Ultraprocessed foods are under scrutiny as their reputation continues to face severe criticism. Numerous studies have associated these foods with various chronic diseases, leading journalists and health advocates to label them as detrimental to health. In some cases, public health experts have even advocated for a global halt to their production and consumption.
Despite the prevailing narrative, the debate surrounding ultraprocessed foods is not as straightforward as it appears. Researchers studying social movements in food and health are examining the history of processed foods, along with the scientific and political dimensions of ultraprocessing. Generally, ultraprocessed foods are defined as mass-produced items made from ingredients not typically found in home kitchens, which usually lack intact whole foods.
The very definition of ultraprocessed remains contentious. Advocates argue that this category of food is harmful to public health, while some skeptics suggest that the current discourse represents a moral panic around food choices, asserting that certain ultraprocessed items can fit within a healthy diet.
A Brief History of Food Processing
The practice of processing food—transforming crops and animals into consumable products—has been part of human history for two million years, with cooking being the earliest form of food processing. As time progressed, traditional methods such as grinding, baking, fermenting, and drying developed. With the advent of the industrial age in the mid-18th century, new processing methods, such as canning, pasteurization, and refrigeration, transformed food consumption and the broader society.
Prior to industrialization, food was primarily local, with minimal means for preservation. Food processing aimed to enhance safety, shelf life, quality, and convenience. By the mid-20th to 21st century, technological advancements allowed for the standardization of processed foods, making them more accessible but also raising concerns over public health, as many contained high levels of sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats linked to obesity and other diseases.
Food Processing and the NOVA Framework
By the mid-2000s, advocates began to emphasize the impact of food processing over specific nutrients on chronic disease. In 2009, Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro introduced the term “ultraprocessing” as part of the NOVA classification system, which categorizes food based on its processing level. It includes four categories, with ultraprocessed foods (Category 4) defined as those that are industrially manufactured and cannot be made at home.
Today, ultraprocessed foods account for more than 50% of total caloric intake in the United States and increasingly feature in diets worldwide, including in many low- and middle-income nations.
Unsettled Science
Research has consistently linked higher consumption of ultraprocessed foods to an increased risk of chronic diseases and early mortality. However, the situation is nuanced. Certain ultraprocessed items, such as sugary beverages and processed meats, show strong associations with negative health outcomes, while others like breads and yogurts do not consistently correlate with adverse health effects.
Only a limited number of long-term studies have demonstrated the causal effects of ultraprocessed foods on health. Clinical trials generally indicate that participants consuming ultraprocessed diets gain more weight compared to those on minimally processed diets, but research is insufficient to assert long-term health impacts.
A Tricky Definition
The definition of “ultraprocessed” is seen as ambiguous by some food scientists. For example, a cake baked at home could be categorized as processed, while the same cake produced using commercial methods and preservatives would be considered ultraprocessed. Many nutrition experts argue that poor nutritional profiles, rather than processing per se, explain the health risks of certain foods.
Critics of vilifying ultraprocessed foods caution that such actions could foster anxiety and unhealthy relationships with food. They highlight the importance of convenience and affordability provided by these products, especially for families relying on them.
Meanwhile, proponents for regulation contend that there is enough evidence to make policy changes regarding the production and marketing of ultraprocessed foods for the benefit of public health. They argue that ultraprocessed foods reflect broader issues within an unsustainable industrial food system dominated by large corporations.
As the discourse continues, experts agree on the need for a healthier food environment, albeit with differing views on whether to focus specifically on ultraprocessing or on traditional nutritional concerns. The conversation remains dynamic as new research emerges on the implications of ultraprocessed foods on health.
