Ne plus(-size) ultra

 

On 8 July Medsape published a piece on Ultra-Processed Food

What Is Ultraprocessed Food, and What Are Its Effects? 

with this intriguing note:

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Seldom  missing an opportunity to be intrigued, especially where Portuguese is concerned, I followed the link to the original, published  nearly a week earlier:

Alimentos ultraprocessados: Uma ameaça tão evidente quanto a crise climática?

The story is not 'AI-mediated mistranslation misrepresents important research'. As far as I can tell without the sort of fine-tooth-combery which I don't feel like doing at the moment; the two articles are broadly similar. But there is a fairly signficant editorial difference, at least in tone (partcularly as far as the headline is concerned). It doesn't take a Portuguese expert to see that 'uma ameaça' (the English cognate is 'menace') is more value-laden than the gentle 'what are its effects/'. And the comparison in tone is even more stark when the 'menace' is is characterized as being 'as evident (obvious? unarguable? urgent? 'real and present"?) as the climate crisis'. 

 Another difference is socio-poitical. Where the English version has the subhead Proof of concept the Portuguese version (Brasilian I imagine, as the 2010 canference was held in São Paolo) has the defensive 

Avaliando a contradição: o canadense que testou a NOVA 

(how can a mere norteamericano put a Brasilian concept to the test? The effrontery!)

But I'm inclined to think that the comparison with the climate crisis may be apposite:

Monteiro ... highlighted a study showing that people with diets rich in ultraprocessed food consume many more calories, often exceeding 5000 per day, thus resulting in weight gain. The post hoc analysis of this study suggests that the hyperpalatability and high caloric density of these foods are the main factors contributing to this excessive consumption. Another point raised was the deterioration of the nutritional quality of foods due to ultraprocessing, which reduces the content of beneficial phytochemicals, such as flavonoids. According to Monteiro, these characteristics are "a recipe for diseases." Processing also "creates chemical contaminants, such as acrylamide and bisphenol, which have proven harmful effects on health," he added. He also addressed the problem of dependence on ultraprocessed food. About 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States show signs of addiction to these foods, he said. Addiction may be amplified by aggressive marketing.

The issue is summed up in Dr Chris van Tulleken's award-winning book:

Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?

 

. 

And the question at the end of the title is not rhetorical: we can't stop because UPF is designed to be addictive.

<paranoia-alert status="query">

This isn't just another right-on hippy conspiracy theory. There aren't evil boffins rubbing their hands like the animated germs in the '50s toothpaste ad, saying 

We'll hurt her teeth and drive her crazy 

It's her fault for being lazy' 

There's no evil conspiracy. It's just good old Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. UPF sells more, so the behaviour that leads to it is reinforced, putting a gastronomical spin on Gtesham's Law: 

Ultraprocessed drives out wholesome

</paranoia-alert>

He goes on:

Worth waiting for. Nuff said (more than enough).

b