By Stephen DeAngelis
Most people agree that a diet that includes fresh fruits and vegetables is good for you. Meat-eaters also prefer eating fresh meat, poultry, and seafood. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. As a result, shelf-stable foods have been part of the food supply chain for a long time. Over the past few years, there has been a growing concern about processed and ultra-processed food and how they affect our health. Recently, articles about ultra-processed food products have assumed the shrill tone of today's culture wars. Science writer Matt Simon believes we should chill out and tone down the rhetoric about processed foods. He writes, "It’s time to get real about processed foods. For one, processed doesn’t have to mean unhealthy, and indeed it’s only because of certain processed foods that people around the world get the nutrition they need. Two, processed foods keep better, cutting down on food waste. And three, if we expect to feed a growing population on a planet with finite arable land, we have to engineer new sources of food, protein in particular."[1]
Processed Foods
Unless you are eating food raw, it's being processed in some manner. We process our food, Simon observes, "because our ancestors learned how to cook meat and make bread and, perhaps more importantly, beer." He notes, however, the term "processed food" has taken "on new terror in this era of organic, locally sourced, artisanal, cage-free, free-range, I-want-to-know-the-given-name-of-the-chicken-I’m-eating food." He goes on to explain, "The core of the confusion around processed foods is definitional. According to the Institute of Food Technologists, processing is — and get ready for this — 'one or more of a range of operations, including washing, grinding, mixing, cooling, storing, heating, freezing, filtering, fermenting, extracting, extruding, centrifuging, frying, drying, concentrating, pressurizing, irradiating, microwaving, and packaging.' So … virtually everything you put in your mouth is processed."
A research team from the University of Surrey agrees with Simon that the problem is "definitional." Christina Sadler, who led the research team, explains, "Currently terms surrounding processed foods are not consistently defined and can mean different things to different people, limiting how these terms can then be used effectively in policies or advice. Definitions give meaning to words, avoid multiple interpretations, and enable a common understanding."[2] She adds, "There isn't a direct relationship between whether a food is processed and its nutritional profile." A processed food's "nutritional profile" is the key to determining how it should be viewed, not how it was manufactured or prepared. As Simon observes, "What people likely mean when they invoke processing has more to do with ingredients." Charles Dinerstein, M.D., Medical Director at the American Council on Science and Health, states it even more clearly, "There is not a direct linear relationship between processing and food’s nutritional value."[3]
Hannah Ritchie, a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford, writes, "We need to stop throwing all processed foods into one group. The problem is not the process itself; it’s what we add and how we do it. We can use processing to enhance nutrition or hinder it. We can embrace it where it adds value and boycott it where it doesn’t. The backlash against food processing is a luxury that the world can’t afford to embrace. It’s not good for people or the planet. Nutritionally sound processed foods are one of many tools that will help nourish billions without destroying the environment."[4]
Ultra-processed Foods
If processed foods aren't the villain in today's food supply chain, surely ultra-processed foods (UPF) must be. Right? Health journalist Andrea Petersen writes, "Concern is rising about the amount of ultra-processed foods in American diets, and the effect eating so many of those foods has on our health. ... Products such as many frozen pizzas, cereals and chips pack more calories per gram than less-processed foods do. And most ultra-processed foods have combinations of salt, fat, sugar and carbohydrates that aren’t generally found in nature, which can make us crave them. Diets high in packaged foods without those traits — such as canned peaches or refried beans — don’t seem to lead people to overeat and gain weight, at least not as much."[5] Petersen also notes, "There is no set definition of what makes a food ultra-processed, and scientists are still figuring out exactly why eating a lot of these foods is associated with health problems."[6]
However, vilifying all ultra-processed food can also be misleading. Journalist Marina Bolotnikova writes, "If UPF were a more intellectually modest concept, it might have more analytic value. But much of the UPF literature has committed itself to the untenable position that whatever it classifies as ultra-processed is automatically an inferior choice, even a dangerous one. ... The breadth and ambiguity of the campaign against 'ultra-processed' foods make it vulnerable to sloppy thinking and manipulation by pseudoscience purveyors."[7] As is the case with processed food in general, understanding the nutritional profile of a product is important.
Nicola Guess, a dietitian and researcher at the University of Oxford, argues, "The way we eat desperately needs to change."[8] Many discussions about diets and resulting health conditions, she notes, point to ultra-processed foods as the underlying offender. She writes, "If you have been following recent headlines, it may seem like there’s a single culprit: ultra-processed foods." For example, The Economist reported, "Concerns are growing that the heavy processing used to cook up cheap, tasty nibbles may itself be harmful. A particular target is 'ultra-processed foods'.”[9] Guess writes, "The problem is that the category of ultra-processed foods, which makes up about 60 percent of the American diet by some estimates, is so broad that it borders on useless. It lumps store-bought whole-grain bread and hummus in with cookies, potato chips and soda. While many ultra-processed foods are associated with poor health, others, like breakfast cereals and yogurt, aren’t."
The Economist notes, "At the heart of the debate is a question: are UPFs unhealthy because their nutritional content is poor, or does the processing somehow pose risks in itself?" Although research is thin on this topic, some small, initial studies have been conducted. One such study was carried out by Kevin Hall, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Economist reports, "The results were striking. People on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 more calories per day than those on the unprocessed one. They also ate faster and gained an average of 1kg (2.2 pounds) over two weeks. On the other diet, participants lost a similar amount of weight. Dr Hall says that, though the study was short and conducted in an artificial setting, the results suggest that excess amounts of salt, sugar and fats might not be fully to blame for the ill effects of processed food." A contributing cause, Hall believes, is the fact that "highly processed foods pack more calories per bite." The Economist notes, "Another theory — as anyone who has tried, and failed, to eat just one crisp from a bag can attest — is that highly processed foods are also engineered to be irresistible."
David Benton, Professor Emeritus of Medicine Health and Life Science at Swansea University, insists, "Instead of being viewed as the problem, ultra-processed foods could actually be part of the solution. With advances in food science, we have the technology to create low-calorie, nutritious and affordable processed foods. ... Ultra-processed foods [have] three major advantages — they are cheap, convenient and they usually taste good. Their affordability in particular is an important factor."[10]
Concluding Thoughts
Villainizing all processed foods is bad idea. Giles Yeo, a professor at the University of Cambridge, writes, "You don't need to look far for evidence that ... processing can be good."[11] He adds, "It may have been crucial to our survival as a species. ... Food processing was critical to our ability as a species to survive and thrive, ensuring that we had a predictable source of calories through seasonal changes in the availability of fresh food, and buffering against environmental crises such as drought. So while the term ‘processed food’ is associated with a whole host of negative connotations, the devil truly is in the detail." Consumer packaged goods (CPG) manufacturers are keenly aware of changing consumer behaviors and attitudes. The Economist reports, "The stakes are high. If pressure from governments ratchets up, the food industry will have to do more than tweak its recipes or roll out some new product lines. Companies would have to completely overhaul their manufacturing processes. Ditching additives could make products more expensive to produce and shorten their shelf life, cutting into profits. Big food has so far managed to thrive even as concerns have swirled around consumers’ health. With UPFs, it could face its most daunting challenge yet."[12] I'm betting the food supply chain is up to the challenge.
Footnotes
[1] Matt Simon, "Let's All Just Chill About Processed Foods," Wired, 9 September 2019.
[2] Katy Askew, "'Processed' food is not inherently unhealthy: 'These concepts need to be dissociated'," Food Navigator Europe, 30 March 2021.
[3] Charles Dinerstein, "Are Processed Foods Bad?" American Council on Science and Health, 30 March 2021.
[4] Hannah Ritchie, "The World Needs Processed Food," Wired, 23 November 2022.
[5] Andrea Petersen, "Are Some Ultra-Processed Foods OK? New Study Has Answers," The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2025.
[6] Andrea Petersen, "The Trouble With America’s Ultra-Processed Diet," The Wall Street Journal, 14 November 2023.
[7] Marina Bolotnikova, "You’re being lied to about 'ultra-processed' foods," Vox, 19 December 2024.
[8] Nicola Guess, "Why Ultraprocessed Foods Aren’t Always Bad," The New York Times, 16 December 2024.
[9] Staff, "Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad for you," The Economist, 25 November 2024.
[10] David Benton, "Ultra-processed foods: we have the technology to turn them from foe into friend," The Conversation, 9 October 2024.
[11] Giles Yeo, "The biggest myth about processed food, debunked by science," BBC Science Focus, 14 October 2024.
[12] Staff, "Can big food adapt to healthier diets?" The Economist, 18 August 2024.
Published 27 May 2025
.jpg)
