...

I recently had a chance to ask EPA's Region 2 Administrator about the drastic cuts to his agency, which he brushed off as mostly eliminating programs that were not aligned with their core mission. He came across as a talented and effective bullshitter, which seems to be the main job requirement.

Crazy idea -- what if we decided not to base our farm economy on growing soybeans for the global animal feed market, and instead focused on growing FOOD FOR PEOPLE.

@calleymeans on X writes: The cancer rate for the Amish is 40% lower than the general population. Why? Followed by screenshot of article from PubMed Central that writes: The age-adjusted cancer incidence rate for all cancers among the Amish adults was 60% of the age-adjusted adult rate in Ohio (389.5/105 vs. 646.9/105; p < 0.0001). The incidence rate for

Results The age-adjusted cancer incidence rate for all cancers among the Amish adults was 60% of the age-adjusted adult rate in Ohio (389.5/105 vs. 646.9/105; p < 0.0001). The incidence rate for tobacco-related cancers in the Amish was 37% of the rate for Ohio adults (p < 0.0001). The incidence rate for non-tobacco-related cancers in the Amish was 72% of the age-adjusted adult rate in Ohio (p = 0.0001).

RFK Jr's right-hand man Calley Means asks the ominous rhetorical question -- why is the Amish cancer rate so low? Meanwhile, the answer is LITERALLY THE NEXT LINE OF THE PAPER'S ABSTRACT -- it's mostly a product of tobacco abstinence.

Honestly this should just be the new HHS motto: "The saddest display of a lack of evidence, rumors, recycling old myths, lousy advice, outright lies and dangerous advice we have ever witnessed by anyone in authority in the world claiming to know anything about science."

Surgeon General Nominee Pledges to Divest From Wellness Interests

Oh wow Casey Means is making a shitload of wellness industry money and not just doing it out of the kindness of her pure heart who knew

www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/h...