|
|
|
|
|
|
by kelipso
139 days ago
|
|
|
The NOVA definition is meant to classify ultra processed foods, correct? You seem to want the NOVA definition to classify between “healthy, non addictive foods” vs “hyper palatable foods”. What these studies are doing is finding correlations between ultra processed foods and bad health. While the definition you seem to want would cause all sorts of circular definitions. |
|
|
Yes. It does so very badly.
> You seem to want the NOVA definition to classify between “healthy, non addictive foods” vs “hyper palatable foods”.
If by "you", you mean "a ton of people who are involved in health policy", yes.
> What these studies are doing is finding correlations between ultra processed foods and bad health.
It's flawed because (A) Nova is so ambiguous and useless that we can't actually assume that "it was categorized via Nova" is true (B) what they hone in on is not actually related to Nova, it's actually about palatability, which Nova has no framework for. Inclusion of Nova is strictly detrimental to the conversation.