Why the Double Standards on Ultra-Processed Foods? Because some have better PR than others | Giles Yeo

IIn the febrile world of diet and nutrition, the past year has been dominated by heated debate about the harm (or not) of ultra-processed foods. These have not just been limited to the media but, unusually, have sparked equally heated debates in academic circles. So what is the “truth” about UPFs? Are they as bad for your health as many claim? And armed with this information, how should consumers navigate the grocery aisles?

The processing of food, including cooking, fermenting, pickling, drying and smoking, is as old as humanity. These processes reduced the risk of food poisoning, increased nutrient availability and ensured we had a predictable source of calories through seasonal changes in fresh food availability. They were critical to our ability as a species to survive and ultimately thrive.

But UPFs are a different beast: they are the products of industrial processing methods that we cannot replicate in a domestic situation. They include virtually all carbonated drinks, ice cream, biscuits, margarines, pastries, cakes, breakfast cereals, stock cubes, infant formula and mass-produced packaged breads.

They are also cheap to produce and easy to store and transport due to their long shelf life. They are cheap and are more likely to be purchased and consumed by people who are less privileged in society. On average here in the UK we get around 50% of our calories from UPFs and the ubiquity with which these foods are available deserves some sensible debate.

But at the same time, it’s intriguing, to me at least, that some UPFs not only avoid being tarred with the same brush, but also seem to be associated with an enlightened way of eating healthy.

The menagerie of plant-based dairy substitutes and faux-meat burgers, as well as many other “premium” ultra-processed foods that find their way into higher-end supermarkets and restaurants, are a case in point. In my opinion, these foods have escaped the kind of scrutiny reserved for regular UPFs. But from a processing perspective, 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 is high in oil, emulsifiers, and other additives, and a faux-meat burger is still high in sugar, salt, and fat; if you look through a different lens, you might even consider them junk food. And yet the debate around UPFs rarely asks why we label some of these foods as more harmful than others.

There is ample evidence that consuming too many ultra-processed foods is linked to worse health outcomes. Most recently, a meta-analysis of 45 different studies of nearly 10 million people, published in the British Medical Journal, reported links to 32 health conditions, including premature mortality, cancer, mental health, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and metabolic health outcomes.

This makes sense when you look at how UPFs are created. Most UPFs inherently contain less protein and fiber and more sugar, salt and fat. But the way we are currently talking about UPFs seems pointless to me. The term encompasses such a broad spectrum of different foods, from foods that have been almost entirely 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 can absolutely understand how eating too much of the former could lead to worse health outcomes. However, the latter includes mass-produced supermarket bread, which is where a large portion of the UPF calories consumed come from. Of course, you can go to a bougie bakery and buy an artisan sourdough without any additives, which will be much more expensive and taste better than a loaf of bread from the supermarket. But ultimately, bread is made from flour, salt, water and yeast. Apart from the taste, supermarket bread is no worse for you than luxury bread.

I am an unapologetic advocate of improving our diets to try to stem the current tsunami of diet-related diseases, and there are certainly many foods that we should undoubtedly eat much less of. To do this we must first and foremost focus on the nutritional value of our food; we should aim to consume enough protein and fiber, and slightly less sugar, salt and saturated fats. And the reality is that the only way to do this equitably is to make the healthy choice the cheaper, more convenient and easier option.

I fear that the UPF concept is too imprecise to judge how healthy or unhealthy a particular food might be, and worse, it is currently being used as a new cudgel to shame others with food; while at the same time the privileged in society celebrate and congratulate themselves for eating similarly processed foods that simply have better PR.