[drecked]

Your comment conveniently disproves itself.

> It is objectively bad to feed your children ultra processed foods

It’s not “objectively bad” To feed your children ultra processed foods.

Once you do the work of defining what ultra processed food is in the first place (which you cannot because there is no definition and your argument is already lost), you will find that many ultra processed foods are objectively good for children and adults.

But then your comment only tells you what parents shouldn’t feed kids. It doesn’t tell you anything about what they should.

And when you look into that things get a lot harder. Meat? Not ultraprocsssed but almost certainly bad for health, especially in anything more than minor amounts. You know what else isn’t ultra processed? Alcohol.

And I can’t help but comment on the ridiculousness of pointing to the percentage of children being the outcome of rape being less than 1% as a somehow low njmber, while ignoring that it was 64,000 children. And rape isn’t the only way parents may struggle or regret having kids. And you’re pretending post partum depression doesn’t exist. Then you ignore all the children born with illnesses that may make it difficult or impossible for parents to manage them. Then you’re ignoring all the states that allow abortions but parents may still not opt for them because of cultural, religious, or even personal ethical considerations. Then you’re ignoring the fact that so many American marriages end in divorce and even the ones that don’t may not remain as tight knit as they were when the parents made the decision to have a child.

Your entire comment is a whole bunch of wrong based on your personal experience, which thankfully appears to have been positive.

[orwin]

> It’s not “objectively bad” To feed your children ultra processed foods.

It is though, it's in the definition, UPF are distinguished from processed food by having additives of no culinary nor nutritional value. So at best, they aren't better than processed food, at worst, they have additive that increase negative health outcomes.

note that if an additive (let's say high-fructose corn syrup) have inferior nutritional value than the product it replace (let's say honey),it is considered UPF, even if the process is quick and easy (i.e: you don't need a big industrial process to be classified UPF)

That's the definition in my country at least, maybe it's different in the US. I think you mistakenly think UPF are the same as processed food. This isn't the case.

[edit] you're right that it isn't objectively bad, because its rare something is "objectively bad". It is objectively worse though.

[onli]

A good example for upf that is not likely to be bad for you is (European style) frozen pizzas.

And I think your comment is wrong. Parent is right in saying that there is no clear definition of what exactly ultra processed food is. However, in general, processed does not mean having additives, it means processed, running through multiple industrial processes to be made.

[orwin]

> Parent is right in saying that there is no clear definition of what exactly ultra processed food is

The definition of upf is 'food having additive of no culinary or nutritional value'. That's the current definition.

The original nova definition is 'food with additive of no culinary value', which isn't useful for nutritionists, hence it evolved.

I seriously doubt all frozen pizza are upf, the main advantage of frozen food is that you don't have to add nitrite salt or other conservatives. Maybe in some pizzas, to keep colours bright?

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

Thanks for raising the right voice