Are “ultra-Processed” Foods Really That Bad for You?

According to a new federal report , the average American gets more than half of his or her calories from ultra-processed foods. That’s no surprise — ultra-processed foods are everywhere, including many of the cheapest foods. That’s why it’s alarming that ultra-processed foods are linked to a host of health problems , including heart disease, diabetes, mental illness, and everyone’s favorite, all-cause mortality.

But what counts as ultra-processed food? Let’s take a look, and maybe challenge some assumptions along the way.

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the most common source of ultra-processed foods for adults is sandwiches, followed by sugary baked goods, sweetened beverages, savory snacks, and breads, rolls, and tortillas. The results were similar, with pizza and savory snacks outperforming sugary beverages. Children’s breads did not make the top five. The study also found that consumption of ultra-processed foods declined slightly from 2017 to 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. A summary of the results can be found here .

Before we dive into this, there’s an important caveat: When studies look at the health of people who eat ultra-processed foods and those who don’t, they don’t necessarily take into account the fact that the foods are ultra-processed. We can say with some certainty that a diet high in candy bars is unhealthy, but is that because the bars are ultra-processed or because they’re high in sugar? Current research can’t answer this question definitively, but it’s important to consider. Are ultra-processed foods always unhealthy, or are they simply a category that includes a variety of foods 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. You may have pulled a carrot out of the ground and washed it, or killed a cow and cut a steak from it. Foods in this category may be processed in ways that do not add additional ingredients. They may be cooked, chopped, dried, or frozen.

• Processed cooking ingredients (Group 2) include sugar, salt, and oils. If you combine ingredients in this group, such as to make salted butter, they remain in this group.

• Processed foods (Group 3) are foods that are created by combining Groups 1 and 2. These include bread, wine, and canned vegetables. Additives are allowed as long as they “preserve the original properties of [the product],” such as ascorbic acid, which is 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 heavily marketed and highly profitable. A product is automatically in Group 4 if it contains “substances not commonly used in cooking and additives intended to imitate the sensory properties of Group 1 foods or cooking preparations of these foods, or to mask undesirable sensory properties of the final product.”

The last group seems a little disingenuous. I’ve definitely seen things in my kitchen that are supposedly only used to make “ultra-processed” foods: food colors, flavors, 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 know that packaged snack cakes are ultra-processed, just like a loaf of commercially baked bread with 20 ingredients. Orange juice that has been flavored is also ultra-processed. Coca-Cola and Diet Coke are firmly in this category. It seems logical that we should eat less of these things.

But it could be argued that the real problem with these foods is that they are often sugary and high in calories, and many of the less healthy ones in this category are precisely the ones that fill vending machines and convenience stores, tempting us when we are hungry and haven’t packed lunch. The problem with these foods is that a diet full of them is unbalanced because of the nutritional content or lack thereof. The problem isn’t the processing itself.

So when we talk about ultra-processed foods, we should remember that it is a vague category that only loosely reflects the nutritional value of foods. Just as the body mass index (BMI) groups muscular athletes and obese people together for ease of calculation, NOVA categories group foods with very different nutritional values.

Why the level of processing is not always the most important

To illustrate the point, the USDA published its own study showing how you can create a healthy diet out of ultra-processed foods . For example, a homemade breakfast burrito might contain canned beans, runny egg whites, shredded cheese, and a store-bought tortilla. These ingredients may be ultra-processed, but they don’t have the nutritional value of a Cinnabon on the way to work.

What irritates me is that NOVA’s classification sometimes differentiates between foods that are essentially the same nutritionally. Wine is in Group 3, next to cheese and fresh bread, and cocktails are in Group 4, along with Twinkies. Spirits, you see, are distilled , meaning they’re ultra-processed.

Canned vegetables are in Group 3 (processed), while their fresh counterparts are in Group 1. But canned vegetables are no less nutritious . Dried fruits, on the other hand, are in Group 1 (they’re so healthy!), although they may contain more sugar than cakes or cookies.

There are a lot of similarities between junk(?) food and ultra-processed foods, so I understand why scientists study ultra-processed foods as a separate group. But the demonization of UPFs, as they are sometimes called, often results in the cheapest and most readily available foods being placed in the most shameful category. Is this fair, or does it just make you feel better about eating fresh green beans and scoffing at those who buy canned ones?

The NOVA scale isn’t entirely useless: It helps researchers track how much of our food comes from big manufacturers. But it’s not the best way to assess what’s in our grocery bags or on our plates.

More…