Talking Honestly About Ultra-Processed Foods Still Matters

I’ve noticed an increasing number of online articles and social media posts dismissing the concerns surrounding ultra-processed foods (UPFs), arguing that they are being unfairly labelled as ‘bad’.

Do I think the big food corporations are encouraging this? Yes.

Do I think they’re trying to delay the conversation while they figure out how to keep profits flowing? Absolutely!

Some people seem hell bent on shutting down and muddying the conversation about UPFs, dismissing it as just another fad. I have read posts saying that labelling foods as ultra-processed is unfair and confusing and that scientific evidence is being misrepresented.

I have also come across online articles that argue the debate should stop altogether because ultra-processed foods help poorer families put meals on the table, and that calling them out amounts to food shaming. I even came across one article suggesting that raising concerns about UPFs has become a way for people to show off their affluence!

I can see why these posts and articles might convince people that UPFs are not that bad. But for me, they ignore some uncomfortable truths about what ultra-processed foods actually are and why it’s important to talk about them.

The term ‘ultra-processed’ didn’t start on social media; it comes from the NOVA classification system, which was developed by Professor Monteiro's team at the University of São Paulo in Brazil in the late 2000s. Professor Monteiro noticed that people continued to gain weight even when their diets were similar on paper.

His research shows that it isn't just what’s in our food that matters, it’s also about how it has been processed and how that processing affects our health. The NOVA system puts foods into four groups:

• Unprocessed or minimally processed foods

• Processed culinary ingredients

• Processed foods

• Ultra-processed foods

The last category, ‘ultra-processed foods’, includes edible products made in factories, mostly from refined ingredients, additives and artificial flavourings not real, recognisable ingredients. These foods are not just more processed, they are fundamentally different.

Understanding the difference between processing and ultra-processing matters. Processing doesn’t just change a food’s texture or taste, it changes the affect that it has on our bodies.

A few additives here and there are probably not that concerning, but when most of the food we eat contains a multitude of additives, preservatives and flavour enhancers, the cumulative effect takes a toll on our health. The NOVA system can be a helpful guide for making the changes our food system desperately needs.

Research linking higher consumption of ultra-processed foods to poorer health has been growing steadily since the early 2010s. (If you have started changing your diet and reducing how many ultra-processed foods that you eat, you will have gathered your own evidence!)

There are so many studies which show that people who eat more ultra-processed foods have higher risks of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and even early death. This is true even once things like income, education and physical activity have been taken into account. This isn’t scaremongering, it’s evidence.

Those defending UPFs argue that criticising them is unfair to people on tight budgets or with busy lives. But that misses the bigger picture. The issue isn’t about individual choices, it’s the food system itself. Poor diets aren’t a personal failing, they’re the result of a system that pushes cheap, ultra-processed foods at people.

Ultra-processed foods dominate supermarket shelves because they’re cheap to produce, easy to store and extremely profitable. This isn’t about shaming anyone, it’s about accountability. No one should have to rely on unhealthy products just because they’re the most available or affordable. Once we understand what UPFs really are, we can start addressing what’s broken, from school meals and food prices to access to fresh, real food.

It’s important not to blur the line between processed and ultra-processed foods, they are very different. Traditional processing methods, things like fermenting, freezing, drying, smoking or canning, have been around for centuries.

These innovations helped to transform foods, improve flavour and make them easier to store or prepare, without the need for synthetic chemicals. They also enhanced the nutritional value of foods, for example yoghurt, tinned beans, or whole grains, making them both practical and healthy.

Ultra-processing, on the other hand, is all about making products that are cheap, addictive and ridiculously long lasting. These foods are loaded with sugars, fats, artificial colours and flavour enhancers, but offer very little real nutrition. Ultra-processing is profit-driven, not health-driven.

That’s not innovation (unless you count clever marketing). Modern food innovation should make foods healthier, more sustainable, or more convenient without harming our health. We should celebrate that kind of innovation, but not confuse it with ultra-processing, which over time worsens diet quality, health and life expectancy.

It’s worth remembering that the term ‘ultra-processed’ comes from scientists, not social media influencers. If the term has been misunderstood online, the solution isn’t to stop using it, it’s to explain it more clearly. People deserve straightforward, honest information about their food. Pretending all processing is the same only protects the multi-billion pound corporations that profit from the confusion.

Everyone deserves respect and to have a choice when it comes to what they eat. But we also have to face the reality that diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked to poorer health outcomes and wider inequality. This isn’t about blaming people, it’s about recognising that the system makes unhealthy options the easiest ones. We need to find ways to change that.

We shouldn’t stop talking about ultra-processed foods. We should be talking about them more. More clearly, more honestly and with more focus on practical solutions.

Have a look around my website for tips on making healthier choices in your own diet.

Some key studies worth reading:

Monteiro et al., Public Health Nutrition (2018) – explains how UPFs are classified

Srour et al., BMJ (2019) – links UPFs to heart disease

Pagliai et al., British Journal of Nutrition (2021) – review of 43 studies showing worse health with higher UPF intake

Lane et al., Obesity Reviews (2021) – consistent evidence across countries

Baker et al., Obesity Reviews (2020) – shows how global corporations drive UPF sales

Moodie et al., The Lancet (2013) – compares UPF marketing tactics to those of tobacco and alcohol

Fardet, Food & Function (2016) – shows minimally processed foods keep you fuller for longer