That's pretty broad. Some of those things might be harmful, some might not be. I doubt extruding dough, cooking ("chemically modifying") it and wrapping it in plastic makes it any worse for you, for example. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, there may indeed be food additives or chemical treatment process that _do_ make things worse.

Maybe it's not helpful to paint things with such a broad brush, and we should instead focus on specific substances or practices which might be causing problems?

Cooking can form many very bad things, e.g. neurotoxic heterocyclic amines.

Plastics commonly leach hormone disruptors to food.

So, almost all cow milk sold in supermarkets is ultra-processed by this definition: centrifuged, reconstituted in measured ratios of liquids and solids, and pasteurized. Likewise, non-dairy milk like soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel.

That's a heck of a broad definition!

Yes. Coincidently, most modern cow milk is not really good for you.

That's right, paleo cows produced keto-friendly milk back in the stone age.

Ha ha, I maek funny coment.

You know cows didn’t change, we just started separating the milk and reconstructing milk-like products. The classic Simpsons ”Malk” gag is not far off.

> soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel

I'm sure all brands differ, but the box in my fridge says "Ingredients: Water, Organic Soybeans".

AFAIK, if the amount of an ingredient is small enough, it does not need to be listed on the packaging. The label is not authoritatively inclusive. Food for thought.

Example, Tic Tac mints are essentially entirely sugar yet fall under that threshold so the nutritional information reads '0g' of sugar per serving.

yes. very similar to how “organic” constitutes a range of acceptable values and does not mean all ingredients are organic (and organic itself does not mean zero pesticides/chemicals)

As this document acknowledges, though, quite a few normal foods fall under their definition of "ultra-processed". Pasta sauce, sausages, ice cream, even bagged bread are all included.

Thanks! It seems like a two- or three-prong test: (1) cannot be made at home using commonly-available tools and ingredients, (2) uses "industrial techniques" and "additives" and (3) is packaged.

The second prong seems ambiguous to the point of uselessness. "Industrial techniques" are covered by (1); "additives" seemingly impossible to define within this context.

They also have a definition of "additive"

(a) food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, (directly or indirectly) in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods. The term does not include contaminants, or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities, or sodium chloride;

http://www.fao.org/3/Y2770E/y2770e03.htm

The FAO has a standards body that will give you tons of detail to back up their papers.

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/

That would still seem to cover the coagulants necessary to make tofu, the rennet used to make Gruyère or Parmigiano, or nitrates and nitrites for cured meats. I suppose "nor normally used as a typical ingredient" could be the turning point, but that does seem to acknowledge the question's complexity by, effectively, grandfathering in traditional additives.