Talk:Ultra-processed food/Archive 1

Move

User:Alexbrn it looks like this has been incorrectly WP:CUTPASTE moved. Widefox; talk 00:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't be moved because the target article existed already (?). An admin could reconcile the histories but there's no discussion or editing of significance worth preserving is there? Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn Moving it was right, I'd considered doing it myself but left it after creating the redirect. Even with a redirect at the target, it was still movable via uncontroversial technical WP:RM or any extendedmovers like me can swap them with no admin required. What makes you say there's nothing worth preserving as there's several editors at the old article? Did you read CUTPASTE? Widefox; talk 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read it. I'm not up on the technicalities of moving so if you can clean up that would be great. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have nistory-merged it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Super, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Risk of industry bias on this page

It's not controversial to say that the food industry has a vested interest in nutrition legislation or controls.

The Wikipedia page on Ultra Processed Food is therefore liable to be a target for self-interest, WP:COI, and this is likely to continue since large sums of money are at stake. And I see on the page evidence of activity by both proponents and critics of the principles of ultra processed food.

There are two paragraphs of criticism. The second one, under Ultra-processed_food#Press_coverage, seems reasonable. But the first one, 'The utility of the NOVA classification has been subject to criticism.[6]', cites a study that has been criticised as bearing the hallmark of industry sponsorship.. The lead author of that article is Michael Gibney who says of himself:

"I was a member of the former Nestle Nutrition Council (1994–2017) and still contribute ad hoc consultancy services to Nestle on dietary survey analysis and nutrient profiling for adults and toddlers. I chaired an international scientific panel advising the food industry–funded Evolved Nutrition Label Initiative on the development of food portion sizes for Europe and also chair the International Breakfast Research Initiative, which is funded by Cereal Partners Worldwide."

FoodPolitics.com examines the influence of industry sponsorship on science, and refers to an article in the European Journal of Nutrition in which 9 [the article says 8] of the 11 authors are employed by Nestle, and of which Michael Gibney is one.

In the interests of balance, I would add that Gibney points out that any association with industry can be used to cast doubt on independence of thought.

Sadgrove (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Massive Quote from WFP

@Eugenie54: we don't use large quotes like that on Wikipedia pages, typically we try to paraphrase and summarize rather than use long quotes. See WP:LONGQUOTE for further information about the expected practices that the community has reached a consensus on. If you need help, I am around -- and I will probably be around in the next few weeks and would be happy to contribute to the article if you would like a partner in the revisions, Sadads (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Blather

this article is just blather. Compare with the abstract here youll see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:3D7C:891A:9755:F237 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

I think the introduction to this topic is not as neutral as it should be. The concept of UPF (and NOVA) is still controversially discussed and I think that the introduction should reflect this. It would be good to state that it is a definition based on the "NOVA" system which is still discussed. Likewise, the claim that intake is associated with health effects - and this is also still a bit controversial. A suggested revision which is shorter but more neutral:

"Ultra-processed foods, also referred to as ultra-processed food products (UPP), is a classification within the NOVA food classification system that categorises foods according to the nature, extent and purpose of food processing.[1][2][3]

In epidemiological studies, ultra-processed food consumption has been associated with adverse health outcomes."

Ggux (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Article largely reads as an Opinion.

This article reads as one-sided and contains many statements that appear to be opinions. It does not meet the standards founds in most other Wikipedia entries. I visited to learn what UPF stood for, and felt like I was being proselytized and not given any/many facts. 2603:8090:2200:35CE:3CAC:15AD:C7E9:78B9 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)