Why Everyone is Talking About Ultra-Processed Foods

And why you don’t need to panic about having some in your pantry

The term ultra-processed food (UPF) has become so common — and so charged — that many people feel a sense of anxiety just hearing it. Maybe you’ve seen the headlines about San Francisco filing the first government lawsuit targeting ultra-processed foods, or perhaps your local school has started phasing UPFs out of its cafeteria offerings. At many levels, people are starting to take notice and act — but are we acting in a meaningful, evidence-based way?

While the conversation around UPFs is constantly evolving, it’s time to take a closer look at what these foods actually are, whether they deserve the fear they generate, what new research is revealing, and what practical steps we can take to support our health when it comes to UPFs. Let’s discuss…

The UPF Reality: 60% of Our Diet

As of 2025, emerging data suggest that ultra-processed foods make up nearly 60% of the average American diet. We’ll dig deeper into what actually qualifies as a UPF — keeping in mind that there isn’t a single agreed-upon definition, and the concept is still actively debated within the scientific community. Broadly, UPFs are foods that undergo multiple processing steps and are formulated with ingredients you wouldn’t usually find in your kitchen. They can contain higher amounts of added sugars, salt, saturated fat, and various additives such as colors, flavors, emulsifiers, preservatives, and stabilizers. Some UPFs are also highly palatable, accessible, and affordable, which contributes to their widespread consumption.

Recently, The Lancet released a three-part series on ultra-processed foods, calling for urgent public health measures in response to their growing global impact. The first paper examines the evidence linking high UPF consumption to poorer diet quality and a heightened risk of numerous chronic diseases. Research consistently shows associations between UPF intake and conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, COPD, and increased weight gain and obesity. These diet-related illnesses are rising worldwide—not just in the United States—and many experts point to declining diet quality as a key driver.

While The Lancet’s three-part series provided valuable insights and added to the literature, it has also drawn notable criticism. Most of the research it draws on is observational, meaning it looks at patterns in large groups of people over time. These studies can show strong associations—where higher intake of ultra-processed foods goes hand in hand with poorer health—but they cannot prove that ultra-processed foods directly cause these outcomes. Critics note that the series sometimes sounds more confident than the evidence allows, particularly when discussing disease risk and the urgency of policy action.

Another critical gap: none of the three publications included contributions from food scientists or dietitians. These experts could have added valuable real-world context, such as why foods are processed, how processing affects food safety and nutrition, and how people make food choices within real constraints like time, budget, and access.

The series makes several bold claims about processed foods, including that ultra-processed foods are designed as industrial substitutes for whole foods and freshly prepared meals, are driven primarily by profit rather than nutrition, rely on low-cost ingredients that add economic value with little nutritional benefit, and are inherently inferior to their less processed counterparts.

There’s a lot to unpack here. So, let’s talk about it. What exactly is processed food?

Your Olive Oil is Processed, And That’s Okay!

While the definition of UPFs is still debated, it’s important to note that not all processed foods are ultra-processed. Almost everything we eat has undergone some form of processing. In food science, processing refers to any method or technique that uses equipment, energy, or tools to transform agricultural products.

That bag of frozen strawberries you love? Processed. The flour you use for baking bread? Processed. That bottle of olive oil from the Italian grocer? Processed. Even the eggs you buy — someone had to pick, wash, and sort them! Processing happens for many reasons: to remove impurities, make it safe, improve taste, extend shelf life, or make food more accessible.

This isn’t meant to be a “gotcha” moment — but it is time to clarify what processing actually means. Many people use “processed” and “ultra-processed” interchangeably, yet the two are far from the same.

There’s currently no universally agreed-upon definition of what counts as an ultra-processed food, which is part of why this topic can feel so confusing. This past July, the FDA and USDA jointly issued a Request for Information (RFI) to gather data and opinions from scientists, industry groups, consumer organizations, and the public to help create a federal, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods. As of now, there is no official proposed federal definition of ultra-processed foods published by the FDA or USDA.

Even so, one framework has become far more widely used than others: the NOVA classification (‘new’ in Portuguese), developed by a team of Brazilian researchers in 2009. NOVA is frequently referenced in research, policymaking discussions, and media coverage because it was the first system to categorize foods by degree of processing rather than nutrients, making it easy to apply in large population studies. For a more detailed look at the system and its nuances, you can explore the full classification here. In brief, NOVA divides foods into four groups:

Group 1 – Unprocessed or minimally processed foods: Natural foods or those that undergo minimal processing, like washing, cutting, freezing, or pasteurizing. Examples: milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables, nuts, meat.

Group 2 – Processed culinary ingredients: Substances extracted or refined from Group 1 foods, used in cooking rather than eaten alone. Examples: oils, butter, sugar, salt, vinegar.

Group 3 – Processed foods: Foods made by combining Group 1 items with Group 2 ingredients, typically with 2–3 ingredients and simple processing. Examples: cheese, canned fish, salted nuts, fruit in syrup, basic tomato sauce.

Group 4 - Ultra-Processed foods (UPF): Commercially manufactured food products made from substances extracted or derived from foods and combined with additives. They are produced through multiple industrial processing steps. In the NOVA system, foods are classified as ultra-processed primarily based on their formulation—rather than the extent of processing. UPFs are identified by the type of ingredients used. NOVA classifies foods as ultra-processed when their ingredient lists include substances mainly used in industrial food manufacturing—such as protein isolates, modified starches or oils, or mechanically separated meat—or additives added primarily to affect flavour, texture, shelf life, or appearance. These ingredients serve as markers of ultra-processing within the NOVA system.

The NOVA classification system has received substantial criticism, but it’s worth noting that we are all starting from a shared goal: most people want to eat in ways that support their health and the health of their families and communities. We are all trying to eat more lentils and fewer Pop-Tarts. Many are trying to build more nutritious, varied diets while balancing cost, access, time, and other real-life constraints. While a diverse and balanced diet is widely recognized as important for health and quality of life, achieving this in practice remains challenging for many.

Numerous metrics exist to analyze Americans’ diets, and while NOVA was designed to categorize foods to promote healthier eating, it has fallen short in practice. Used as a public-facing guide, it fails to provide actionable guidance and reduces the complex realities of everyday eating to overly simplistic classifications.

This is why the NOVA system falls short and why it must be treated with extreme caution before informing public health guidance or policy decisions:

Not all UPFs are created equal. But NOVA can’t tell the difference. The range of foods classified as ultra-processed (UPFs) is very broad: soda, candy, and fast food sit in the same category as whole-grain breads, fortified cereals, plant-based milks, flavored yogurts, protein powders, infant formulas, and meal replacement shakes. While these foods differ greatly in nutritional content and purpose, NOVA groups them together based solely on industrial ingredients or processing.

This matters because grouping foods by formulation alone masks meaningful differences. NOVA focuses on the presence of industrial ingredients or additives, not the nutrition within those foods. It overlooks important aspects of food quality, such as whole-grain and fiber content, protein quality, fat type, sugar, sodium, and micronutrient composition. A whole-grain bread with added protein isolate may be nutritionally superior to white bread made from scratch, yet NOVA classifies only the former as ultra-processed. For many people, these foods provide valuable nutrition, convenience, and enjoyment. Avoiding them simply because they contain ‘industrial’ ingredients does not make nutritional sense when a fortified plant milk offers more calcium than a homemade nut milk, or when a protein-enriched yogurt supports an older adult’s nutritional needs better than plain yogurt they might not finish.

The system produces absurd inconsistencies. The NOVA classification can produce some counterintuitive results:

• Homemade fried chicken → not a UPF; fast-food fried chicken → UPF

• Canned beans with sodium preservative → not a UPF; with non-sodium preservative → UPF

• Plain Greek yogurt → not a UPF; flavored Greek yogurt → UPF

• Sweet tea made at home → not a UPF; pre-packaged iced tea → UPF

• Whole-grain bread made from scratch → not a UPF; store-bought whole-grain bread with a texturizer → UPF

NOVA overlooks real-world food access and the people who depend on UPFs. By focusing only on the degree of processing, the NOVA system can overlook how processed and ultra-processed foods support independence, improve access to nutrition, and help people meet their dietary needs. This leaves key populations out of the conversation entirely:

People with disabilities or limited mobility often rely on pre-cut fruits and vegetables, frozen meals, smoothies, fortified meal replacement shakes, pre-packaged soups, and other ready-to-eat or shelf-stable foods to access nutritious options.

Older adults may eat smaller amounts but often need nutrient-dense, convenient, and easy-to-prepare foods.

People living in food deserts (areas with limited access to grocery stores or fresh food) depend on packaged, shelf-stable, and frozen foods to get adequate nutrition. Without reliable transportation, these options become essential.

Low-income families, caregivers, students, and people in remote areas face similar barriers and often rely on shelf-stable or fortified foods to meet their dietary needs.

The use of additives and food processing makes nutritious foods more affordable and available. Calorie-dense UPFs with added protein, vitamins, and minerals have long been used to address hunger and undernutrition while controlling production costs. More recently, lower-calorie UPFs using additives to replace fat, sugar, and salt have helped people manage overnutrition.

Shelf-stable, ready-to-eat UPFs make it possible for busy caregivers to put food on the table. They’re easier to ship to remote areas and store when refrigeration is unreliable. They’re also essential following natural disasters, famines, pandemics, and war.

This creates a significant problem: By targeting processing tools and additives as inherently bad—rather than focusing on the nutritional content of specific products—opponents of UPFs are demonizing all foods produced using these tools. This creates a no-win situation for people with limited time, money, or resources who depend on UPFs for the affordability, availability, and convenience of feeding their families.

To be sure, unhealthy diets can result from over-reliance on UPFs that are high in fat, sugar, and salt and lack meaningful nutrition. But this doesn’t mean all UPFs are bad or should be banned. The challenge—for consumers, the food industry, and policymakers—is to create a food system that is affordable, equitable, accessible, and healthy, while identifying when food additives and processing are the right tools for the job.

Simplistic ‘good vs. bad’ food narratives can backfire. Placing all UPFs in the ‘bad’ category promotes an all-or-nothing approach to food choices, where anything labeled ‘ultra-processed’ is seen as harmful, regardless of its actual nutritional content or the context of someone’s overall diet. This can contribute to disordered eating patterns or unnecessary food anxiety. Much of this fear centers on a single element: food additives.

According to NOVA, additives play a key role in ultraprocessing food. But this begs an important question: what, if anything, is wrong with food additives?

Food additives: tools, not villains

If you want to build a house to keep you warm and dry, you need building supplies and tools. If you want to produce food that is safe, shelf-stable, affordable, and appealing, you need unprocessed whole foods and tools to remove impurities, prevent the growth of pathogens, delay oxidation, or replace nutrients lost during manufacturing. The food scientist’s “tools” include processes (such as washing, filtering, drying, cooking, pasteurizing) and food additives.

Food additives are added during food processing for a variety of reasons, benefiting both the food industry and the consumer. For example, preservatives extend shelf life by slowing nutrient breakdown, preventing off flavors, and inhibiting pathogens responsible for foodborne illnesses. Emulsifiers, thickeners, and gelling agents create smooth, uniform textures while preventing separation. Anti-caking agents absorb moisture and prevent clumping. Flavors and colors add or replace sensory qualities lost during processing or storage. Food additives also help reduce food waste—spoiled or unappealing food ends up in the garbage, while properly preserved food reaches consumers safely.

Food additives are also used to reformulate foods for people who want to reduce their intake of fat, sugar, or salt. Have you ever tried to make cookies without butter (or oil), sugar, or salt? While each adds flavor, they also contribute to texture and rise. Food additives help replace the functions of ingredients removed during reformulation.

Two things can be true at the same time. Food additives can improve shelf life, stability, and access to food. Still, they can also contribute to the formulation of highly palatable, energy-dense products that synergize with added sugars, salt, and fat that encourage overconsumption. The problem is not additives themselves; it’s how they’re used and in what context. We need smarter policies and frameworks that can distinguish between these different uses. We need systems that can differentiate good applications from problematic ones. The NOVA framework, however, treats all industrial additives as uniformly problematic regardless of their purpose or nutritional context. It’s a wrecking ball when we need a small hammer.

The key to building a house – or producing food – is to choose the right tool for the task and to use it safely. Just as the hammer can be used to install a door or break a window, food additives can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. According to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, food additives are justified only when their use serves a well-defined technological function, does not mislead consumers, and is necessary for technological purposes.

The country-specific laws governing food additive approval often differ, as each country must account for its own culture, climate, and history. Regardless, when assessing the safe use of food additives, scientists around the world use a robust and widely accepted method based in toxicological science, considering: (1) the chemical properties of the additive, (2) its fate as it passes through the digestive tract, (3) the estimated dietary intake from its combined uses in food, and (4) scientific evidence establishing how much is safe to eat. Regulatory scientists then use the results of the safety assessment to issue rules or standards – within the confines of their own country’s laws – for the food additive’s use. Many countries publish their approvals for food additives online. For example, to find information about a particular food additive in the United States, you can search the FDA database of substances added to food. International food additive standards can be found in the Codex Alimentarius General Standards for Food Additives online database.

What Science Says About UPFs

Now that we’ve explored NOVA’s limitations and the role of additives, let’s look at what the research actually tells us about ultra-processed foods and health. Here’s what we know:

North Americans consume more sugar, salt, and saturated fat than recommended, often through ultra-processed foods.

Diets rich in fiber, protein, micronutrients, a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, and healthy polyunsaturated fats (such as olive or canola oil) are consistently associated with the best health outcomes. Current eating patterns, however, fall short of this ideal.

There are negative health outcomes associated with overconsumption of some UPFs.

While not all ultra-processed foods carry the same risk, some have been linked to adverse health outcomes. Risk estimates are not uniform across the entire UPF category; specific items—such as sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats—show the strongest associations with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke.

The current food landscape favors the consumption of UPFs.

Factors like convenience, price, shelf life, and aggressive marketing make them easier for many people to access. In one 2024 analysis, UPFs cost roughly $0.55 per 100 kcal compared with $1.45 per 100 kcal for minimally processed foods, partly because of manufacturing efficiencies and longer shelf life.

UPF consumption is higher for lower-income individuals and families.

In the U.S., adults in the highest income groups tend to consume a lower share of calories from UPFs than lower‑income adults, suggesting that socioeconomic factors — such as cost and access to less processed foods — influence how much UPFs are consumed.

Your Action Plan: Making Peace with Your Pantry

Before we begin taking action with this new information, it’s important to note that the steps you can take to support your nutrition are largely defined by factors within and outside your control. If you are in the position to make some changes, here is what we recommend:

It’s not about the individual foods, but about dietary patterns.

If you can, aim to include a wide variety of whole foods regularly you enjoy: fresh or frozen produce, whole grains, legumes, protein (including plant-based options), nuts and seeds, and healthy fats like olive or canola oil. Whenever possible, prepare your meals at home.

Try whole foods on sale—and let AI help you cook them!

We know that food can be expensive right now, and sometimes the fresh produce on sale isn’t what we usually choose. Many North Americans don’t have a wide selection of fresh fruits and vegetables at reasonable prices year-round. Typically, when fresh produce is on sale, it’s in season, which makes it the perfect time to try something new. If you can, pick up a fruit or vegetable you’ve never tried before, and use an AI tool like ChatGPT or Gemini to find easy ways to prepare it, even with ingredients you already have at home. It’s a simple way to explore new flavors, boost your nutrient intake, save money, and learn something new!

Everything in moderation is okay. Food guilt doesn’t help anyone.

Whether it’s about you, your family, friends, or even strangers, remember that everyone’s situation is different, so keep an open mind. It’s also okay to recognize if your current circumstances (financial, emotional, or physical) make it challenging to make all of your meals from home and from scratch. Do the best you can with what you have, and try not to let guilt take over. It’s also okay to enjoy fun, colorful foods sometimes, whether that’s a bright pink birthday cake or popcorn during a movie.

Help your community by donating to your local food bank.

Especially at this time of year, food insecurity affects many people. We can all help by supporting our communities and making nutritious food more accessible. Check with your local food bank or meal service to see if they accept fresh produce or only non-perishables. Remember, even canned foods can be nutritious, delicious, and highly valued by those in need—think beans, lentils, tomatoes, or corn. Food banks can also use monetary donations to purchase fresh produce and other foods that meet the needs of their community members. By providing access to wholesome food through food banks, we can help reduce reliance on high-sugar, high-salt, and high-saturated-fat UPFs for those who might otherwise have limited options. ​

Speak to a registered dietitian for help.

There are many resources available to improve your nutrition, but registered dietitians are the most knowledgeable professionals to guide you toward your nutrition goals. They can provide tailored support for individuals with dietary restrictions—such as celiac disease, lactose intolerance, allergies, or specific food aversions—as well as for those managing health conditions like Crohn’s disease, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, or cancer, where maintaining a balanced diet can be more challenging and may require a specialized plan. Whether your aim is to optimize your overall nutrition or learn how to reduce ultra-processed foods without breaking the bank, a dietitian can create a practical, personalized approach to help you succeed.

Can we Stop Playing the Blame Game?

We all have a vested interest in reducing the burden of diet-related chronic diseases. And still, everyone is playing the blame game. “It’s the industry’s fault for making food taste too good.” “It’s the government’s fault for allowing so many food additives.” “It’s the consumer’s fault for not having self-control.” Can we put down the boxing gloves? If we agree that everyone benefits from a food system that is equitable, secure, and healthy, can we commit to finding common ground that allows for collaboration and compromise?

The Bottom Line: Understanding, Not Avoiding

While the recent research on UPFs is eye-opening and opinions are strong, it’s important to remember that, despite recommendations to limit them, UPFs make up a large part of most diets. Many factors contribute to this: the rising cost of living, limited time for families with both parents working, unpredictable food prices due to weather and climate change, low nutritional literacy, and the sheer ubiquity of UPFs. Convenient, affordable, and highly palatable, these foods are in high demand for a reason.

It’s important to recognize the nuance in this conversation—this isn’t black and white, nor a matter of “for or against” UPFs. The level of processing or ingredients that make up a food doesn’t automatically determine a food’s nutritional quality.

Food processing and the technologies behind it make it possible to feed billions of people, transport food without it spoiling, add nutrients that save and improve lives, make food tasty and enjoyable, and maximize the value of the resources we have. We can all agree that sustainability is a good goal, right? So why is turning meat scraps into hot dogs, damaged eggs into pasteurized egg whites, or imperfect carrots into baby carrots seen as a bad thing? These practices reduce food waste, make the most of our resources, and help feed more people—yet they’re often unfairly criticized simply because they involve processing.

The responsibility doesn’t fall on just one group—we all play a part. As consumers, we do our best to choose foods that fit our budget and support our health. The food industry has a responsibility to develop and market products responsibly, and to make nutritious options easier to access. And government agencies must help by setting evidence-based policies, improving food environments, and supporting families who need it most.

Above all: It’s about what’s on your plate, not how you made it.

Stay Curious,

Unbiased Science