Why not all ultra-processed foods are bad for you

They’ve been called “poison,” “addictive,” and “junk,” but no matter how you describe ultra-processed foods (UPF), it’s clear they’re the nutritional bogeyman du jour. This fear is reasonable, given that their consumption has been linked to a dizzying array of health effects, from obesity and type 2 diabetes to anxiety and depression.

Their dominance changed food systems so quickly that much of what we eat today would be unrecognizable even to our recent ancestors. We certainly haven’t adapted to it, over the course of evolution.

It is no wonder that they are the main target of strategies to tackle diet-related chronic diseases in the UK and US. Nevertheless, we believe that the UPF’s total panic must give way to a more nuanced conversation. It’s a mistake to paint flavored yogurt and whole-wheat bread with the same alarmist brush as cakes and sugary cereals. Just because a food is ultra-processed doesn’t mean it’s unhealthy. Our approach to them should reflect what the science says so far.

When people eat more UPF, their intake of saturated fat, sodium and sugar increases, and they consume less fiber, protein and beneficial micronutrients – the opposite of a healthy diet. But when it comes to how UPFs cause weight gain, Kevin’s recent research found that they tend to be overconsumed when they’re energy dense (more calories per bite) or hyperpalatable (containing pairs of nutrients that don’t typically coexist naturally — like high salt and fat, high carbs and salt, or high sugar and fat).

On the other hand, when people eat meals containing lots of UPF that aren’t energy dense and hyperappetizing, Kevin’s work found that they don’t gain weight. They may even lose weight without necessarily intending to do so on such diets.

These findings have huge implications, not only for our personal choices, but also for nutritional policies and regulations. Rather than targeting all FPUs, we should focus on those who do not meet the nutritional standards of a healthy diet. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving in this direction, recently releasing a definition of what constitutes a “healthy” food. It is similar to the UK’s nutrient profiling system and takes into account ingredients from food categories that people need to eat more of, such as vegetables, fruit and whole grains, while limiting sugar, sodium and saturated fat. By targeting UPFs that are also high in caloric density or contain hyperpalatable nutrient combinations, we can focus on products that appear to be the biggest culprits in promoting obesity and other diet-related conditions.

To combat these specific foods, we must implement a battery of public health policies similar to those that reduce tobacco consumption: marketing restrictions, mandatory labeling and aggressive taxes. We also need to introduce policies that make healthy foods more convenient, affordable and widely available, and incentivize companies to make their UPFs healthier – think whole-grain crust frozen pizza topped with vegetables.

Some UPFs are already considered healthy by FDA standards (again, think whole-wheat bread or yogurt). None of these would be subject to such policies or regulations. Many of us also rely on UPF pasta sauces, hummus, frozen dinners, canned beans, broths and breads, which can be a simple and affordable part of a healthy diet. This is why it is important to clarify which FPUs are most likely to cause damage.

The UPF is not going anywhere yet, and the history of their science is still being written. So, let’s move beyond panic and move towards healthy coexistence by understanding how some of them cause harm and acting accordingly.

Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall are the co-authors of Food Intelligence: The Science of How Food Nourishes and Harms Us.