Ultra-processed foods are the latest nutritional villains, associated with several diseases of the modern world, from obesity to heart disease. However, many nutritionists question whether the term “ultra-processed” does any more than create confusion. It only considers the way food is produced, ignoring other important factors like calories and nutrients.
My work suggests that instead of being viewed as the problem, ultra-processed foods could actually be part of the solution. With advances in food science, we have the technology to create low-calorie, nutritious and affordable processed foods.
There is no consensus about how ultra-processed foods should be defined. But a common approach was proposed by the nutrition and public health scholar, Carlos Monteiro. He coined the term about 15 years ago, defining foods that undergo significant industrial processing and often contain multiple added ingredients. In Portugal, ultra-processed food make up about 10% of the average diet, whereas in Germany it’s 46%, the UK 50% and in the US 76%.
Ultra-processed foods three major advantages – they are cheap, convenient and they usually taste good. Their affordability in particular is an important factor.
Producing food in bulk reduces costs. For instance, the Heinz factory in Wigan is the largest baked bean factory in the world. It produces 3 million cans of baked beans a day, ensuring they are widely available and affordable.
In 1961, scientists in Chorleywood, Hertfordshire developed a new method for making bread. Today, more than 80% of loaves in Britain are produced this way. These loaves are softer, last longer and cost less than traditional bread.
The affordability of ultra-processed food makes them a staple for many, particularly people on lower incomes. As around 30% of children in the UK live in poverty, calls to remove such foods from diets need to address how poorer families will be able to afford fresher and more nutritious food. Current ultra-processed foods may not offer a perfect diet, but they do provide calories when money is scarce.
Convenience is another notable benefit of ultra-processed food. Preparing meals from scratch can be time-consuming, involving buying ingredients, cooking and cleaning up afterwards. Ultra-processed foods offer a shortcut, saving valuable time. This is especially important for parents trying to balance jobs and family life. For those with busy lives who are working long hours, time is a luxury that ultra-processed food can help reclaim.
Finally, ultra-processed foods are designed to be tasty. We’re genetically inclined to be attracted to sweet and fatty foods. Having a pleasant taste is one of the reasons we select our food.
This convenience, affordability and taste come at a cost, however, as ultra-processed foods are often high in sugar, salt and saturated fats, while lacking in fruits, vegetables and essential nutrients.
Are all ultra-processed foods bad for us?
It’s not always clear if it’s the “ultra-processed” nature of these foods or their high calorie and low nutrient content that causes health issues. Nutrition is more complex than just considering how food is processed. We also need to consider calories, fibre, vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients.
For example, while baked beans are considered ultra-processed, they’re also high in fibre – something often missing from UK diets – low in fat and calories, and a good source of plant-based protein.
Some studies suggest that many health problems linked to ultra-processed food, like obesity and diabetes, may be caused by excess calorie consumption rather than the processing itself. When people cut out ultra-processed foods, they often end up eating fewer calories, which could explain the health benefits they experience.
The link between ultra-processed foods and poverty suggests that many of the health issues linked to ultra-processed food may be caused by factors associated with poverty itself. Poor nutrition is often just one part of a wider picture that includes limited access to healthcare, higher stress levels and fewer opportunities for physical activity – all of which can contribute to poor health.
Can ultra-processing be used for good?
Ultra-processing has been used to fortify foods in the UK for decades. For example, the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 requires certain nutrients like calcium, iron, thiamine (vitamin B1) and niacin (vitamin B3) to be added to any non-wholemeal flour. This fortification plays an important role in public health, providing around 35% of calcium intake, 31% of iron and 31% of thiamine to the average UK diet. Without these added nutrients, the risk of deficiencies would rise.
The UK government took a further step in 2022 by requiring folic acid be added to flour. It was a move aimed at preventing birth defects such as spina bifida, where a baby’s spine and spinal cord doesn’t develop properly in the womb, and anencephaly, where a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull.
Breakfast cereals, often criticized for their sugar content, can also boost the intake of essential nutrients like vitamins B2, B12, folate and iron. Some experts would like to see mandatory food fortification be extended much further.
Food scientists are exploring other ways to make ultra-processed foods healthier. One approach involves reducing sugar by making it taste sweeter more quickly, which means less sugar is needed to achieve the same taste.
Another is using scientific techniques to increase the speed at which salt is released from food. Similarly, this results in it being tasted more quickly, leading to lower consumption.
Other innovations to lower the calories in foods by changing the recipe include creating creamy, low-calorie sauces without dairy, or plant-based burgers that are virtually indistinguishable from their meat counterparts, but have fewer calories.
These types of innovations show that ultra-processing doesn’t necessarily mean unhealthy and calorie-dense food – it’s about the choices made in production. If scientists focus on creating affordable, nutritious ultra-processed foods, they could become part of the solution to the obesity crisis, rather than the enemy.
David Benton is Professor Emeritus (Human & Health Sciences), Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Wales.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
- External Link
- https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-we-have-the-technology-to-turn-them-from-foe-into-friend-239683
14 Comments
Login to comment
Wick's pencil
In other words, continue to produce unhealthy crap, but simply call it "new improved" and "healthy".
Many will fall for it.
virusrex
No, even a very quick reading of the article clearly shows this misrepresentation is completely false, this is not about calling things differently but taking advantage of the food that is ultraprocessed but that don't damage the health, like fortified food or things that can be produced cheaply and easily industrially without any additives that have a harmful effect. Even just being aware that caloric content of some products is the one that is negative can help making the food much better.
englisc aspyrgend
So you process the nutritional value out of the food, then have to process it back in. Sounds a typical food manufacturers solution.
Education, including educating children on food, nutrition and how to cook healthy food would resolve much of this without further interference with the food (not that I object to limited targeted fortifying of foods to deal with a problem but generally it should be a short term solution until a more sustainable solution is implemented).
The attitude of “saving valuable time” is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Wick's pencil
I read the article. They continue to make crap, but they make some little change that can be sold to the gullible as a "healthy improvement".
virusrex
the examples of fortification made in the article are about nutrients that are not present in the first place on the food.
Willful ignorance about the article is even worse, what "little change" do you think is being done by reducing the ultraprocessed food that is damaging and instead using the ones (like fortified food) that is beneficial? this in no way reflected in your unfounded criticism, this is easily proved when you could not even find one example where the article is doing what you falsely accuse it of doing.
Olive
Put the investment into subsidizing small and medium sized farmers . Promoting high quality fruit and vegetable farming would be far better than promoting highly processed big food
fallaffel
I agree that not all ultraprocessed foods are equal, so I don't understand why scientific studies often lump them all together, except for the sake of convenience. The results are misleading lots of people.
Zaphod
virusrex
Is that what the "experts" and "all respected institutions in the world" are saying?
virusrex
Is an argument that clearly debunks the misleading criticism, so strong that it was impossible for the claimant to actually defend the supposed criticism, it is in no way what the article is saying, not even you could do anything about it, so it remains completely valid and correct.
Raw Beer
Exactly! They misrepresent and or distort research data to use as PR tools to sell products that are mostly just as bad as previous versions of unhealthy processed "food".
Sadly, too many don't have the scientific background, critical thinking and analytical skills to realize the science is being misused.
virusrex
In no part of this article this happens, as anybody reading it could easily find out. No misrepresentation nor distortion even if you like to claim this happens just because your personal beliefs about nutrition are being debunked by actual scientists.
The easiest way to identify these people is that they reject the scientific consensus without offering any actual proof it is wrong and when pressed about it they will use the same excuse members of other groups without any scientific background, critical thinking nor analytic skills (like flath earthers or creationists) use when challenged: a global conspiracy of all and every institution of the planet to hide this supposed information that proves the consensus is false.
Zaphod
virusrex
Emotional appeals to obscure authorities are not "arguments" that "debunk" anything.
virusrex
What part of the text you quote are you imagining is an appeal to "obscure authorities"? it actually makes the opposite point, of the original comment being an argument.
Is it that you still have no counter argument, so you make the false claim that this is some appeal just so you have something to say about it? how about making an actual argument against the fact that the article in no way can be criticized as the deeply wrong misrepresentation tried to do?
Nothing? that means my argument remains valid and the criticism completely false.
Jimizo
Translation: People don’t watch Joe Rogan and infowars.