by men the feverish world of diet and nutrition, the past year has been dominated by heated arguments about the evils (or not) of ultra-processed foods. These are not only confined to the media but, unusually, have fueled an equally false debate in academic circles. So what is the “truth” about UPFs? Are they as bad for health as many claim? And how are consumers, armed with this information, meant to navigate the supermarket aisles?
Food processing, including cooking, fermentation, pickling, curing and smoking, is as old as mankind. These processes reduced the chance of food poisoning, increased nutritional availability and ensured that we had a predictable source of calories through seasonal changes in the availability of fresh food. They were crucial to our ability as a species to survive and ultimately thrive.
But UPFs are a different beast – they are products of industrial processing methods that we cannot replicate domestically. They include almost all carbonated drinks, ice creams, biscuits, margarines, pastries, cakes, breakfast cereals, stock cubes, infant formulas and mass-produced packaged breads.
They are also cheap to produce, and their long shelf life makes them easy to store and transport. They are cheap and are more likely to be bought and consumed by the less privileged in society. On average, here in the UK, we get around 50% of our calories from UPFs and the ubiquity of these foods is worthy of sober debate.
But at the same time, it’s interesting, at least to me, that some UPFs have not only avoided being drawn with the same brush, but also seem to be associated with an enlightened way of healthy eating.
A case in point is the plant-based dairy substitute and faux-meat burgers, along with many other ultra-processed “premium” foods that make their way into supermarkets and high-end restaurants. In my opinion, these foods have escaped the kind of scrutiny saved for mainstream UPFs. But in terms of processing, there’s really no difference between oat milk crème fraiche and your standard dairy ice cream, or a frozen beef burger patty and a burger made from soy protein.
Nutritionally, oat milk has a lot of oil and emulsifiers and other additives, while a faux-meat burger is still high in sugar, salt and fat; looking through another lens, one could even consider them junk foods. And yet, the debate about UPFs rarely questions why we label some of these foods as more harmful than others.
There is more than enough evidence that excessive consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with worse health outcomes. A meta-analysis of 45 different studies involving nearly 10 million people and published in the British Medical Journal reported links to 32 health concerns, which included early death, cancer, mental health, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and metabolic health outcomes.
This makes sense when you look at how UPFs are made. Most UPFs are inherently lower in protein and fiber and higher in sugar, salt and fat. But the way we talk about UPFs right now makes me feel helpless. The term covers a wide spectrum of different foods, from those that are almost completely reconstructed from their basic ingredients, to otherwise minimally processed foods with a few industrial additives, such as natural yogurt, with a small amount of UPF jam.
I fully understand how eating too much of the former can lead to poorer health outcomes. The latter, however, includes mass-produced supermarket bread, which accounts for a large share of UPF calories consumed. Sure, you can go to a bougie bakery and buy artisan sourdough with no additives that will cost a lot more and taste better than a supermarket loaf. But ultimately, bread is made from flour, salt, water and yeast. That aside, supermarket bread is no worse for you than fancy bread.
I am an unabashed champion of improving our diets to try and stop the current tsunami of diet-related illnesses, and there are certainly many foods that we need to eat far less of without doubt. To do that, we must, first of all, focus on the nutritional content of our food; we should be looking to eat a lot of protein and fiber, and a little less sugar, salt and saturated fats. And the truth is that the only way to do this fairly is to make the healthy choice the cheaper, more convenient and easier option.
I fear that the UPF concept is too nuanced to be an arbiter of how healthy or unhealthy a particular food might be, and even worse, that it is currently being used as another trigger for food shaming. put on others; while at the same time, the privileged in society celebrate and congratulate themselves for eating similar processed foods with better PR.
