Concern about Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) is growing — but is processing really the problem?

In recent months, the conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has intensified across media platforms. The discussion is sparked by legitimate concerns about nutrition and health. I believe we’re right to look at some of the products often regarded as UPFs with a critical eye. Many offer little nutritional value, and according to the World Health Organization (WHO), unhealthy diets are responsible for eight million deaths each year.

However, lumping all processed foods into a single category or hastily pushing for restrictive regulations may not only be misguided but potentially detrimental. Like most food system concerns, I believe this debate is not black and white.

Processing in itself isn’t the problem. 

It’s often a product’s formulation that most impacts health outcomes.

Food processing is essential to achieving the SDGs

We cannot transform food system outcomes towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) without food processing. Efficient processing is key to extending shelf life to reduce food losses and waste and ensuring the safety of the food you and I eat every day by safeguarding it from harmful pathogens.

Today, many people assume that all processed foods are UPFs, and that this automatically makes them junk food. This is a misguided association that has developed out of what has been a dangerously one-sided conversation. 

Food processing has been a key component of feeding the world for millennia. Think of the ‘processing’ that takes place in your own kitchen – canning, emulsifying, fermenting –  is an action so different just because it takes place in a factory?

In fact, some processing methods enhance nutrient bioavailability and fortification, the addition of essential vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients like iron, B vitamins and more, is also a form of processing. 

Food processing is a necessary tool for feeding the world. Instead of writing all processing off as ‘bad’ — why not focus on evaluating food by its nutritional content?

Not all processed products are the same

Few people would expect canned chickpeas to be classified in the same way as processed meat like sausages and bacon. But as Good Food Institute (GFI) points out, this is often the case as things stand today. These are two starkly different foods with very different health implications: the former is high in fibre, protein and healthy fats, and supports heart health. The latter is linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Only 33% of health experts and food industry specialists agree about what ‘UPF’ is.

When we demonise processed food as a broad category, we bias people against healthy foods like fortified cereals, whole grain breads, and plant-based alternatives that are high in fibre and low in saturated fat as if they had the same nutritional content as a package of potato chips or a chocolate bar.

This puts us at risk of turning the public off to nutritious foods that safely feed the world and make healthy and sustainable diets more accessible. Before we say no to all highly processed food — and subsequently put an end to research and funding — I think we need to take a closer look at the source of the problem.

Formulation is what matters

Rather than speaking to the level of processing, perhaps we should instead classify food by its nutritional content. In most cases, it’s the formulation of a product, rather than the way it was processed that results in foods that aren’t recommended as part of a healthy diet.  

I believe our focus should be on reformulating foods for a better end product. By reducing energy density and health-sensitive ingredients (i.e. salt, fat, and sugar) and increasing nutrient density through fortified (vitamins and minerals) or enriched (fibers, proteins, lipids) products, companies can provide safe, affordable, shelf-stable and — most importantly  — delicious foods that can combat nutrient deficiencies.

All humans have the right to affordable, nutritious food. Well formulated, processed foods can make healthier eating easier and can ensure that safe food can reach all corners of the globe. 

Hover your cursor over the boxes below to bust some processed food myths. 

Source

Source

Processing and food innovation

Studies have shown that food innovations, like plant-based alternatives to conventional meat, can be helpful transition and maintenance foods to help consumers make the shift towards healthier and sustainable diets. And yet, over half of European consumers choose to avoid these products due to concerns about the level of processing, despite many options being a good source of fibre, low in saturated fat and containing no sugar.

To take just one example, Valley partner Planted produces meat from plants using a value chain as well as a process that requires up to 90% less water and up to  97% less CO2e compared to their animal counterparts. Planted products, like some other plant-based meat alternatives from other manufacturers, are rich in protein and fibre, low in saturated fats and sugars and contain no additives, but are fortified with important micronutrients like vitamin B12. At the same time, studies have shown that their production process actually improves the nutritional value of their products, as it increases the bioavailability of certain nutrients, like proteins. 

By painting all processed products with the same brush, we miss the opportunity to introduce consumers to new choices that could power the shift towards more future-proof food systems.

The good, the bad, the opportunity

I believe that ‘ultra-processed’ has become a flawed shorthand for evaluating the food we eat. And without a more nuanced understanding of the way that these products are categorised, any new legislation could be inhibiting.

Today, seven countries feature national dietary guidelines that explicitly mention UPFs. These countries mandate “warning labels” on foods with high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat. While these guidelines rely more heavily on nutrient-based messages, a global analysis found that UPFs made up the majority of discouraged foods. However, the solution for companies in these regions was not less processing, but rather reformulation – companies were incentivised to include less sugar and salt in their recipes to avoid adding labels to their products.

Food processing plays a key role in feeding the world

When GMOs were cast out we lost an opportunity to bring better nutrition to the regions that need it most. I believe we should do our best to not repeat the same mistake again. 

Processed food is a crucial piece of a sustainable and food-just future. By biasing governments and consumers against it, we lose the opportunity to feed the world safely, nutritiously, and affordably.

So how can we re-frame the conversation to acknowledge the good, leave room for nuance, and encourage further research? Regulating processed foods will drive more food system challenges than it will solve. Let focus instead on driving greater innovation in our food systems to offer all consumers the delicious and nutritious choices they need to enjoy healthy and sustainable diets.  

I look forward to continuing this conversation at our forthcoming event at Food Day @ ETH and in our next online Impact Forum. We’d love you to join us and share your take on this issue.