In today’s society, the conversation around health and nutrition has prominently spotlighted ultra-processed foods (UPF). This term has transcended technical jargon, becoming a focal point for broader concerns regarding modern dietary habits influenced by industrial food production.
These concerns stem from a substantial body of research linking high consumption of UPFs to adverse health outcomes. However, interpreting this evidence can be complex. Many studies depend on self-reported dietary data and struggle to disentangle the effects of food processing from nutrient quality, eating behaviors, and other societal factors. This complexity underscores the need for more precise usage of the term.
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture have initiated efforts in 2025 to establish a standardized definition of ultra-processed foods. They argue that no universally accepted definition currently exists. The pivotal question remains: what characteristics classify a food as “ultra-processed”? Is it based on the ingredients, the manufacturing process, the degree of alteration from its original form, or a combination of these factors?
This lack of clarity contributes to the divisiveness around the topic. Nutrition researchers find no consensus on how the UPF classification should influence dietary guidelines or policies. Some experts view it as a valuable tool for pinpointing detrimental trends in modern eating habits, while others argue that it is too broad to serve as effective dietary advice on its own.
This distinction is crucial. While a category like UPF can be useful for monitoring population dietary trends, it may not provide sufficient guidance for individuals trying to make informed choices about specific products. It attempts to encompass multiple factors, including ingredients, processing methods, marketing, sensory appeal, and eating practices.
Concerns also arise regarding the influence of large food corporations on diet and public health. Many highly processed foods are manufactured to be inexpensive, convenient, heavily marketed, and easy to overconsume. However, the political and economic challenges of the food industry are distinct from the scientific challenges of food classification.
A more effective strategy would be to differentiate clearly between ultra-processed products that are nutritionally poor, those that could still have a place in a balanced diet, and minimally processed foods that should be encouraged. This could encompass fortified items, high-fiber breads, or medical nutrition products, depending on their specific ingredients and intended use.
One way to complement warnings about UPFs is to focus more on positive dietary recommendations. In the EAT-UP framework, I propose the concept of “unrefined plant foods” (UPs), which refers to plant-based foods that remain mostly intact in their natural state. These include whole fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains that have not been excessively processed.
This approach does not replace the UPF framework but provides a communicative tool that contrasts what should be limited with clearer recommendations for what to incorporate into the diet. Many dietary guidelines already advocate for increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. Clarifying the terminology around these foods can make this guidance more actionable.
Like any food category, unrefined plant foods need precise definitions. Terms like “largely intact” are not inherently clear, leading to varying interpretations among researchers, policymakers, and consumers. However, the true value of this concept lies in shifting the public health focus from avoidance to inclusion.
Advice that is solely based on avoidance can be confusing or even counterproductive. While research indicates a link between higher consumption of whole plant foods and improved health, this evidence comes with its own set of limitations, including reliance on food diaries and self-reporting. Despite these challenges, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains consistently receive support across dietary guidelines, public health studies, and a wealth of evidence related to diet quality.
The way people perceive food in everyday life is also influenced by these discussions. Dietary recommendations should strive to eliminate unnecessary fear surrounding food choices. When processing is viewed as fundamentally harmful, it can lead to confusion, guilt, and anxiety instead of encouraging healthier behaviors. In some instances, overly moralistic food messaging may foster disordered eating tendencies, such as an unhealthy obsession with foods deemed perfectly pure or healthy.
Language is critical in these conversations. Terms like “real food” are often used to describe minimally processed items. However, such terms can inadvertently imply judgments about food choices and reinforce assumptions about proper eating practices. Public health messaging must consider variations in income, accessibility, time constraints, and lifestyle factors.
Read more:
Why stigmatising ultra-processed food could be doing more harm than good
Enhancing dietary habits requires more than merely labeling a wide range of foods as harmful. It necessitates a thoughtful examination of the evidence, behavior, and context. The challenge is to provide advice that is not only scientifically grounded but also practical and responsive to the real-life conditions in which people make food choices.
The ongoing discourse around UPFs has rightfully brought the issues of industrial diets and food quality to the forefront of public health discussions. The next step should not be to abandon this framework but to refine it: defining categories with greater clarity, distinguishing types of processing, and pairing warnings about harmful products with practical recommendations for healthier choices. This involves integrating classifications based on processing with information about nutrient profiles, fiber content, additives, marketing, and how various foods fit into a balanced diet.
