Are “Ultra-Processed” Foods Really That Bad for You?
We eat a lot of ultra-processed food. It’s everywhere, and the cheapest products are often ultra-processed. That’s why it’s alarming that ultra-processed foods are linked to a host of health problems , including heart disease, diabetes, mental disorders, and everyone’s favorite all-cause mortality. So what is considered ultra-processed food? Let’s dive in and maybe challenge a few assumptions along the way.
Here’s an important caveat to remember: When studies look at the health of people who do and don’t eat ultra-processed foods, they don’t necessarily look at the fact that the food is ultra-processed . We might say that a diet high in candy bars is bad for us, but is that because the candy bars are ultra-processed or because they’re full of sugar? This is not a question that current research can really answer, but it is important to ask ourselves questions as we learn more. Are ultra-processed foods always bad for you, or is it just a category that includes many foods that we should eat less of?
How are ultra-processed foods defined?
This terminology is taken from the NOVA classification scheme, which divides foods into four groups:
-
Unprocessed or “minimally processed” foods (Group 1) include fruits, vegetables and meats. Perhaps you pulled a carrot out of the ground and washed it, or killed a cow and cut a steak. Products in this category can be processed without adding additional ingredients. They can be cooked, ground, dried or frozen.
-
Processed culinary ingredients (group 2) include sugar, salt and oils. If you combine ingredients from this group to make salted butter, for example, they will remain in this group.
-
Processed foods (group 3) are what you get when you combine groups 1 and 2. Bread, wine and canned vegetables are included. Additives are allowed as long as they “preserve the original properties of [the product],” such as ascorbic acid added to canned fruit to prevent it from browning.
-
Ultra-processed foods (group 4) are not strictly defined, but NOVA hints at some properties. They “usually” contain five or more ingredients. They can be actively marketed and be very profitable. A food automatically falls into Group 4 if it includes “substances not normally used in culinary preparations and additives the purpose of which is to imitate the sensory qualities of Group 1 foods or culinary preparations from those foods or to mask the undesirable sensory qualities of the final product.” “
This last group seems a little disingenuous. I’ve definitely seen things in my kitchen that are supposedly only used for making “ultra-processed” foods: food coloring, flavoring, artificial sweeteners, anti-caking agents (cornstarch, anyone?) and extrusion and molding tools, to name a few .
Are ultra-processed foods always bad for you?
So we’ve learned that packaged snacks are ultra-processed, just like a loaf of bread baked in a factory with 20 ingredients. Orange juice that has been flavored will also count. Coca-Cola and Diet Coke fall firmly into this category. It seems logical that we should eat less of these foods.
But you could argue that the real problem with these foods is that they are often sweet and high in calories, and many of the less healthy members of this category are what stock the vending machines and convenience stores that beckon to us when we’re hungry and I didn’t take lunch with me. The problem with these foods is that a diet full of them is unbalanced due to the nutrients they do or do not contain. The processing itself is not the problem.
So when we talk about ultra-processed foods, we must remember that it is a vague category that only broadly communicates the nutritional value of the foods that comprise it. Just as BMI conflates muscular athletes with obese people because it provides mathematical convenience, the NOVA categories combine things of vastly different nutritional quality.
Why Level of Processing Isn’t Always Critical
Illustrating the above, the USDA published its own study showing how a healthy diet can be created from ultra-processed foods . For example, a homemade breakfast burrito might contain canned beans, runny egg whites, shredded cheese, and store-bought tortilla. These ingredients may be ultra-processed, but their nutritional value is nothing like the Cinnabon you grab on the way to work.
My biggest irritation is that the NOVA classification sometimes makes distinctions between foods that don’t actually differ in nutritional value. Wine is in group 3 next to cheese and fresh bread, and cocktails are in group 4 with Twinkies. You see, spirits are distilled , so they are ultra-processed.
Canned vegetables are in Group 3 (processed), while their fresh counterparts are in Group 1. But canned vegetables are just as nutritious . Meanwhile, dried fruits are in group 1 (so healthy!), although they can be sweeter than cakes or cookies.
There are many similarities between junk(?) foods and ultra-processed foods, so I understand why scientists study ultra-processed foods as a group. But the demonization of UPF, as they are sometimes called, often results in the cheapest and most widely available food products falling into the most shameful category. Is this fair, or do you just feel better when you eat fresh green beans and make fun of people who buy canned ones?
The NOVA scale isn’t entirely useless: It helps researchers keep track of how much food comes from large producers. But that’s not the best way to evaluate what’s in our grocery bags or on our plates.