Why not all ultra-processed foods are bad for you

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been labeled as “poison,” “addictive,” and “junk.” This negative perception is understandable, with links to a wide range of health issues, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression, and anxiety.

The transformative impact of UPFs on food systems is profound, making contemporary diets scarcely recognizable to our ancestors. Evolutionarily, we are still catching up.

As a primary target for public health initiatives aimed at combatting chronic diet-related diseases in the UK and US, a shift in how we view UPFs is essential. Not all ultra-processed items are created equal; equating flavored yogurt and wholegrain bread with cakes and sugary cereals is misguided. Just because a food is classified as ultra-processed doesn’t inherently mean it is unhealthy. Our understanding should be rooted in the science available.

Increased consumption of UPFs typically leads to higher levels of saturated fats, sugars, and sodium, while reducing intake of fiber, proteins, and vital micronutrients—this trend is contrary to healthy dietary practices. However, recent studies led by Kevin indicate that UPFs which are energy-dense or hyperpalatable (combinations of nutrients rarely found together, such as high fat with sugar or salt) are the main culprits in weight gain.

Conversely, when individuals consume non-energy dense and less appealing UPFs, they do not necessarily gain weight and may even lose weight without explicitly targeting weight loss.

These revelations hold significant implications for personal dietary choices as well as nutrition policy. Instead of aiming to eliminate all UPFs, we should focus on those failing to align with healthy food standards. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun this approach by defining “healthy” foods, mirroring the UK’s nutritional profiling. This framework emphasizes the need for fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while capping levels of sugars, sodium, and saturated fats. By addressing UPFs that are both energy-dense and contain hyperpalatable nutrient mixes, we can target the products generating the most health concerns.

Addressing these specific products necessitates implementing public health strategies similar to those employed to reduce tobacco use: enforcing marketing restrictions, mandating labeling, and imposing taxes. Additionally, it’s vital to create policies that enhance the availability, convenience, and affordability of healthy foods and incentivize manufacturers to improve the health profiles of their UPFs, like healthier frozen pizzas topped with vegetables.

Many UPFs already meet the FDA’s definition of healthy (for instance, wholegrain bread or yogurt). Such items would not fall under these proposed regulations. Many consumers also rely on convenient UPFs like pasta sauces, frozen meals, canned beans, and bread as part of a balanced diet. It is crucial to pinpoint which UPFs pose the greatest risk of harm.

UPFs are here to stay for the foreseeable future, and ongoing research will continue to unveil their effects. Thus, we should strive for a balanced perspective—understanding the harm certain UPFs may cause while facilitating a constructive and healthy coexistence.

Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall are the co-authors of Food Intelligence: The science of how food both nourishes and harms us