Ultraprocessed Foods Aren’t the Enemy—Here’s Why

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) have long been vilified in discussions about nutrition, often blamed for rising obesity rates, chronic diseases, and overall poor health. The media constantly warns against their consumption, advocating for whole, minimally processed foods instead. But what if this narrative is overly simplistic? What if UPFs, rather than being the villains of modern nutrition, can actually be a valuable part of a healthy diet?

It is evident that the fear surrounding UPFs creates confusion and anxiety for many people trying to make healthy choices. Indeed, a key issue that becomes readily apparent when supermarket shelves are observed in the debate over UPFs is the lack of a clear and consistent definition. The NOVA classification system, often used to categorize foods by their level of processing, places items in different groups based on arbitrary distinctions. For example, some brands of vanilla ice cream are considered ultraprocessed, while others are not, depending on the specific ingredients used. The same goes for yogurt, bread, and plant-based milk.

Love It or Hate It: UPFs Matter

Rather than a strictly quantifiable "scientific" decision, placing foods in the "ultraprocessed" category is often a judgment call, according to a chemical engineer at a food processing research facility. A protein bar, a frozen meal, and a plant-based yogurt might all fall under this umbrella despite significant differences in nutritional value. In other words, the label "ultraprocessed" doesn't necessarily mean "unhealthy,"—but the media coverage surrounding it often implies otherwise.

Criticism of UPFs often stems from experiments like that of Dr. Chris van Tulleken, who consumed an 80% UPF diet for a month and reported feeling sluggish, anxious, and unhealthy. His findings were widely publicized and reinforced the notion that UPFs are inherently bad for health. But his experiment lacked a crucial element: balance.

In contrast, a self-test conducted by dietician Jessica Wilson, detailed in a Slate article, incorporated a variety of UPFs that were nutrient-dense, such as protein shakes, soyrizo, gluten-free bread, and frozen meals rich in vegetables and protein. The results were markedly different: "At the end of my experiment, I actually felt better than I had before. I went from skipping lunch during the week, because Sunday Jessica had had no interest in meal prep, to having meals and snacks full of veggies and protein at the ready. I didn't have decision fatigue over what to cook, because everything took five minutes or less to get onto my plate. What's more, it all tasted good. It was easy to grab an ultraprocessed main course and add some fruit and vegetables on the side. I didn't need afternoon naps anymore, and overall, my anxiety was lower. Most important to me, my spouse noticed that I was more pleasant in the evenings."

While the validity of self-conducted experiments, their reported results, and individual experiences should never be taken for granted, Wilson's experiment highlights a crucial issue surrounding the criticism of UPFs: many critics fail to consider the realities of modern life. Not everyone has the time or resources to cook meals from scratch every day. Between long work hours, commutes, and family responsibilities, meal preparation often becomes an afterthought.

For many, UPFs make healthy eating more achievable. As Wilson explained, instead of skipping lunch because she didn't have time to cook, she could grab a protein-packed frozen meal or a pre-made salad with a packaged dressing. Rather than facing decision fatigue at the end of a long day, she could rely on quick, nutritious meals that didn't require extensive preparation. All of these are essential parameters to assess the impact of an individual's well-being as a result of dietary choices. 

Critics argue furthermore that people rely on UPFs instead of whole foods, but the reality is that UPFs can complement a balanced diet. Adding frozen stir-fried vegetables with a pre-made sauce to a meal isn't inherently worse than cooking everything from scratch—it's just more convenient. The key is to focus on nutrient quality rather than blanketly condemning processing.

Nutrition Should Be About Balance, Not Fear

The fear surrounding UPFs can lead to unnecessary stress about food choices, where consumers agonize over ingredient lists, worrying over emulsifiers or added vitamins instead of focusing on the bigger picture: eating a well-balanced diet.

It should be obvious that eating nothing but fast food, chips, and sugary cereals will likely lead to negative health outcomes, which is really just stating the obvious. The issue isn't processing itself but the nutritional composition and profile of the foods we choose. A protein bar with fiber and essential nutrients is not the same as a bag of chips, even if both are technically "ultraprocessed."

Rather than demonizing UPFs, consumers should be encouraged to focus on practical nutrition guidelines: ensuring adequate protein, incorporating fruits and vegetables, and making sustainable food choices. There's no need for the all-or-nothing approach that is so often promoted. 

Understanding Choices, Becoming More Realistic About Nutrition

The debate over ultraprocessed foods shouldn't be about labeling foods as "good" or "bad." Instead, it should be about making practical, sustainable food choices that fit into real life That means continuing to eat UPFs like protein bars, pre-made meals, and frozen vegetables while also incorporating fresh produce, lean proteins, and whole grains. It means focusing on balance rather than fear and recognizing that UPFs can be a helpful tool in maintaining a nutritious diet.

Ultimately, what matters isn't whether a food is ultraprocessed—it's whether it provides the nutrients our bodies need to thrive. And if an ultraprocessed food helps someone eat better, feel better, and live better, then it shouldn't be demonized. It should be embraced as part of a well-rounded approach to health and nutrition.